God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Mark Kelly Spy Balloons, Arizona Voter Registrations, Lara Trump, President Trump, Butler Rally Again, RFK Jr., Bitcoin Strategic Reserve, Tik Tok, VP Harris, Cenk Uygur, Hoax Trump Anti-Christian Quote, Michael Ian Black, Trump-Harris Position Graph, Mark Cuban, Kamala Harris Equity of Outcome, VP Harris Tax Policy, Cartel Leaders Arrested, Political Silo Lies, Chris Wray Shrapnel Hoax, SCOTUS Term Limits, 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
You know, I feel sorry for those podcasters who give you nothing on a weekend morning.
When I'm here every day.
Good morning everybody and welcome.
To Coffee with Scott Adams, it's a highlight of human civilization.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a sign, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the other day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Oh my god, that was good.
Sometimes you want it, but sometimes you need it.
Well, let's check in on all the hoaxes and crazy news.
Let's see.
The latest we're learning, we'll of course get to all the big hoaxes about Trump, the new ones.
Apparently science thinks that processed meat is really, really bad for you.
Like extra bad, worse than usual.
Mostly because it has enormous amounts of salt in it, but maybe other things.
But I just give this as more evidence that our food supply is poisoned.
Meaning that if you're looking for food that isn't literally bad for you, good luck.
I mean, it's a struggle.
It's pretty much just vegetables and a cow that you slaughtered yourself in your backyard with Thomas Massey.
Nothing else seems to be healthy.
So, there's that.
This is interesting.
One of the people that Kamala Harris is allegedly considering for her VP pick is this Mark Kelly, Arizona Senator.
But we find out today that he owns a A company that makes spy balloons that happen to be funded by China.
We're Chinese partners.
That's right.
He has a Chinese funded spy balloon business.
Not that it really matters, but it's kind of funny.
I think the simulation is trying to tell us, and we're just not listening, It's like, how many times can you get tapped on the shoulder?
Hey, you live in a simulation.
No, I don't.
Really?
Watch what I do with the news.
Tap, tap, tap.
Do you see what I just did with the news?
I just made her likely choice for vice president, owner of a spy balloon company.
Eh, eh, that's nothing.
Funded by the Chinese.
Okay, I'm not seeing a thing.
I'm not noticing anything unusual.
This is just reality.
Everything's perfectly normal.
All right, next story.
Wall Street Journal says in their latest polling that Trump and Kamala Harris would be roughly tied if you consider the margin of error.
They do have Trump up too, but that's within the margin of error for what they were doing.
Does that sound true to you?
Do you think the election's basically tied?
Maybe.
Rasmussen, of course, has very different numbers.
But here's what they didn't do.
They didn't include the other people running.
Why do you poll?
Why does anybody poll without the other candidates that we know are going to be in the race?
What is even the purpose of that?
If we know those other candidates are going to be in the race, especially RFK Jr., if you know he's going to be there, Why would you ever do a poll where you leave them out?
Except to get this result, I suppose.
Maybe the result would look different.
So we don't trust any of that polling stuff.
News out of Arizona.
According, apparently Republicans have done such a good job on the ground doing voter registration.
The Republicans, I think Charlie Kirk was talking about this on X, now have over a quarter million voter registration advantage over Democrats.
Is that possible?
Really?
Because Scott Pressler was having enormous success in Pennsylvania.
So that would be two battleground states.
Where the ground game of the Republicans looks like it's better than the ground game of the Democrats.
Now, of course, there's also the get out the vote and the collect the ballots.
You know, there's a lot more to it.
But, you know, I told you that Lara Trump just looks like the real deal.
I mean, she looks like a predator.
And I say that in a complimentary way.
You have to spend about 30 seconds with her, because I've talked to her a few times for interviews.
And in about 30 seconds, you know she's the real deal.
Like if you were in the way between something she wanted, you better get out of the way.
That's sort of the vibe she gives right away.
So I'm not surprised.
If she is the secret weapon.
I have a feeling that the Democrats don't know what's coming, but we'll see.
We'll see.
It's too early to know, but I suspect Laura Trump is just slaying behind the scenes there.
Trump is going back to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site of where he was nearly assassinated.
And he's also announced that the Secret Service will now be at least okay with doing an outdoor event.
Remember they said maybe don't do outdoor stuff and Trump said okay but apparently that's changed and now he's back to outdoor events.
We don't have a date for that yet but he says he's gonna go back to Butler.
Now is that smart?
Yes.
I'll try to be consistent and grade the candidates on their persuasion as well as their policies.
Persuasion-wise, A+.
Because that big bump that Trump was getting for taking a bullet and still jumping up and yelling fight in front of the big American flag, which touched almost all of us.
But he lost a lot of that energy because of the Kamala Harris, you stuff that's going on.
And he can at least force the news to get back to it.
Oh, my troll's back.
So I have a troll who has been bugging me for days now.
And he was on the locals platform.
But here's what's interesting.
Somehow he'd found a way to get on my private platform.
And they had checked the box for a free internet or no free service.
So I think he's a hacker or maybe, maybe he works for local somehow, but somehow he got into my system and actually gave himself access, uh, without paying.
So when I looked to get rid of him, uh, I couldn't find him cause I was looking on the paid subscribers.
There won't be any that are unpaid.
And somehow he'd managed to hack my system from the inside.
And now he's back in the comments.
So I'll need to talk to the locals people to see if they can close that security problem.
But very impressive.
Very impressive.
I can't tell exactly what he's up to.
If he's from another country, state actor, or just a clown.
Can't really tell.
It's very interesting though.
The level of penetration that he got And it's a full-time job.
He's here every day.
So every time I come on, he comes and starts screaming the same stuff.
So I haven't quite figured out if he's a Chinese actor, or a Democrat, or just some kind of a, maybe mentally unstable, but has some technical skills apparently.
So that's an interesting side story.
But you'll see him in the comments.
So today he'll be your mascot.
All right.
Anyway, so Trump, according to RFK Jr., so that's not the most confirmed source for this, but he says that he thinks that today, maybe, Trump is going to announce his plan to authorize the U.S.
government to buy a million Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset.
And RFK Jr.
says he applauds that announcement.
Now, I don't know if that's true, because it's coming from RFK Jr.
about Trump, but wouldn't that be interesting?
Now, I don't know enough about the specifics of that plan or what he has in mind or why you would even need it.
I'm not sure why you need a reserve, but I just love the topic.
I love the fact that he's persuading in the crypto world.
I love the fact that you know he's well advised, you know, because he's got, at this point, he's got JD Vance, he's got all the all in pod guys, if he needs any help, he's got, you know, Elon Musk would probably give him some crypto advice, he's got, he's got lots of advice, you know, Vivek, etc.
So, Trump can actually go in and make a dent in a topic that could bring in a whole bunch of crypto lovers and young people especially.
It changes the topic into some new area that is fun to talk about for people who care about that stuff.
And it might make total economic sense.
I just want to hear the argument.
Have not heard the argument, so I'm not judging the policy.
I'm judging the persuasion.
Persuasion?
A+.
Very well done.
Speaking of persuasion, Trump also said today that for all those who want to save TikTok in America, vote Trump.
So he wants to keep TikTok.
I remind you that one of his biggest donors owns a substantial part of TikTok.
And I remind you that TikTok, in my opinion, is something that China can manage to really program the brains in America.
So policy-wise, it's a gigantic mistake.
Gigantic.
So I want to say that Unequivocally.
Giant policy mistake.
But in terms of persuasion, excellent.
Yeah, if you're trying to win an election, you probably want to be pro-free speech, because they're trying to make him a dictator.
You want to say more freedom, not less.
And it's more freedom to allow TikTok, even if it's a You know, malignant tumor of an app.
So it is exactly the right campaign position.
I hate to say it.
It's just bad for the country.
But if you took the position that freedom is better than lack of freedom, it's defensible.
So when I say it's a bad idea, that's an opinion.
It's not a fact.
There are some policies where you can say, OK, that's a fact, that's a bad idea.
It's not a fact.
You know, it's a preference.
So I have a preference for getting rid of it.
I think it'd be good for children, good for the country.
But freedom is not nothing.
Free speech is not nothing.
So I can't hate the guy who wants more free speech.
And it's also true that if you banned one, It might open the door for X to come under fire next.
So that's a reasonable argument.
So he has an argument, and his argument would be based on principle, and it's a principle I agree with.
I just think this particular special case, because of China's influence, probably more than we need.
So we can agree to disagree on that.
Here's a story that I think you can hear a lot more of.
I think it was the Daily Mail, had a big story about how Kamala Harris is the ultimate pointy-haired boss, a reference from Dilbert, meaning that she is so bad that only four of her initial 71 staffers are still on the job for her vice president job, and the rest either quit or were fired.
There are stories from the insiders saying that she yells at people, and she curses, and she bullies, and she devalues people, and then when she doesn't prepare for events, then she blames her staff that she's not prepared, and basically sounds like the worst boss in the world.
Now, should you believe this?
So you've heard all these anonymous stories, right?
They're all sort of anonymous.
And it just conveniently fits into one particular party's preferences.
So here's one that you should put a little bit of a question into.
If you're going to be a smart consumer of news, How different is this from the way Trump was characterized by Democrats in his first year of office?
It's the same, isn't it?
The knock on Trump was that he was hard to work for and there was a lot of yelling and chaos and, you know, all that.
So were we not told nonstop that Trump was a bad boss?
And he couldn't hire good people and had to fire people all the time, right?
Now, did you believe that?
I didn't.
To me, all that sounded like was being a tough boss who knew how to fire people, and he didn't have as many options as other people did for who to hire.
So he probably had to do more firing than other people, because he had a smaller pool to hire from.
So, which is, you know, my complaint about DEI.
So, Trump had a DEI-like problem without the DEI, meaning that his first term, a lot of people didn't want to work for him because he was controversial.
So, he still had to hire.
He didn't have a choice of just leaving positions open, so he had to lower his standard for whom he might hire, and it showed.
It showed up pretty quickly, but then he had to do a bunch of firing.
To normalize things.
So by the end of his term, I didn't hear a lot of people complaining about his management, did you?
Do you know how that just disappeared?
I think maybe some of the complaints were valid in the beginning because he had such a hiring problem.
But after a few years, I think people said, you know what?
It wouldn't be so bad working in that administration.
I think he just had better people at the end and probably everything looked better at the end.
So, I don't know if Harris has a similar situation where the reporting on it might be a little bit hyperbolic, but I would keep an eye on this one.
My suspicion is there's gonna be a lot more of this, but I would, you know, just be careful you don't buy a hook, line, and sinker without some pretty good witnesses who give you their names, basically.
All right, the new hoax of the day you've all seen, right?
Um, so Cenk Uygur is falling for the hoax or pretending to, it's hard to tell with him.
Um, so you tell me, is he pretending that he's fooled by this or is he really fooled by it?
All right.
So Trump, uh, here's what Cenk says.
Trump is accused of endangering democracy.
And then he says this today.
Now this is a quote from Trump.
So the quote is accurate.
I'll tell you the quote is accurate, but see if you can tell if this is true or not, or if anything's missing, for example.
So the quote is this, Christians, get out and vote.
Just this time.
You won't have to do it anymore.
Four more years.
You know what?
It'll be fixed.
It'll be fine.
You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.
So, Cenk's take on it is that the guy who is accused of endangering democracy has said out loud That after he gets elected, there will be no more elections.
Is that what you heard?
So, is that untrue?
So, I woke up this morning to that hoax.
And the first I saw of it was Cenk.
And so, without doing any research, not knowing what was behind it, I gave Cenk the following lesson on hoax identification.
And here's what I told him.
Number one, no one would say that, including Trump.
If you hear something that somebody said, and no one would say that, including Trump, it's almost certainly a hoax.
Do you know why?
Because no one would say that.
Let me give you an example.
Neo-Nazis are fine people.
No one would say that, including Trump.
Literally, no one would say that.
How about inject bleach?
No one would say that, including Trump.
And of course, no one did say that.
So do you think that he would say that you won't have to vote again if he gets elected?
Of course not.
No one would say that, including Trump.
So that's your first clue.
If you miss that clue, you're probably in trouble.
All right, that's pretty big.
Secondly, it's obviously out of context.
If you couldn't tell by listening to that clip, you know, if you heard the clip, if you couldn't tell it was lacking context, really?
You really can't tell that that's obviously lacking context?
And number three, it's too on the nose.
Cenk even knows it's too on the nose, because he starts by saying that he's accused of endangering democracy.
Oh, he's accused of endangering democracy, and then there's a quote with the context removed that seems to be exactly on the nose for something you'd expect to hear from somebody who's endangering democracy.
Okay, those are three really clear signals that this is a hoax.
Nobody would say that, including Trump.
Context is obviously missing, because you don't see what happened just before and just after.
And it's so on the nose, that it should just be an obvious tell.
Now, how many of you saw that, and immediately before you knew the context, and of course it's a hoax, before you knew the context, how many of you identified it on the surface?
As soon as you saw, oh, add a context.
Two on the nose.
How many of you saw it immediately?
I think that most of you have been trained because I've trained you to spot this guy this way a hundred times.
I mean, I talk about it all the time.
This one just glaringly stood out.
So this was so glaring.
That I put myself on the line and said, I have not researched this, but it has three tells for a hoax.
Now, I posted that before I knew.
Of course, there was some context.
The context was he was talking about the election process itself needs to be tightened up so people are confident in the election process.
And if you vote, you'll get it done in this next term.
And then, you know, that'll be done.
You don't have to vote again.
He didn't say don't be a voter.
He was talking about specifically that work would be done and you could do it in one term and you don't have to vote for it a second time because it would already be done.
Now, do you think that the Democrats are going to understand that?
Well, I think they're going to treat it as a recreational hoax and they're going to treat it like it's real, even though they don't believe it is.
But in that same talk, He said, a little mumbly, I'm a Christian.
But if you want to hear it the other way, it sounds like I'm not a Christian.
Okay?
Michael Ian Black said that he believed that Trump was saying that he was not a Christian to a group of Christians.
Let me try to explain this, Michael Ian Black.
Here's how you know this is a hoax, without doing any research.
Nobody would say that, including Trump.
Nobody would stand in front of a bunch of Christians, somebody who has held the Bible in his hand and told about his faith, who's gone to church and is trying to win the Christian vote and has always been identified as a Christian.
Do you think that he stood in front of them and said, I'm not a Christian, and he just sort of threw it in the middle of a sentence?
Nobody would say that.
Nobody would do that, especially Trump.
And I'm not sure if it's on the nose, but if you believe that he just makes up his own religion, well, yeah.
Now, I too, in the beginning of the, you know, Trump presidential saga, I too wondered if he really believed.
I kind of wonder now, do you really believe in God, or is this sort of convenient to get elected?
And I don't know the answer to that, because that's an internal thought.
But I will tell you, it would be hard for him to go through that Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt without feeling God was maybe around.
So, I don't know if he always believed.
He went to church as a youth, has never disavowed it.
Promoted it, has said he is a number of times.
He's been consistent, and he certainly had an experience recently that if you weren't totally on board, it probably pushed you on board.
I mean, I'm a non-believer, and even I looked at that and said, okay, maybe I should go back and rethink my entire belief about reality after that.
It does make you think.
All right.
So I somewhat accidentally created a viral sensation yesterday.
Let's take a look at it.
See if I can make that show up on my screen.
There we go.
So I posted on X this little hand-drawn chart from my whiteboard.
It's just a line from left to right, showing the far left of politics to the far right.
And then I just put a big oval circle Where I thought Kamala Harris would be on that versus Donald Trump.
Now, the way I drew it and presented it was with some humility, meaning I'm not saying this is what it is.
I'm saying this is how I feel about it.
And then I asked people in the comments to redraw themselves or to say, is this what you see?
So, my presentation was not, this is a fact, you must enjoy it.
It was, this is how it feels to me.
You know, anecdotally, subjectively, how does it feel to you?
So, my picture, I'll just describe it.
I had Harris, not all the way to the left, because you could get even further left than her, but pretty far left on the left part of the thing.
And I had Trump slightly over the middle and extending into maybe halfway into the far right, so that there's still plenty of room on the far right of Trump that he does not endorse.
I'd call that the Heritage Project 2025 area.
There's still a lot of overlap, of course, between what any conservative wants, whether they're Heritage or anybody else.
But the stuff in the Project 2025 that was More extreme than Trump is ever likely to embrace, that would still be plenty of room on the right.
Now, is my impression of where America is and where these two candidates fall correct?
No, that's not my point at all.
I was actually curious if other people would be seeing the large picture differently.
And wow, did people get excited about it.
Good and bad.
Last I checked, it had about 7 million views.
Now, to put that in context, a good post on X from me would be 100,000.
So, to get to 7 million, I think I've done that once, maybe twice.
Very rare, you know, for someone who posts all day long and I'm always on X. Very rare, maybe one in I don't know, one in several hundred posts would ever have that much action.
So there's something about this topic that makes people crazy.
Crazy happy and crazy unhappy.
Like, they're just feeling this one.
And I didn't see any big accounts necessarily that were reposting it.
You know, sometimes if Elon Musk posts something, it goes wild.
But I didn't see anything like that.
I think this is organically really interesting to people, and I think Probably it's interesting, because people can feel its persuasive effect, and even more than I expected.
I thought it was just going to be interesting, and maybe I'd learn something about how other people were thinking about this, but apparently it's bigger than that.
Apparently, if you could sell this chart, As being true, I think people would be think it would be determinative of the race.
It seems that important.
And maybe it's because nobody's really drawn this picture where you just try to show visually where the two candidates on a map of the rest of the world.
So keep an eye on this one.
This one might make a dent in the universe.
We'll see.
And again, I'm not saying that my impression is right.
But what I'd love to do is I'd love to see a top 10 policy list that would either debunk or confirm where I've drawn the circles.
In other words, if you said here are 10 Kamala Harris policies, and then you look to where I've drawn them on the graph, would you say, yeah, I think all those would be somewhere in that hole, you know, in that oval.
And the same with Trump.
Is there anything that would stand, like, way outside his circle?
If so, then I'd have to redraw the circle.
So... Anyway.
So, do you remember when Mark Cuban was arguing that nobody wants equity, they just want equality of opportunity?
And people like me were saying, no, no, no.
I don't think you're paying attention.
Specifically, equity is what's being asked for.
And they do not mean equity of opportunity.
They do mean outcome.
And I think Mark Cuban was quite insistent that that couldn't be the case.
But there are videos that are going around now of Harris saying specifically, and in no uncertain terms, no.
They're talking about equity of outcomes.
That we want people to have the same things.
She says it directly and often and in the clearest possible words.
There's no ambiguity whatsoever.
Now, let me explain to people who are not good with, as I said in my post, if you're not good with math or economics or history or psychology or thinking in general, let me explain how this equity thing would turn out.
Right?
It means that if you do everything right, and you work hard to build an average or above-average life, the inheritance wants to take that from you, and also from your family, and give it to people who didn't earn it the way you did.
That's what that is.
If you don't understand that that's what it is, then you've got some big surprises coming.
I would love to see a conversation on the street with, let's say, my town.
Let's say if you went down to my town, which is pretty blue, and you stop somebody and say, are you a Democrat?
They say, yes.
Now in my town, there's a good chance if you randomly stop somebody, they're driving a high end car, you know, they're doing well.
And if you said to them, now, do you support Harris?
Yes, I do.
She's great.
And if I said, do you understand that she wants what you've worked hard to have?
To go away and have it transferred to people who didn't work as hard or do what you did.
Do you think they'd understand that?
That is very specifically what she's saying.
Now, you might say to me, if you're a Democrat watching this, which is very unlikely, because the silos are pretty hard, you'd say, but Scott, no, she doesn't want to take it away from people.
She wants the people who don't have the opportunity How are you going to do that?
Where's the money coming from?
It's coming from the person I'm talking to.
Because there's no magic money.
It's coming from people who have money.
So the people who have money have to give up their money.
Do people who didn't work as hard and didn't make the right choices.
And if you keep rewarding people who don't work hard and make the wrong choices, well, how does that work out?
Well, it's called communism.
And the way it works out is hundreds of millions of people starve and die.
There's no other way that goes.
So first of all, do people understand that she wants, if you have an average or above average life, she wants to take that away from you.
So that the people who are below average can be lifted up.
There is no other way to do it.
There's no magic that you can put on the people below the average that will bring them up, unless there's a massive transfer of money from the people who have it to the people who don't.
There's no other way to get there.
Now, you might want to do it, but you should very much understand it.
You need to understand that if you're the nice person who has new clothes and I ask you, what do you think about this?
You're going to lose your new clothes.
That car you have, you're not going to have that anymore because high-end car, when there's somebody starving, can't have that.
That's not equity.
So it fails in the long run, but people who are not good at math or, or economics, Or history or psychology or management or thinking in general would maybe not know that.
So we still have a mystery about Mark Cuban.
Does he really not know the news?
Or is he pretending not to know?
We don't really know.
It's kind of a mystery.
My view is that he's smart and way too smart For the things that he's saying in public about politics.
There's like a huge disconnect between how smart he is natively and obviously, and the things he's saying about politics.
So I don't know if that means he's aware that he's saying things that are ridiculous, or, you know, maybe some of it's just hyperbole in politics and he wants his team to win for reasons.
Don't know.
Still a mystery.
Some of you have assumed he's blackmailed, and I have no evidence of that, but it would explain everything we see.
And I do assume that most billionaires get blackmailed by the government.
I think that might be routine, actually.
Harris says she wants to increase taxes on, let's see, corporations, the top 1%, and, of course, state taxes.
Here's the thing that bothers me when people say we want to raise taxes on corporations.
It's sort of a Bernie Sanders thing too.
Are her voters so dumb that they think corporations have some magic extra money that doesn't come from people?
Do they not understand that corporations have stockholders, for example, or owners, and that you're not taking money from a corporation with the corporate taxes, you're taking it from the people who have stock in the corporation.
You're taking it from the paychecks of the people at the corporation.
Because if the corporation has less money, Then when the people go on strike and say, hey, give us some of your excess profits, they say, what excess profits?
We just gave it all to the government with our higher taxes.
So does she actually not know that?
Or does she just hope that her voters are too dumb to know?
There's no such thing as magic money from corporations.
And if you raise their taxes, it comes from people.
It's just a tax on people, just a different group of people.
Anyway, here's what I'd like to see.
I'd like to see her say, here's the budget that would get you to a balanced budget and solve everything.
If she can't do her job, why should we be penalized?
Let me say it again.
It's the job of the government to balance our budget.
Would you agree?
It's their job.
I think you'd all agree.
If the government can't balance my budget, Why are they penalizing me?
Shouldn't they be penalized?
Because I was just doing my job.
I haven't failed in my job.
I showed up for work.
Here I am.
Look, look, I'm doing this right now.
I'm working on the weekend.
I'm doing my job.
So if she doesn't do her job and the Congress doesn't do its job to balance the budget, I have to pay the penalty for her not doing her job in Congress.
Same with Trump, right?
If Trump doesn't balance the budget, why do I have to pay the future tax on that, which will be the deficit?
Yeah, I think, wasn't it Warren Buffett who said he could solve the deficit in one minute?
Just pass a law that says that Congress can't get paid, personally, they can't get paid, unless they balance the budget.
That's not a bad idea, is it?
I feel like we need that.
I feel like Congress literally should not be paid.
They should get no paychecks unless they balance the budget.
It's the most basic thing they have to do.
If you can't do the most basic thing, no pay.
I'm totally in favor of that.
There is a sketchy sounding story about this big cartel leader who was arrested.
I'm going to tell you that I don't believe the official story.
So the official story is that two leaders of the Sinaloa cartel, I guess they would be the biggest one, were arrested and the way it happened is that one of them was in on the plot and fooled the other one and the one was the son of a famous cartel boss.
of a famous cartel boss.
So one of the sons got on an airplane with the head of the Sinaloa cartel and told them they were going to some Mexican site, but fooled them and landed in Texas.
And then the authorities were waiting for him and picked him up.
So it was El Chapo's son and then the head of the Sinaloa.
Now, do you believe that one of the cartel members, knowing he would be arrested too, Decided to work with the authorities to arrest the top Sinaloa person, but also get himself arrested.
While his family, presumably would be back in Mexico, vulnerable to revenge from the team of the guy who got taken by this hoax.
None of this sounds true to me.
Does it sound true to you?
There's something wrong with this story.
I don't know what it is, but there's something that doesn't quite add up with this story.
Now, I don't believe this at all.
So I don't know what the truth is, but I don't believe the official story at all.
So I'll just put it that way.
There's something about this very much missing that we don't understand.
All right, there's a new report that the Pentagon's is missing 8.2 billion dollars that they had an accounting error.
So hey, guess what?
We got another 8.2 billion dollars to give to Ukraine because of our weird accounting error.
Glad we found it.
Okay.
Isn't the Pentagon missing like a trillion dollars that they can't account for?
Is there any way We can get the military to do real accounting for what it's spending.
And how big is the black budget for the CIA and the intelligence people?
How big is that thing?
I think we need a major redo of all of that.
Anyway.
Here's an effect that I'm seeing in this election that I've never seen so much before.
And I've given it a name.
I'm going to call it silo lying.
Silo.
You know what a silo is?
Where the farmer puts their grain in this big tall building.
Now, you've probably noticed that the people on the left Do not have access to the full news.
They only see the lies that are told by the fake news on the left.
So they're never going to see Fox News debunk it.
They're never going to see me debunk it.
They're never going to see Breitbart debunk it or any of the conservative pundits.
They'll just have no access to those people or those sources.
But it doesn't work the other way.
Republicans see pretty much all the arguments on the other side, because that's the mainstream argument.
But then in addition, they put in the work to see things that are very much on their side.
So they may be right and they may be wrong, but at least they see both sides, and that's very different.
They don't have a silo problem the way the left does.
So there's something I'll call silo lying, which is that I'll give you one.
So Joe Biden falsely claimed, and this is Breitbart doing a fact check on it, that Joe Biden falsely claimed that migrant crossings were lower than when Trump left office.
Now they do a fact check and show you that's not true.
Now, did it work?
Did it work for Biden?
And will it work for Harris to continue to claim they did better than Trump?
Eventually, on immigration.
And the answer is, it will totally work.
Because I'll bet there's almost no, very close to zero, Democrats who will ever go and look into it.
They won't Google it, they won't look at the source material, they'll never see Breitbart.
They will never know.
So you can tell a lie that maybe you just never would have told 20 years ago, Because everybody would say, oh, we'll just check the source.
That's not true.
Nobody's going to check the source.
They're in their silo and any lie in the silo works.
Now, it's not just about immigration.
Here's some more.
Here's another silo lie.
So the Harris campaign is claiming that she won't ban fracking.
But, you know, earlier, not too long ago, according to the Daily Wire, There are videos in which she's saying very directly, ban fracking.
Now, will people in the silo know that she was ever a full-throated backer of banning fracking?
Or will they only hear that she's not going to ban it and the people in Pennsylvania where it matters will say, oh, she said she's not going to ban it.
We're fine with that.
No, they will be in their silo.
They'll never see the other side of that story.
So that's a silo lie that she won't ban fracking.
Now, we don't know.
Maybe she won't.
But it's important that she is at one point recently, recently, a full-throated supporter of banning it.
Here's another one.
Jennifer Aniston, is accusing J.D.
Vance of wanting to ban in vitro fertilization.
And Breitbart News is fact-checking this one, too.
So Jennifer Aniston is saying this in public, that she thinks J.D.
Vance wants to ban in vitro fertilization.
What does Vance actually say?
He says, Pretty much every Republican that I know is pro-fertility treatments.
So that's not true.
And it doesn't seem true for anybody that Vance even knows.
Now.
Will anybody on the left see that debunk when they're reading Breitbart, which they're not going to do?
No.
Will anybody on CNN or MSNBC fact-check Jennifer Aniston?
Of course not.
Of course not.
They might even repeat it.
So that's a silo lie.
Something that you could very easily just Google and in five seconds you'd find out it wasn't true.
But they won't.
So they're safe in the silo.
How about another Silo Lie?
Let's see, Trump accused Harris of donating to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to bail out dangerous criminals.
Was that during the big riots of the Antifa days, I think?
And then she tried to say that wasn't true.
So her people will hear that that's not true and that Trump told a lie about her.
But what is true is she did encourage people to donate to that fund, which might be slightly different than donating to it herself, but not really in any important way.
You know, asking other people to donate is sort of donating your time to the donating of the fund, which is the same as donating for all practical purposes.
So that's a silo lie.
You can count on her people never looking that up.
And I would argue that everything that Harris says about economics and everything Biden said about economics, those are all going to be silo lies.
He'll say things like, I was better on gas prices than Trump.
And nobody's ever going to check.
Perfect silo lie.
Let's talk about Christopher Wray.
You remember the other day he brought up some, he said there was some question about whether it was a bullet that hit Trump's ear.
Now, what I hadn't noticed at the time was that he wasn't asked that question.
He found some way to work it into an answer where it didn't really even make any sense to be talking about it.
And there's nobody serious who thinks it was anything but a bullet, including the FBI, who later had to correct and say, We don't know if it was a bullet or a bullet fragment, but it was bullet, right?
And why would he bring that up, as others have noted?
The only reason I could think to bring it up is to change the outcome of the election, because it would take from Trump a heroic moment and turn it into a hoax, basically.
Make it sound like nothing really was dangerous, just some glass hit his ear.
Really different than a bullet missed your ear by a quarter of an inch.
Those are really different things.
So, I can't think of any reason he would bring that up other than to hurt Trump, and to me that would be a firing offense.
Now, will he be fired?
Of course not.
Because he doesn't work for Trump.
But it's a firing offense.
This would be him getting into the political commentary in a serious way.
I mean, it's a big story.
So if he debunked the bullet on the ear, that would really be a big chunk of the sort of emotional energy that Trump has managed to gain at this point.
So that's terrible behavior.
Biden apparently is going to announce sometime this week, if Biden is still alive, according to Politico, some term limits for the Supreme Court.
Which, by the way, I don't know if that's a terrible idea.
How do you feel about term limits for the Supreme Court?
Because it does seem like, wouldn't it be nice to know when somebody's going to retire, instead of all the guesswork?
We have this weird situation where you have to force somebody to retire early just so the correct president can replace them.
That's no good.
And then we don't know, you know, will the next president have two or three retirees?
Don't know.
But wouldn't it be nice to know?
Because when you vote, it'd be nice to know if you're voting for two or three nominees.
So, I understand the argument for lifetime appointments.
But I don't know if when the lifetime appointment idea came up, did people live this long?
In other words, what was the life expectancy when it was first created as a lifetime appointment?
You know, if people weren't living much past 70, and it was sort of unusual for them to live past 70, then a lifetime appointment makes a lot of sense.
And you don't want them to be thinking about their job afterwards.
That makes a lot of sense.
So I'd like to hear the argument, actually.
I think it's not crazy to think about term limits.
It might be bad for Republicans, but it doesn't seem crazy.
So I'm open to the argument.
I'm not decided on the argument.
I'm just open to hear it.
And that, but Biden's also talking about some ethics code and some kind of change about the constitutional change to the limited immunity for the president.
Um, but I can't imagine that there'll be a constitutional change about anything.
Does anybody see our country being coordinated enough that two-thirds of the country would agree to anything?
Is that even possible to get anything changed constitutionally?
I think we're way too divided for that to be a possibility.
So maybe these are just for, just for the campaign and just for the looks of it.
Harris came out condemning flag burning about those Anti-Israel people.
She said, I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas.
Oh, she's against terrorists.
That's good.
Which has vowed to annihilate the state of Israel and kill Jews.
Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation, said Harris in a statement issued by her office.
I condemn the burning of the American flag.
That flag is a symbol of our highest ideals.
Blah, blah, blah.
All right, here she, I think she easily beat Trump on the persuasion.
Because we all like that both of our candidates are opposed to burning flags.
But Trump said maybe there should be a year in jail.
At the same time that people are accusing him of maybe trying to be a dictator.
That was just a mistake.
Even if he believes it.
And even if you believe it.
Even if you agree.
It's still a mistake, if you're running for office, to put something out there that people could hate, but nobody's going to vote for you for it.
But they might vote against you for it.
But Harris is smarter, so she just condemned it in the most vigorous way, without going after free speech.
It was better.
So she gets the win on this topic.
On the most annoying news of the day, you remember Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and how there were suggestions that Strzok may not have been on the up-and-up in all the Russia collusion nonsense, but apparently they sued the government because the Trump administration, they say, had violated their privacy by sharing some texts.
Now, some people say they were unlikely to win that case, but it could have been expensive and So the Biden administration said they would settle it and reportedly Peter Strzok is going to get 1.2 million dollars before the lawyers get their money and before he pays taxes.
Is there taxes on that?
I don't know how that works.
And people think that Lisa Page probably gets something like that.
We don't know.
But I understand why the government settles cases, because it's just easier to settle them.
But it sure looks like they're just paying off their own operatives.
As in, thank you for all the terrible service that you did that was bad for Trump.
Here's your reward, a million dollars.
So that's what it looks like.
But it could be just the way things shake out.
Now, you're probably asking me, Scott, what is the end of that comic, that Dilbert comic that you teased on X?
And let's take a look at it.
See if I can find it for you.
So I showed you the first two panels of a Dilbert comic on my X platform, and I was teasing.
But since you came here alive, I'm going to show you how that ended.
Here's what it looks like.
Uh-oh.
Just happened.
All right, let me fix this.
Back to X. And boom!
All right, so Tina says to Ashok the intern, I've given up on dating apps.
Would you like to go to lunch with me?
And Ashok looks at her and he says, no, that might lead to having kids who I'm told would be killed by climate change.
And Tina says, I'll pay for lunch.
And Ashok says, I'll need a little something for my time as well.
I'll need a little something for my time.
Anyway, I thought that would capture the dating world.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
I'm going to talk to the subscribers on Locals privately in a moment, but thanks for joining on X and Rumble and on YouTube too.
