God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Olympics Terrorism, Assassination Risk, VP Harris Policies, Hamas, Harris Equity Equality Policy, ActBlue OMG, Smurf Money Laundering, China Allegations, Flag Burning Policy, President Trump, Border Czar Media Coverup, Project 2025 Hoax, Bullet-Glass Propaganda, JD Vance, Childless Taxes, Governor Newsom, Homeless Encampments, Oregon Voter Registration Rolls, India's Nuclear Power, AI Energy Requirements, Media Brainwashing Review, George Washington Biden, 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
And all of you are looking extra sexy and a little bit smarter than normal, which is amazing, given how smart you are normally.
So if you'd like to take this experience up from levels that people can't even understand with their shiny, tiny human brains, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard shells, a sign, a canteen, a jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
go. Divine.
Incredible.
All right.
Well, if you haven't seen, there's a new video from 9-11 of the Twin Towers on fire and burning.
And I'd like to thank all the people who posted the video and said, do you see what I see?
And I look, and I look, and I look, and then I look some more to see what they see.
And here's, here's my conclusion.
Fuck every one of you, you fucking assholes.
Tell me what you see.
What do you see?
Do you see anything?
Don't fucking clickbait me with, oh, do you see what I see?
Does everybody see what I see?
You fucking bitches.
That's how I like to start.
On another topic, scientists have found the part of the brain that seems to be involved with placebo effectiveness.
Now, only in mice.
But they've used imaging.
They've used imaging to determine that there's a certain brain structure in mice that would make some mice far more likely to have the placebo effect.
So if you could find out in humans, hey, do you have that brain structure that makes the placebo effect work?
That might tell you something useful.
And do you know what I say as a hypnotist?
Oh, we're in trouble now.
Here's the hypnotist's take on this story.
If you can find the brain structure that makes the placebo effect work, you're probably pretty close to finding the brain structure that would make somebody especially gullible and especially easy to persuade.
And once we find that, You're in real trouble.
That's when the machines can take over completely.
Now, there might be some people who are free thinkers.
They just might have different brain structure.
And that would be good to know.
So I think the machines will scan everybody's brains, figure out which humans are more gullible than others based on the structure of their brain.
And then they'll, obviously, they'll immediately murder all the people who don't have that brain structure.
So that we have a world of compliant and obedient brainwashed humans.
And that would make things a lot better for the robots.
So I expect the robots to make that move.
But for the meantime, brainwashing is coming from humans.
If you haven't seen the four minute video I did explaining the difference in brainwashing on the left and the right.
There's a big organized brainwashing operation on the left.
There's a less organized operation that still has some effectiveness, but only commercial grade versus military grade.
So if you'd like to see the difference between the military grade brainwashing used by the left versus the what I call commercial grade, it's still good.
But not nearly as good as weaponized.
You can see that in my Twitter feed, or if you're a member of Locals, it's on there.
So I opened it up so the people from X can see it.
It's not behind a paywall.
And there are about 200 videos of various topics on Locals for the people who want to learn 200 different things in around two minutes apiece.
And this would be one of them.
Well, Apparently there's been this major sabotage over in France where the Olympics are trying to happen, and there are major rail network sabotage in multiple places at the same time.
The last I checked before I went live, they didn't have a suspect or suspects, but there are people rumored to say that Iran is behind it.
I guess Israel warned them.
You know, Israel said Iran might try something.
So it might be.
That there's some kind of Iranian-backed massive attack on France.
And, let's see, what did the President of Israel said?
The sabotage of railway infrastructure across France, ahead of the Olympics, was planned and executed under the influence of Iran's axis of evil and radical Islam.
And as he warned, as he warned the French.
Now, I don't know if they know that, Or if it's just obvious.
Who else would it be?
Is there anybody else who is likely to have the ability and incentive to do a thing like this?
It's probably Iran.
We'll see.
Well, Obama has now officially endorsed Kamala Harris, so that would mean the Clinton and Obama camps within the Democrat Party have come together, at least for this.
But I would like to suggest one possibility that I think has been invisible to all of you.
You know, you're automatically thinking, hey, what if there are terrible people in the government of the United States who might try to assassinate Trump?
You know, because you feel like, well, I'm not so sure they weren't involved already, but maybe it's worse.
I would like to put out the idea that Harris might be equally at risk.
And it was the Obama and Clintons coming together that makes me worry the most.
Because I'm not so sure there's anybody in power who wants Harris to have power.
I don't think she's exactly what they have in mind.
And I worry that somebody's going to take her out before election day.
So I think that the Secret Service should be at double, triple level alarm for her as much as for Trump.
So if you think Trump's the only one who's got some risk from what you imagine might be bad characters within the government, I would say that it might work both ways, because I don't think she's anybody's favorite.
All right.
I thought whoever is advising Harris has been doing a good job lately, so she may have a whole different level of advice that she didn't have access to before, and might be taking it, which is even more important.
But she very cleverly acted like a head of state in meeting with Netanyahu, who was in town, and I thought that was really well done politically.
Because they set it up so it looked like the Vice President Harris was just the sitting president, because Biden did not meet with Netanyahu.
We know he's a vegetable.
He can't do that stuff now.
But by setting it up so that Harris would look like the head of state, and of course, Netanyahu is going to go along with that, of course, it was a really strong, strong play.
Persuasion-wise, it was an A+.
They got the video, it looked official, you imagined her in place.
Remember when Trump was running the first time, and I praised him for doing that Saturday Night Live skit, because you could imagine him as the president in the Oval Office, even though it was a Saturday night skit.
And I thought, wow, putting people's brains into that mode where they can see him in the Oval Office, For the first time is really strong persuasion.
She just did that same game.
You just saw her as the head of state and really, really good.
I mean, I can't say enough.
That's, that's like a plus politics right there.
So you, you should worry about the quality of her advisors.
If that's any indication of what's in store, it's really good.
All right.
But after that, she called for an immediate ceasefire and a deal to free the hostages.
She will not be silent about the suffering in Gaza.
Blah, blah, blah.
Of course, people who are pro-Israel are not going to like that, because it is incomplete.
It's what I call a half-pinion.
Here's a half-pinion.
You should all stop fighting.
What?
Why doesn't everybody stop fighting?
I just said everybody should stop fighting.
It's leaving a few things out, isn't it?
It's leaving a few things out.
Such as, what would happen if you stopped fighting?
Would Hamas just reconstitute and do the attack again?
Of course they would.
They have every intention of doing that.
There's nobody in Hamas who says, if only you'll stop shooting, we can make peace.
That's not even on the table.
Why would you agree to a deal that nobody wants?
So, Israel doesn't want to stop fighting, and Hamas doesn't want to stop fighting.
So, is it a gigantic problem for the population?
Yes.
But unfortunately, the population is the only one that can stop it.
They can talk their leaders into doing something different.
Now, you might say, but they can't.
They have no power.
To which I say, I'm pretty sure the population backs Hamas.
Everything I've seen suggests that the population backs Hamas.
So I get that there are combatants and non-combatants, but if they're all on the same team, it really cuts into the empathy, right?
If there's a family of five and it's only the father who's in Hamas, but all the other three are pro-Hamas too, It's really going to cut into the empathy.
Let's put it that way.
So she seems to be trying to win Michigan, as I think Joel Pollack said, that she's got a part of her base that needs her to look tough on Israel.
And it's such a politician thing to do, to call for peace, when you know peace can't be had and either side really wants it.
All right.
And then Israel responded and said, let's see, the National Security Minister said, there'll be no halt to the war, Madam Candidate.
Madam Candidate.
I couldn't tell if that's a, is that any kind of a subtle jab of any kind?
Because he's indicating that she's not in charge, but on the other hand, I couldn't tell.
Maybe it's actually a respectful Madam Candidate.
Because what would you call a man?
You wouldn't call a Mr. Candidate, would you?
So it feels like there's maybe a little indirect underhand, you know, little lack of respect there.
I don't know.
Hard to say.
I don't want to get into everybody's being sexist, but That one raises my eyebrow.
Rasmussen points out that the Rasmussen poll shows Trump would easily beat Harris.
Other polls are saying it would be closer.
So they're getting a little heat, but Rasmussen would like you to know that the betting odds are very similar to what Rasmussen is looking at, in the sense that the betting odds are still 62% Trump, 35% chance of Harris winning.
And that would be far more indicative of the Rasmussen poll being correct if the bettors are right.
It's no guarantee, but it certainly suggests that there's a strong argument for Trump being in charge.
Now, I don't buy that at all.
I think that's a snapshot and we haven't seen the power of the media yet, the brainwashers.
So the brainwashers are just getting activated.
They're barely started.
And Ben Carson, I guess, was on Tucker's show, which, by the way, is the number one podcast in the country.
Tucker Carlson's show is the number one on Spotify.
I think number one on Spotify in the whole country.
So it's higher than Joe Rogan now.
And Ben Carson was talking about how the media can immediately turn her from a poor candidate into a legendary superstar, and they're just starting that.
But let's talk a little bit about what we're finding out about Kamala Harris as we dig into it.
So there are videos of her not too long ago saying, we need equity, not just equality.
And by equity, she means that other people should get your stuff.
Now she doesn't say it with those words, but that's exactly what she means.
She doesn't mean that people who have less than you, Suddenly just do better and then they catch up to you.
She does mean move your stuff to them because it was unfair that you had it in the first place.
Now that's my take.
If anybody has a different take, but I don't see equity working any other way.
So it could be tax policy.
It could be favoritism of one kind or another, but basically the idea is to shift money from the group that has it to the group that doesn't have it.
And, uh, I would say that's the dumbest and most dangerous idea I've ever heard in the world.
It's sort of a, without the labels, it's the worst part of socialism.
So, pursuing this idea of equity guarantees that there will be some kind of racial war Civil war or something, or that people would just leave.
You know, I would say just you should get the fuck away from any place where there's somebody saying you should have equity.
If you've, if you're happy with what you have, then you should get the fuck out of any environment in which the top person is saying, you know, I think everybody should have about the same amount of stuff because they're not about to wait 20 years for the people at the bottom to catch up.
That's not the plan.
The plan is to take your shit and to give it to somebody who didn't deserve it.
Now, do I think the systemic racism is real?
Yes.
Yes, I do.
Do I think that the legacy of slavery has put one part of the country way behind?
Yeah, I think so.
I would say that that's a strong argument.
Do I think that women have also been disadvantaged in the past?
Yes, I do.
Do I think that LGBTQs have been disadvantaged in the past?
Absolutely.
And of course, everybody's got problems at the moment, too.
But let me be clear.
I don't give a fuck.
I don't care about any of your problems.
Is that clear?
Nobody has a special problem.
Everybody's got problems.
You don't have special ones.
You don't have magic problems.
Oh, you're gay.
Your problems are magic.
Oh, let me forget about my fucking problems and worry about yours because yours is magic.
You've got magic gay problems.
Oh, magic black problems.
Are they worse than mine?
I don't know.
I don't care.
Are some people in better shape than me?
Sure.
If you're tall and you're good looking, you probably have pretty good situation compared to me and always would have.
So no, I don't care about your problems.
I don't care that you're not, that your, uh, your artificial average of people is doing worse than the artificial average of people who happen to look like me.
Don't fucking care about your special problems, right?
A white person with a missing leg has more problems than you, Being black or gay or woman or whatever else you are.
Don't care about your fucking problems.
So I think the strongest reply is, I don't care.
I shouldn't care.
And I'm not going to care.
You can try as much as you want, but I'm not going to care about your problems, even if they're true.
See, the trap is to argue about whether it's true.
As soon as you fall into the trap of arguing that it's true, that the average of one group is less than the average of the other group, then you're already lost.
They've already brainwashed you.
Don't care.
Everybody is 100% unique.
Whatever problem one of you has, I'll bet nobody else has.
You probably have exactly your own problem.
If you're being sexually abused at home, or you've got a drug addiction, you've got mental illness, you've got big problems.
And you don't want to hear that there's some artificial average of some group That compared to your artificial average means that you, with all of your fucking problems, still have to take some of your shit and give it away because somebody else's problems are magic.
I got magic problems.
They're better than yours.
Don't fucking care about your problems.
So that's my take.
But you should get away from, if you could, any situation in which somebody wants to take your stuff and give it to other people.
All right.
James O'Keefe has a very fascinating allegation here.
Apparently there's this big money-raising organization for Democrats called Act Blue, and according to O'Keefe's OMG investigation, the allegation is that it's a money-laundering operation, and it may be largely funded by China.
And that the way it works is they get names of senior citizens who are unlikely to check whether their name got used for a donation, and they just make tons of donations, but under the names of different people, so it looks like lots of small donations, but it's really just money laundering.
And apparently O'Keefe has some evidence, I think we're sure to prove, but some evidence, he's not quite explained in total, that suggests that it's coming from China.
And if it is, it would suggest that China is funding Democrat policy.
Why would they do that?
Is it because Democrat policy is so good for the United States?
No, it's because even China can tell that equity and this bullshit is bad for the country.
So, I don't know how much credibility to give the report yet, but I keep an eye on it.
And if China is not trying to support Democrats, they're missing an obvious play.
Because the obvious play is to support the party that has the worst ideas for the country.
Now China might say, it's not that, it's just that they have the best, or the least aggressive policy about China.
Which is similar.
Because we don't want a government that isn't going to play hard with China.
All right.
Trump made what I consider his first unambiguous political mistake.
I think it was yesterday.
Now, when I say this, you're going to misunderstand what I say and get mad at me.
Are you ready for this?
I would like the NPCs to misunderstand what I say next and then get mad at me.
For those of you who are not NPCs, you'll understand this perfectly.
But watch for the NPCs, they're going to get really worked up.
For the non-NPCs, here's my point.
You never want to say something that will cost you votes, but will not win you votes.
Does that make sense?
Never say anything in politics that will cost you votes, but couldn't possibly win you any votes.
So Trump said he thinks that the flag burning, which was done outside the Netanyahu Speech by the pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian groups, etc.
And Trump was talking about that on Fox News, a call-in, and he said he favored one year in prison for burning the American flag.
Now, that is a huge mistake.
Now, the NPCs get to say, no, Scott, no, I agree with him.
He's so right.
That's not my point.
I'm not talking about whether it's right or wrong to burn a flag.
That's not the topic.
So, here's the topic.
The topic is, did it get him votes or lose him votes?
Well, given that Trump's biggest problem is that he's being characterized as a dictator who's going to take your democracy, the last thing you want to do is say that I'm going to put you in prison for free speech.
That's how it comes off.
Now, how many of you were not going to vote for him, but as soon as he said prison for burning a flag, you said, ah, I'm in.
I was on the fence.
I hadn't decided to support Trump, but since he said that thing about jailing people for burning the flag, well, now, now I'm all in.
Nobody, nobody, not a single extra vote was gained, but it played into the The stereotype that the other side was creating.
That is a pure mistake.
Now, do the NPCs want to argue about whether it's right to burn a flag?
Because that's not the topic.
You get that, right?
All the smart people are understanding.
I'm not debating burning flags.
It's not even the topic.
It's just about whether the approach had any benefit for the candidate or not.
And it didn't.
It had only a downside and no benefit.
Now, just to make it interesting, I'm always in favor of the right to burn a flag, and then the NPCs are going to say, but Scott, it's not your own flag.
It's not your own flag.
You only have the right to burn your own flag.
To which I say, suppose it's a government flag.
And then you're going to say, it's a government flag.
That's right.
It's not your flag.
So you should go to jail for burning the government flag.
But I would suggest that you look at the Supreme Court precedent on that.
And I think you might find I'm no expert, but you might find that the Supreme Court has ruled that you can burn a government flag and it's free speech.
You can't burn your neighbor's flag.
I'm pretty sure that's still illegal.
And I would not be in favor of burning your neighbor's flag.
But if you burn the government flag, and let's say it's a cost of $300 in flag material, or whatever it is, I think you should pay back the $300.
But I don't think you should go to jail for a year.
It seems more like a small thing to me.
And let me explain why.
To me, the value of the flag is that you can burn it and it gets stronger.
The value of the flag as a symbol is that it's undestroyable.
Burn it, there's another one.
Burn that one, there's another one.
You can't burn the flag, right?
So on some level, I think you can't burn a flag.
Oh yeah, I see there's a fire and there's some material and it's made a flag, but you can't burn the flag.
There's another one.
I got three more.
The flag factory made 400 of them while you were burning it.
No, didn't change a thing.
You can't burn my flag.
So I don't feel the sense of indignation that some of you do, and I get it.
I get it.
But just understand that brainwashing is why you feel the way you do.
If you have an emotional feeling about the flag, That's beyond the concept of it being a symbol for free speech.
If you really have that emotional, deep feeling about the flag, a piece of material, that's brainwashing.
That's one of the ways you know you've been brainwashed.
All right.
And if you watch my video I was talking about, you'll see more about that.
Kamala Harris was in favor of sanctuary cities when she was in San Francisco.
I feel like that should be a big weakness, because there must be more people who are opposed to sanctuary cities at the moment than in favor of it.
Seems like that would cut into her base a little bit.
But here's the thing I was wondering.
If you were to draw a line that showed the continuum of political left to political right, and then you were going to draw on that line where Harris is, Apparently, she had been, as a senator, listed as the most liberal of all Democrats.
The most!
So she would, let's say, be at the far left of the continuum, right?
Now, where would you put Trump?
Trump's not at the far right, is he?
Or anywhere near it?
Because he doesn't even accept the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation stuff, which would be closer to the far right.
And there's even a farther right than that.
So if I were to draw it, I'm just sort of imagining it.
I'm seeing Trump right in the middle of the right half.
Do you see it that way?
I see Trump right dead in the middle of the right half of the country.
And I think that's where he wants to be.
Now, if I were to draw a large circle around, say, the middle of politics, it would not include Harris, because she'd be way onto the left, but it would include Trump, just barely.
In other words, he'd be just under the edge of normal politics.
Is that the way you see it?
Now, that's purely subjective.
But it seems to me she's outside of the political middle, and Trump is surprisingly close to the middle.
All right, that's just my personal view.
All right, so the media has been fascinating us by how quickly they can cover up the fact that Kamala was the borders are.
Every major media called her the Border Czar.
She never corrected it at the time.
The government documents that gave her authority called her the Border Czar.
The actual federal government documents authorizing her to do what she did.
Czar.
And now the media is saying, she was never the Border Czar.
What are you talking about?
Of course not the Border Czar.
Oh, she did have some She did have the responsibility for looking into and remediating the root causes.
But don't think that's a border czar.
I mean, who would even say borders czar, besides the people who gave her the job and every single person from that point on, until it looked like being the border czar was going to lose you the election and now, nope.
Nope.
Wikipedia, Axios, they're all, they're all correcting their past reporting.
Say, well, no, no, no, no.
Even though we said it, we reported it, but we were wrong.
We were all wrong.
Oh, we were so wrong.
I've never seen the media correct their own reporting so quickly as when it didn't help a Democrat.
Now, so what would you say?
Would you say that she was a borders are not given what you know now?
That she was called The Borders Are, but it is true also that her role was about prevention, not, you know, people who were streaming across the actual border.
So you can see that there's a difference there.
But here's a take I like the best.
This came from Raoul Davis on X, who's a real good follow on X, if you want to follow him, Raoul Davis.
He's at CEO underscore branding.
And here's what he posted this morning.
It goes, Theoretically, if one were assigned a Border Czar role, but never did anything in said role, isn't it true that one was never a Border Czar?
Oh, okay.
I guess we found agreement.
I would like to agree that she was never the Border Czar, because she didn't do a thing.
Have you heard of anything?
I think she had one meeting or something.
She went to one country and had a meeting once.
Something like that.
And nothing came of it that I'm aware of.
It's not in the news.
Yeah.
So I think that we should agree that she was never a border czar.
She just had that job title and those responsibilities, but didn't do anything.
So it is fair to say she was not the border czar.
She did nothing.
And if you're still in favor of sanctuary cities, that would be like the opposite of a border czar, wouldn't it?
Do you think the Borders Czar would say, you know, guys, we're trying to stop the immigration, but boy, if you come in, it's going to be great.
You're going to get some, you're going to get healthcare for free.
You'll be put in a sanctuary city.
That's your Borders Czar.
Your Borders Czar never existed because the Borders Czar was very much in the business of encouraging people to come in at the highest level.
There's even a old video of her, Challenging the, uh, I think it was one of the directors of ICE about whether he understood that ICE was viewed the same as the KKK in some areas.
And he of course said, uh, no, I don't accept that comparison.
We're a constitutional legal entity trying to stop law breaking.
The KKK is a racist organization, totally illegal.
No comparison.
And then Harris tried to get him to say, but you understand why people see it that way.
And he would say, no, I don't.
I don't.
We're completely legal.
We're trying to stop crime.
KKK is, you know, to be disavowed totally.
Uh, no.
And she wouldn't stop.
But, but you see why people would see it, right?
And I think she was arguing That since ICE was doing something that primarily was about one racial ethnic group, people coming across the southern border, that therefore it was like the KKK, according to other people, she said.
To which I say, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we'd be that happy if the Canadians were doing it.
Does anybody think if Canada were flowing 10 million people across our border, we'd be like, well, it's okay.
I mean, they are Canadians.
No, if the socio-economic criminal situation were identical, it wouldn't matter what their racial or ethnic mix happened to be.
Well, so Democrats have this one play that they like to do where they edit something so that it sounds opposite of what it meant.
So we got another one of those.
I'm going to call it the Fine Document Hoax.
You've heard of the Fine People Hoax.
This is the Fine Document Hoax.
So there's an audio video of Trump calling into Fox News or someplace, and he was asked, what are your thoughts on Project 2025?
Now, if you know the real answer, what Trump thinks of it is that, you know, it's a 900-page document.
Saying what that group thinks Republicans should do.
Some of it would be normal Republican stuff.
Remember, it's 900 pages.
So some of it's just normal stuff.
But what makes it controversial is there are some things that are way beyond what Trump considers reasonable.
So in order to say that, he starts with, many of the points are fine.
And then they cut off the video.
So that they leave out the part where he says, but there's also stuff, you know, that I wouldn't possibly support.
It's radical on the right.
Now, do you recognize that play?
It's a root bar.
It's a root bar at it.
And it's the same method they used for the fine people hoax, the Covington kids hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, and the overfeeding Koi in Japan hoax.
Now, if you were on the left, you would be completely unaware that your brainwashers use this technique over and over and it works every time.
And the reason it works is they have no exposure to me or anybody who would debunk it.
If you had no exposure whatsoever and no hope of any exposure to anybody on the right, the left can just edit their videos any way they want.
And they become the truth in the brainwashed world of the left.
Well, you already heard that Russia and China had some bombers that were doing some kind of joint patrol situation.
What I didn't understand is that apparently Russia and China coordinated.
Now, I'm not worried that they're getting ready to attack.
That doesn't look like anything that's going to happen.
It's just that Every time Russia and Chinese military coordinate in something that seems directed toward the United States, you should get a little worried.
But here's what bothers me the most.
We had every chance to make Russia our military ally.
I just think that's one of the biggest misses in the history of the United States.
It would have been so easy To just say, look, if you behave a certain way, you get rich, we'll be allies, we'll all make some money, you know, let's go forward.
But as I've said, I think too many people went through training to be anti-Russia in our, let's say, intelligence group.
And I think there's just a reflex there, and maybe Russia has the same reflex, to just treat each other as enemies.
And then, of course, if you do that, you end up being enemies, which we are.
Now, of course, I'm deeply oversimplifying, but I do think that the opportunity to not be enemies has been there for a long time.
It's just that some members of our government really need this.
They just really need us to be enemies.
And, of course, the military-industrial complex Gets the most money if it's the biggest threat.
Russia is the biggest threat.
So as long as you can say Russia and China are big threats, you can fund that military and people may become billionaires.
So I don't think anything's going to change.
Russia will continue to be our fake enemy that because we've decided they're our enemy, will act like a real enemy.
And sure enough, Uh, this next story sickens me, but it's impressive at the same time.
So the New York Times is writing about how the FBI is investigating whether Trump was hit by a bullet or some glass that shattered because of a bullet.
Now, why would this even be important?
Can anybody tell me why it would be important?
To know if he got hit by a bullet, which I think he did, versus a piece of glass.
Why would that be important?
Would it change anything?
Well, it would change the awesomeness of Trump's near miss.
It would change it from, God must be protecting Trump, to, oh, looks like he got cut by some glass.
So the biggest advantage that Trump got was the branding, you know, the photo, you know, he took a bullet for democracy.
So the New York Times and the FBI are apparently colluding to take that away from him.
Because if the FBI can continue to say, we don't know if it was a bullet or glass, which by the way, how would you ever know?
How would you ever know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Even if you looked at all the evidence, could you know?
Could you?
No.
I mean, I think it's got to be at least 95% chance it was the bullet.
But could you?
No.
And that would be enough doubt that Harris could say that he wasn't shot, that he was just pretending to be shot and the whole thing was just an op.
Which she will.
She'll say the whole thing is fake.
He got hurt by a little piece of glass and lied to the country and said he got shot.
Now, watching this happen right in front of you, while we watched them erase all the bad news about Harris, and we watched all the Democrats who you know don't think she's awesome, come together to say she's the most amazing legendary thing you've ever seen in your whole life.
It's really remarkable.
So you can feel the brainwashing machine in real time.
And I don't think it's ever been more obvious, but also we're more trained to look for it.
All right, here's another one.
J.D.
Vance, at one point, was talking to Charlie Kirk.
This was before he ran for the Senate.
And he said in an interview that he thought that people without children should be taxed more than people with children.
Oh.
Oh, no.
There's a big story, huh?
J.D.
Vance thinks that people who don't have children, since they're not adding as much to the country, should be taxed more than people who have children.
Wow, that's a radical idea he's got there, right?
That's also known as the current tax law.
How many of you didn't know that single people already pay more taxes?
Did JD Vince not know that?
According to Chad GPT, We've got the dependent exemptions, the earned income credit, the child and dependent care credit, and the head of household filing status.
Now, I don't know, percentage-wise, it's not a gigantic difference, but it's a clear, distinct, intentional difference, and indeed, people who have children get some tax benefits that childless people don't have.
Did J.D.
Vance not know that?
Or did he think it should be a bigger difference?
I don't know.
But it's fake news because people who also don't know taxes will say, my God, he wants to tax the childless cat ladies, and we are childless cat ladies.
Yeah, I knew somebody was going to show me a picture of the bullet zipping past the president's head.
The bullet zipping past his head doesn't show a hitting him.
And we can't trust any photos.
So I don't know if that photo is real or fake.
But I will tell you this.
If I had that real photo and I thought I could just put a little Photoshop line and I could sell it as the bullet, I know that I would get 10 million clicks.
Is that what happened?
I don't know.
I'm just saying that if you trust that photo that could be photoshopped in 10 seconds, Give me 10 seconds and I'll turn any of your photos into there's a bullet flying by next to your ear.
So I wouldn't trust that photo at all, first of all.
And second of all, it doesn't show anything's here.
It shows that it would be nearby.
But everybody agrees it would be nearby.
All right.
So Newsom is ordering the state agencies to clear the homeless encampments.
And you say to yourself, well, why didn't that ever happen before?
But apparently there's some Supreme Court ruling that allows cities to enforce bans on sleeping outside in public spaces.
Now, is this complete bullshit?
Because did we not watch Newsom clean up the homeless encampments when China was visiting?
President Xi?
Was it illegal when he did it the first time?
Did anybody do a lawsuit then?
I don't think so.
Well, maybe they did.
I didn't hear about it.
But I guess this gives him a fake because, so he can do it now and say, oh, there's a reason I couldn't do it is that mean old Supreme Court hadn't decided yet.
But doesn't it look to you like the Democrats are confessing all of their problems and trying as hard as they can to fix them?
Don't you think this is a confession that they let it go too far but now they're trying to fix it before the election?
Doesn't it look like all of the border stuff that the, uh, right now Biden said that it was the lowest border crossings including before Trump?
You know that's not true, right?
All he did was game the numbers.
I think he just says, uh, the ones that we process Or he doesn't count the asylum seekers or something like that.
So basically Biden just games the number and lies about it.
Well, Oregon is planning to cheat in this upcoming election.
That's my take.
So here's what they're doing.
To me, it looks like they're planning to cheat.
So Judicial Watch is warning Oregon to clean their voter registration lists.
So I guess there's some requirement that people get rid of the dead people and the people who moved out, the people who should not be voters.
But Oregon is just not doing it.
So Judicial Watch is saying, you know, there could be some repercussions if they don't do it.
Now, why in the world would a state not clean their voter rolls when it's so clearly a required beneficial thing?
There's only one reason I can think of.
To me, this looks like a clear intention to cheat.
Can you think of any other reason to do that?
Well, oh my troll is back.
So there's a troll who keeps yelling that he wants me to mention a certain thing, which actually would be interesting to mention, but he's become such a fucking asshole on all of my live streams that I've decided I'll never mention it.
It's actually pretty interesting.
You'd wish you heard it.
But he's decided to be such a horrible person that I just can't mention it.
So you'll never hear it from me.
All right, India's installed a bunch of nuclear power capacity.
They want to triple their nuke capacity, their power.
By 2030, one or two.
And so I would say that India is future-proofing their, uh, and by the way, I'm going to, um, I'm going to get rid of you on locals.
So I'm going to cancel your membership on locals.
Um, as soon as we're done here, Dean, Dean Davis going to cancel you on locals.
So we don't need any of you anymore.
So India is a future-proofing India, meaning that they're getting ready for the future because they know that the need for energy is going to be through the roof, if only for their population, much less for AI.
So everybody who's a country that's into AI, if they're not looking to double or triple their nuclear power, they're not really getting ready for the future.
They're not future-proof.
All right, so here's some of the media's best brainwashing moves lately.
So the media convinced us, or tried to, that Biden was perfectly fine until just recently.
Now, I think this is the strongest attack on Harris.
That Harris was behind the biggest lie in American history.
That Biden was fine, and he still is.
Still is.
I mean, she's still lying about it because she's still treating it like Biden is fine.
We saw the address.
There's not really any question that he's unable to do the job.
So she's currently lying, too, by being part of a scam in which they pretend that Biden is functional.
We saw the media turn on a dime from saying Kamala basically was the worst candidate in the world to now she's the best, she's inspiring, she's legendary, she's the first this and the first that, and she's, my God, she's good.
And that's scary to watch the media turn on like that.
The media brainwashed us to think that the January 6th protest was a coup, but that the removing of Joe Biden It was a George Washington moment.
And they're trying to sell us that Biden is a George Washington character because he left power voluntarily.
Now, you know how ridiculous that is, because we watched as the party who forced him out clawing and streaming.
So he's the opposite of George Washington.
He's like George Washington's little bitch, is what he's like, because he didn't want to go.
Now, why was it so important that they lied about that?
It's important because their entire case against Trump is that he's a dictator who wouldn't leave power.
So they had this guy who was mentally incapable who wouldn't leave power, so they had to sell him as George Washington.
This is brainwashing.
Now, it doesn't affect the right, because the right is somewhat invulnerable to the left's persuasion, but everybody in their group, probably every Democrat, Believes that Joe Biden did a George Washington leaving power and that Trump tried to cling to power.
Trump left power on the day he was scheduled.
They told you that he could use paperwork to take over the country.
Oh, I've got some alternate directors or alternate electors.
Oh, well, we didn't know about the alternate electors.
So I guess you can be president again, despite any process to the contrary.
No.
It was never possible that paperwork would take over the country.
No.
He had no weapons.
He had paperwork.
And he had an argument.
And the paperwork didn't work.
If it had worked a little bit, the Supreme Court or something would have worked it out and tossed him out, I'm sure.
And everything would go on like it always does.
And somehow, half the country was brainwashed into thinking an insurrection happened.
Over paperwork.
And some trespassing.
And yet we watched in slow motion as the party removed Biden against his will, and they called it a George Washington moment of great character and integrity.
Now, the fact that they could do something so blatantly untrue and opposite of reality and opposite of observation and get away with it tells you how powerful the brainwashing is.
They've also told us that you can know for sure that elections are fair.
No, you can't.
We don't have fully auditable elections.
You can only know that you didn't find a problem.
Not finding a problem is not anywhere close to knowing that everything was fine.
Completely different concepts.
Here's somebody here who believed the 4chan The 4chan joke about my pandemic.
A lot of trolls here today.
A lot of dumb ones.
All right.
Newt Gingrich is talking about how hard it is for Harris to pick a VP.
And one of the names that comes up a lot is that Josh Shapiro.
He's the governor.
And Newt says, quote, The problem is, more and more of their party is anti-Semitic, and more and more of their party sides with terrorism.
More and more of their party is deeply hostile, not just to Israel, they're deeply hostile to the United States.
But what news says is, if Harris picked a Jewish running mate, That her own party would reject it.
Not all of her own party, obviously, but the far left, the pro-Palestinian group, the Michigan, the leftiest of her party.
And I think Newt is correct on that.
But I also think that she has a problem with picking somebody who seems less capable than she is.
While also being true to whatever DEI requirements she feels she has.
Now, she might be free of DEI because she handles it herself, but that's not what I think.
I think the people who are really excited about Kamala Harris because of her being first woman, first, you know, Indian American, first black American, I think that they're going to require That the VP choice has a little diversity.
I don't think they can just slap a white man in there.
I think they're going to need gay, or they're going to need Hispanic, or they're going to need something.
So, that should tremendously limit the number of potential qualified people.
Now, if it acts the way DEI usually acts, which is even though there might be tremendous qualified people in the diverse categories, there will be far more opportunities for them, so the demand would exceed the supply.
And so it doesn't mean somebody is going to leave their CEO job to go be VP.
So you should have a limited pool to pick from, and it should be hard.
Doesn't mean she can't get the best person, even within DEI.
It just means that the odds of it go way down just because of supply and demand.
Oh, I'm so glad you're going to go away, Dean Davis.
Okay.
So there's a question about the Harris campaign funds and whether the money that was given to Biden-Harris is now available to her.
Now, the surfacy thinking is that it is, but I made the common sense argument that if you donated to Biden, you were not donating to the vice president.
And that the people who donated might have some problem with the money just being moved over to her.
Now, since they're Democrats, they probably don't have a problem, but you can see in a technical legal way how it doesn't seem to me like it's legal for the VP to take over when nobody's voting for the VP.
So, the FEC chairman, Cooksey is his name, so he posted the actual language from the, I don't know if it's a statute or a law or whatever it is, but it says, if the candidate is not a candidate in the general election, All contributions made for the general election shall be either returned or refunded to the contributors or re-designated or re-attributed in accordance with existing statutes, as appropriate.
Now, that would suggest that it was a contribution to the candidate, which would suggest it was never about the VP.
Even if the VP's name was on it, The contribution was about the top of the ticket.
So I feel like the Trump campaign has made some challenge to this, and I think maybe they have a little bit of a case.
I mean, there's a common sense argument for it, but it might be too late, because if they just reallocate it and start spending it, it'll be gone before any court case could get to it.
All right, so here are some of the things that Harris says when she talks about economics, you might notice that both Harris and Trump do a similar thing.
When Trump talks about how good the economy was under him, he will leave out the debt.
When Harris talks about how good the economy is now, she leaves out the debt.
So if you were to say the GDP is 2.8 and that's great, but you leave out the debt, You're leaving out the fact that we're doomed.
That feels like an important thing.
That we're, according to Elon Musk and everybody who can do math, we don't have a way to pay it back.
And it's growing to the point where it will eat our entire budget, and there's no amount of taxation or cost-cutting that could ever save us.
So, I saw this guy who's some little dingleberry dipshit who just He tries to mock Elon Musk every day on X. I guess he's running Meta or something.
He's some kind of competitor.
And he does the whole thing about how everything's looking good under Harris, the economy's good.
But if you leave out the debt, you're leaving out the fact that neither candidate has a way to survive.
You would think that the minimum you'd expect of either of your candidates is to tell you a plan for survival.
We are actually doomed.
There's no way for me to sugarcoat that.
Our entire economy will be gone.
It'll be gone under the current plans.
Everybody's current plan.
Nobody even has an idea, as far as I know.
So the argument that other countries have worse debt That's a problem, because that means that they're going to be doomed at the same time.
That doesn't make it better for us that other people are also in trouble.
So it looks like what we really need is for a politician to tell us the bad news, but how we can survive it.
But that's not something anybody can say during an election.
I will say that of the two of them, Harris or Trump, only Trump could do something big enough and bold enough to make a difference.
I don't know what it would be exactly, but he's the only one who could do something that big.
Because Trump doesn't just think big, he thinks big, big.
And in order to even get your mind around it, you've got to think bigger than anybody's ever thought before.
You have to think almost founder of the United States big.
You know, do we fight with England?
I mean, it's that big.
So, I want somebody who can handle big and something, you know, if it's in that business-y realm, I trust Trump a lot more.
A lot more.
So, anyway, so mortgages rates have exploded, overall prices are up 20%.
This is the Republican take on it.
But that, of course, the price How much is up depends on where you start measuring.
And of course, gas prices are up 50% higher, mortgage rates are up.
So anything that would lower our interest rates would be pretty big.
So you can imagine Trump having a constellation of recommendations.
One of them would be to drill like crazy.
Another would be to build nuclear power plants that are standardized by the federal government to be sort of pre-approved, the Generation 4.
You need to go energy, energy, energy.
But you also need to build cities where people can live at low cost.
And you might have to build new cities.
Because if you built me a city where I didn't need to use a car, Wi-Fi did all of my phone work.
I mean, I didn't even need a regular phone, maybe.
The government handles my insurance in some kind of a co-op way, so there's not a huge, you know, some kind of a huge profit from it.
You can imagine building a city where somebody could live on You know, $2,000 a month pretty well, and the lifestyle would be awesome.
So, I think we need some real, real creative thinking.
We're not anywhere close to that creative thinking.
By the way, I think you will solve it.
This falls well into the category of the Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters.
When we can see a problem coming from a long way away, we do seem to figure out miraculous ways to solve them.
And we've done that with food.
We've done it with energy.
We've done it with nuclear war so far.
Whenever we have luck in the year 2000 buck, whenever we can see a comment, we're good.
It's only the surprises that get us.
So probably we'll work it out.
I just don't know how.
We need Democrat-free cities.
Well, we actually do.
I do think that you'll see maybe cities formed that are more like private organizations, where you have to prove yourself to get in.
Imagine if you lived in a city where you vetted people so that, you know, if they had a criminal record, they couldn't get in.
You know, some kind of a private city.
Wouldn't your cost of administering your city be really low?
Wouldn't your local taxes be, like, real low?
Because you'd just make sure nobody lived there in the first place, and you had a big, you know, fence around it.
So you could imagine building a city that was really low cost, so that even if the value of the dollar plunges by 75%, which might happen, you could still live like a king.
Because you just made sure the criminals were somewhere you weren't.
And, you know, made sure that People took a walk after dinner, etc.
All right, that's all I got for you now.
I'm going to go talk to the local subscribers privately.
