God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Forbes, Australia Climate Risk Assessment, Brainwashed Victims Test, Full Bush Trend, DC Gaza Rioters, Seymour Hersh, Democrat Coup, President Biden, Trump Bitcoin Speech, Firing SEC Chair, Gary Gensier, Prioritizing Bitcoin, Butler Shooter Rumors, VP Harris Lies, Daniel Dale, Debunk Project 2025, Birthright Citizenship, Kamala Equity Equality, Equity Outcome, Equality Outcome, Mark Cuban, SCOTUS Court Packing, NewsGuard Ratings, Jonathan Turley, DeepFake Quality, Elon Musk, Janet Yellen Climate Policy, 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
In your whole life, and your tiny, shiny human brain can't even understand what's next.
Yeah, it's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And for that, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, to fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Come on.
Oh, that's some good, good stuff right there.
there.
Mm.
Bye.
Yep, those Keurig pods, they work every time.
Well, there's a new invention.
SciTech Daily is reporting that researchers at the University of Minnesota have some kind of technology that could reduce the electricity you need for AI By a factor of a thousand.
Now, I don't like to get all technical, but what they did was they figured out how to keep the data in the memory.
Yep.
A new model where the data never leaves the memory.
So I guess if you keep your data in your memory and manipulate it there instead of sending it somewhere else, it saves a lot of energy.
I don't really understand most of that, but if it's true, And they seem to have demonstrated it.
A thousand times, a factor of a thousand times better on energy.
Now, this is one of the biggest news is in the world.
Think about it.
One of our biggest problems is that we don't have enough energy for AI, and if we don't have good AI, I don't know, China owns everything eventually.
So, this one kind of invention might change really everything about the future, if it's real.
We'll see.
Do you remember when Forbes was a respectable publication?
Did you know that that's changed, right?
I think they changed hands.
I think maybe Forbes sold it.
But now it's just turned into some weird liberal opinion rag.
And somebody named Tilak Doshi wrote an article in which she was defending J.D.
Vance from accusations of climate denialism.
Simply by publishing numbers about what science got right and got wrong, and what is the state of climate change.
And not only was the article removed, but the writer was removed as a contributor.
And it said that opinions, there was too much opinion in it.
About climate change.
Now, do you think Forbes has recently run any other articles about climate change?
Yeah, of course they have.
Do you think any of those articles included some opinion?
Of course they did.
Of course they did.
But apparently if your opinion is the other direction, even if you back it up with data and official sources, you will be kicked out because you've got the wrong opinion.
And they don't want that kind of opinion there.
And part of it, I think, demonstrates that on the left, they really can't tell the difference between the facts and the opinions.
I'm noticing that more and more.
I think it might have something to do with the way their news is presented, is that the opinion people and the news people are literally the same people.
Where if you're on the right, you understand that Bret Baier is telling you news, and Hannity is opinion.
And, you know, some of the shows on Fox News will mix the opinion and the news, but it's very transparent.
You know what's an opinion and you know what the news is.
I really think that on the left, the Democrats are having trouble telling what the difference is between the news and an opinion, because it's presented as all one thing to them.
It's very different.
So I can see how they'd be so confused.
Here's the funniest suggestion I've seen recently.
So this is from, apparently in Australia, there's a new law that says all of their public companies have to include in their annual reports some kind of climate risk assessment.
So the idea is that you would do your normal financial reporting But in Australia, you would have to say, and you know, a risk from climate change is this or that.
And so I saw, uh, it was an essay by Eric Worrell in, uh, the what's up with that website.
And, uh, Apparently, he's got this idea that every Australian company should say that climate change will end their company.
So instead of just sort of tiptoeing around it and saying, well, here's all our financials, but you know, you should also know, got a little bit of risk of climate change.
But that's not really what the science says.
The science says we're all doomed.
Doesn't it?
I think it does.
And since we have no solutions, nobody has proposed any workable solution that would affect India and China, so the suggestion is that every Australian company should say that climate change will destroy them completely.
In time.
Now, that's kind of brilliant, because it's what I call giving people what they want.
You know, there's a way to satisfy the bureaucracy by destroying it at the same time.
If you maliciously comply with the rules the way they're written, you would actually say, in the long run, our company will burn up and everybody will die from climate change.
And that would be actually compatible with science.
Now, here's why, uh, hold on.
There is somebody that sends me a message during my show every fucking day, and I'm going to send them a message and say, never send me, never message this time of day.
I am doing live stream.
All right, that should make a difference.
So, thank you.
Solve that for the rest of time.
Anyway, this is a brilliant idea.
Just everybody should say climate change is going to kill them, and it would make all the reporting a lot easier.
All right, so I accidentally hit on a great reframe that was way better than I thought.
You know that for years, I've been taking the fake news from the left and calling them hoaxes.
And I would say, I'm gonna debunk your hoax.
So, you know, I'd be like debunking and debunking.
And it really wasn't making much of a dent.
So instead, I decided to call it a brainwashing test.
And so I posted this.
I said, I'm a hypnotist so I can test you for brainwashing in case you wondered if you're brainwashed.
Did you fall for any of these hoaxes?
Now I know what you want to do.
You want to increase the list of my hoaxes.
Don't do that.
That's, that's a mistake.
You're the three that can tell you if you're brainwashed.
Did you believe the fine people hoax?
Did you believe the drinking, injecting bleach hoax?
And did you believe the January 6th was an insurrection hoax?
And I've, of course, published those as the test to find out if you're brainwashed.
Now, it turns out, of course, most of my audience said, no, I got all those right.
I'm not brainwashed.
And they're correct.
If you got all three of those right, you're definitely not brainwashed by Democrat news.
But the funny part is a number of people who came into the comments saying, well, but those are true.
Saw it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears.
And I used to try to show them the debunk.
It's like, no, here's what you missed.
The news cut off the edit here, blah, blah, blah.
But now it seems much more powerful to just say, oh, I'm sorry that they did this to you.
You need to treat the brainwashed not like they have different opinions.
Because that's not what's going on.
You need to treat them with some empathy and say, can you pass this simple test?
Just three questions.
Now resist, resist, resist the need to add to that.
Because as soon as you add, you're going to add one that people go, well, you know, maybe that one's true.
Don't add.
It's the fewest there are, the better it is.
Those are the ones that are really the 10 pole primary hoaxes.
If you can debunk those, then all the rest seem more obvious to people.
Don't add to the list.
That's very important to the persuasion.
Three is the maximum for this.
But try it with your friends and don't say, oh, let me explain why these are hoaxes.
Just tell them they failed the brainwashing test.
That's it.
And let them deal with that, and never leave that frame.
Just say, I'm really sorry they did that to you.
It's kind of messed up.
So, empathy is the right response, not argument.
Argument just gets pushed back.
Empathy makes them think, wait a minute, why are they treating me like I'm some kind of patient?
Because you are.
You're a victim.
If you've been brainwashed, you are literally a victim, and that's the way to treat them.
It's very persuasive as well.
Well, have you noticed that every time you see a little trend that has something to do with men and women and dating and marriage, it always seems to be in the same direction, which is it's some little news item that makes it less likely you're going to have a baby.
Is it my imagination?
It all seems to be moving in one direction.
Well, here's another one.
Now you're going to confuse this story with my opinion.
All right.
So my opinion on this is not relevant.
And so I'll do it without my opinion.
So the story is that apparently there's some, I don't know if this will be a big, big trend or not, but it's being reported in the New York Post that the high fashion women are going toward a natural look.
Below the belt, meaning a non-shaven look in their nether regions.
Going back to sort of a 70s, let's call it the full bush look.
That's what New York Post called it.
Now, it doesn't matter what my opinion about this is.
So let's divorce my opinion and your opinion.
This doesn't matter what your opinion is either.
I make the following observation.
For a lot of men, This is a one-way trip.
Not for everybody, but for a lot of men.
So a lot of men are going to say, um, I really kind of got used to that fully shaved thing.
You can't really go back.
If you had liked the full bush look, you probably could get used to the shaved look.
But once you get used to the shaved look, It's not going to be an easy trip back.
So all I'm saying is that this would introduce a new percentage of the population who are men who just say, you know what?
Forget it.
I don't know what percent.
Might be 1%.
Might be 10%.
Could be 40%.
But people have very strong opinions about this topic.
Very strong.
And I can tell you that this change, well, I don't have an opinion about it as a fashion, and I don't have an opinion about what women should or should not do with their bodies.
I'm out of that conversation.
I'm just making the simple observation that it's mostly a one-way trip, and everything seems to be just a little bit extra, had to make each other less attractive to each other.
It's just everything feels like it's moving in that direction in a thousand different ways.
How about, do you remember when you were younger, and if you were considering who to date, it never occurred to you to look into their politics?
Do you remember that?
I remember when that wasn't a question.
Like, of course a Democrat and a Republican could get together, of course.
Who would even think they couldn't?
And now that's gone.
Now we also have, you know, the, let's call it the fat acceptance movement, along with, of course, our diet is poison.
And you can see the results when you look at old pictures of America versus new.
People are way bigger.
And I don't think that's leading toward knocking a lot of boots.
So in a million little ways, people are finding ways to be less reproductively available.
So there's that.
You would not be surprised to know that the rioters in D.C., the ones that were rioting when Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu was speaking, you may wonder, huh, given that the January 6th people were treated so harshly and put in jail, a lot of these people destroying property and doing these things, probably in jail by now, right?
No, you'd be wrong.
They've already been released.
Charges dropped.
Now, are they exactly comparable?
Well, it depends if you're brainwashed.
If you're brainwashed, you think January 6th was an insurrection.
If you're not brainwashed, you say, one's a protest, the other's a protest, property got destroyed, property got destroyed, shouldn't they be roughly the same?
Nope!
Because one's a brainwashing event, and in order for the brainwashing to work, the brainwashers Have to put those people in jail.
Otherwise, their message wouldn't make sense.
They can't say, there was an insurrection.
What are you going to do about it?
Ah, charges dropped.
So they sort of have to pretend the charges are real and that it was an insurrection.
Here's an update on what we call the coup, which is the replacement of Biden by Harris.
Seymour Hersh, investigative journalist kind of guy, he says he's got a scoop here that Obama Actually threatened Biden with the 25th Amendment and said that Kamala Harris was on board with it.
Now, is that really new news?
It's new news in the sense that somebody is saying some specifics about who said what or did what.
But is there any surprise there?
Didn't you all know that the top Democrats threatened Biden and that, of course, the 25th Amendment was part of the threat?
Of course.
Is anybody surprised by that?
Now, this one's a real hard one to evaluate for me, because on one hand, I completely understand the concept that There was something like a coup, at least a coup within the Democrat Party, not within the country itself.
But given that it is also literally true that Biden's brain was not capable of finishing the journey, and given it's true that Democrats can use whatever process they want to decide who their candidate is, there's no law against it, I'm not so sure it's a coup.
It's definitely reducing something that Democrat voters thought they wanted, but now that they have more information, I'm sure they didn't want it really.
So I think the coup thing is maybe overstated.
To me, it looks like Democrats do what Democrats do, which is ignoring their own voters in favor of making sure that the leaders in the Democrat Party get the candidate they want.
Now, if you're a Democrat and you don't have a problem with that, why should I?
It's their process.
They can make their process whatever they want.
And if they don't like their leaders gaming the system to get Bernie Sanders out, they don't like the system game to get Kamala in, Not really our problem.
I would say it's not a national problem.
Democrats can choose any way they want.
All right, Trump gave a speech at the Bitcoin Convention, and I'm gonna really annoy you on this story, and I apologize in advance.
Here's my take.
I think this was the best speech I've ever seen Trump give.
Now, keep in mind it was designed for a specific audience and a specific time, so you have to judge it within its specific domain, not compared to, let's say, his stump speeches.
I thought he was more relaxed, more funny, more connected with the crowd, and somehow he did this spanning generations thing like I've never seen in my life.
So he managed to use enough buzzwords and show enough familiarity with crypto that he felt younger than his age.
But at the same time, he was making sure that you knew he was taking advice from the younger, smarter, the vakes, etc.
The people who you trust do know this domain.
And so he was very cleverly acting young and then showing his work.
Here are the people who are advising me.
Look how smart they are.
Great.
And then he had specific technical sounding recommendations about things that I can't judge.
So when I say that this was, in my opinion, maybe the best public presentation he's ever given, and he's already starting at best in the world.
So I was blown away, honestly, just the quality of his communication skills, just crazy stuff, crazy.
But here are a few things he said.
And again, I'm not going to evaluate these based on whether they make sense, because I'm not a crypto expert.
So I don't know.
But let me, here's a few things he said.
He said he wants to fire the, I guess this is the head of the SEC, Gary Gensler.
And he gets this huge applause.
And then because he's so good at what he does, Trump, he pauses and goes, wow, I wasn't expecting that.
He says, I'm just going to say it again.
So he says it, gets a big applause.
He waits, he goes, I'm just going to say it again.
And then he just says it again, that he's going to fire this guy in the first day in office.
And the crowd goes wild.
And watching Trump toy with the energy of the crowd, is a whole different level than giving a good speech.
He's actually manipulating their energy directly.
If you don't see that, you're missing the show.
He's an energy monster.
So as soon as he felt that energy, he was like, whoa, okay, let's do that again.
And then he just does it again.
Spontaneously, because he's just so good at this.
He just feels the room, he feels the energy, and he matches it.
Now of course he was pandering in the sense that he was there to tell them what they wanted to hear so they'd be on his side and vote for him.
But here are some of the things he said besides firing that SEC commissioner, who some say is sort of a roadblock to some of the innovative things that the Bitcoin world wants to do.
I don't know the details of that.
But he wants to, Trump said he'd shut down something called Operation Chokepoint 2.0.
Which I guess is limiting Bitcoiners somehow.
And he'd create a Bitcoin and Crypto Presidential Advisory Board.
And in 100 days, he'd have, you know, better crypto rules written.
I love that.
Now, again, it's sort of general, but he's telling you exactly what it would look like.
I will not personally make the decisions.
I will form a board of really smart people.
In 100 days, those smart people will tell us what to do with crypto.
Oh my God, do I love hearing that.
Here's what I don't like.
Trump's going to steal your democracy because of his character.
He's going to steal your democracy.
No, I'm not impressed with that.
Here's what I'm impressed with.
I'm going to fire the SEC guy.
I'm going to get rid of this Operation Chokepoint.
I'm going to have an advisory council on crypto in a hundred days.
We'll have new rules.
Thank you.
I can evaluate that.
I can say that's putting the right priority in the right place, etc.
I said there will never be a CBDC, you know, a crypto from the government, and we'll defend the right to self-custody, freedom of transactions, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and you'll support USD stablecoins and global savings in bitcoins and the And he says the government will never spend his bitcoins and he'll maybe create some kind of a reserve and blah, blah, blah.
Now, are those all good ideas?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Are they?
Maybe I should look into it a little bit.
I don't know.
I did hear some people saying, oh, we hate, I don't know, some idea or he didn't say enough or said too much or something.
But remember, the Bitcoin community is a bunch of people who don't agree with each other.
So he's not going to go to the Bitcoin community, which is literally just a bunch of people who disagree with each other, and get them all to agree.
So that wasn't really something he could do.
But here's what he could do.
He could say, you're a huge high priority.
He did.
He could talk like he's got the right people involved.
He did.
He could Work the crowd and the energy which he did like I've never seen before and He can he can make sure that they know that they're important and part of the future and and that We can't let China become the crypto King.
We have to be the crypto King in this it was everything It was it felt like he talked about the future.
It was like he had his arms around it.
And here's the thing.
I cannot imagine Kamala Harris having that conversation.
I actually don't think she's smart enough.
Now, of course, Trump was bluffing because he's a good bullshitter, but I think he at least understood the basics of everything he said.
I think he understood what a, you know, what a stablecoin is.
I think he understood that there were, you know, regulations getting in the way.
I mean, on a conceptual level, he seemed to understand it.
And that's kind of impressive.
He made himself look like he was 25, and I don't know, what is he, 78 or something, at the same time.
I've never seen anything like that.
He looked young and experienced at the same time.
What a thing.
Now here's where I'm really going to make you mad, and I apologize in advance, but it's just too important not to mention.
Remember I told you that I taught Chad Chibiti how to hypnotize?
Now, when I say hypnotized, I'm talking about a sort of a waking hypnosis, just a word related thing, not NLP.
I don't, I'm not a big NLP guy, but just something super persuasive.
And I told you, I wouldn't teach it to you because it was too powerful.
It is.
Um, and when I taught chat GPT to do it to me, it was too powerful.
And so I can't tell you what it was.
But I will tell you, I heard Trump use the technique at his speech, and when he did, it just blew me off my chair.
Now, I can't tell you what it was, but he had a persuasive technique that I don't remember seeing.
Maybe I should pay more attention, but I hadn't seen him use it before, and when he did, it just went right through me.
And I said to myself, I cannot tell you what that was, because you won't be able to pick it out yourself.
You can listen to him all day and you just wouldn't see it.
But my God.
And I think that's just natural.
I don't believe that he studied that.
I think that was just natural.
And you'd have to know what I was talking about to know how powerful it was.
But that was, in my opinion, that's the best speech he's ever given.
In fact, one of the best political speeches anybody's ever given.
I mean, maybe Kennedy had a couple of bangers, but, you know, Lincoln had a good day.
But this is one of the best.
It really was.
Then a Wyoming senator, Senator Cynthia Loomis, don't know her, but she made this claim and I don't know how to understand this.
She said that with the strategic Bitcoin reserve in the United States, We would have an asset that can cut our debt in half by 2045.
How?
Let's say the government buys a bunch of Bitcoin, and then the Bitcoin goes up in value.
If we don't do anything with it and just hold it, how does that reduce the deficit?
And we just add it as an asset against your liabilities.
But you still have to pay off, you still have to pay it, even though you have a balancing asset.
So if you monetize your Bitcoin and used it to pay off the dollar debt, then you've got inflation, because you just introduced several trillion dollars of Bitcoin into what had been the cash part of the economy.
So I don't understand how that can work.
But this may have more to do with my understanding than whether it works.
So if somebody knows what they're talking about, it would be awesome if you could explain to me, can Bitcoin somehow help us cut the deficit?
In the comments, does anybody see that as a thing?
Because when I was asking the question, because I was sort of naively asking, is there any way crypto could help us in the debt?
A hundred percent of the people who knew what they were talking about said no.
Because there is no way that it doesn't ultimately create inflation.
You can't just add money.
And I thought, maybe there's some way, you know, subtract this, add this.
But I couldn't come up with one.
And nobody else thought it was worth even thinking about, really.
So, maybe.
But I don't know how that would work.
Joel Pollack is reporting that Trump was very supportive of his female Secret Service agents, and even though people were making lots of DEI comments, Trump wants you to know, what did he say?
That the female agent who guarded him, you know, wasn't as big as him, but she was criticized because she wasn't tall enough, but she was shielding me with everything.
Basically, he went on saying how brave she was.
You know, she ran toward the bullets, put herself between the bullets and him and did not hesitate.
And I would like to add to that and say, yes, just, just to be sure.
Um, I do think that DEI still has to be looked at because you probably do want bigger people guarding bigger people, but I'm not going to take away from her skill or bravery.
She was brave.
There was more than one.
There was one that maybe wasn't regular Secret Service that looked a little out of sorts.
We had some fun with that.
But the main one who was on him and stayed with him to the car apparently has a good reputation with the family and is considered quite a valuable employee.
So I think two things could be true.
Yeah, I think the DEI has to be looked at in that context, but you could also say that she's a star and that she's a hero and that she did her job the way you'd want her to do it.
So let's give her that credit.
Well, we keep hearing more and some of it gets revised about what happened on the assassination day and near Butler, Pennsylvania.
And one of the things we're hearing was, uh, I heard a story that I heard it debunked, so I don't know if this is true.
The story was that there was a room full of, there should have been three police snipers in the unit that would have had a way to overlook the roof, and the reason that they didn't see the shooter climb on the roof was that one of the three didn't come to work, Now, this has been disputed, so I'll just tell you what somebody who was there said, and just know it's disputed.
So one of them didn't come to work.
Then there were two of them.
And then the word came out that there was somebody suspicious.
So one of the two thought, well, I better go look around.
So one of the two goes and looks around.
But when he tries to go back in the building, having not found anything, Uh, because I think actually the shooter was climbing on the building at the time he was looking around on the ground.
So then he goes back to the building and he doesn't have his pass key to get back to the building.
So he has to call the guy that's in that room.
The one place where you could have seen the guy on the roof.
Remember there should have been three, but now it's down to one person in that room.
So the guy outside calls the guy and he has to come down and let him into the door.
And during that time, Allegedly, the shooter got on the roof.
Now, does that sound like a Dilbert reason?
Yes, it does.
It sounds like a Dilbert reason.
Now, keep in mind that that sequence of events is disputed by somebody else who was there and knows what's happening and said, nothing like that happened.
That must be all made up.
And then there was one we heard, I just heard today, Um, that the local cops never told the secret service that were around Trump's body, you know, the actual body people near the stage, they were never told that there was a suspicious person.
So there was a communication gap.
So while they were tracking somebody that they knew had a range finder and was, you know, a variable that was sketchy, the people guarding the president most closely never heard it.
So the question we all have been asking ourselves is, why didn't they immediately delay him from going on or take him off immediately as soon as there was some question?
And the answer is, they never heard of the question.
Now, is that true?
Everything we've heard so far seems open to be revised.
So I'm not sure you could take any of the accounts as true at this point.
There's just too much weirdness going on here.
But, So far, everything suggests that the failures that day were, in fact, regular, ordinary, Dilbert, pointy-haired boss failures.
Failures of communication, failure of coordination, failure of management, failure of leadership, failure of good judgment, and then just some weird things that happen, like you forget your access card, right?
So, but that still leaves plenty of room For bad behavior because I do still think there's a really high chance that somebody hypnotized or brainwashed the shooter.
Because we still don't know who he was talking to and he had some foreign connections and some encrypted apps and not enough regular friends and it sure looks like he was talking to somebody.
And we don't know if that somebody was one of ours or an Iranian asset.
Or some other kind of asset.
But I do think that if it was some kind of a state actor who hypnotized this guy, it's possible that the state actor was smart enough that even if he found out what accounts he was talking to, you'd never find out who it was.
So we may never know.
But still there's possibility of some conspiracy theory involved here, but probably not day of.
It looks like just incompetence on day of.
All right.
I was making fun on X because the CNN fact checker Daniel Dale seemed to be everywhere when Trump gives a speech, but he sort of disappears a little bit when Harris is out there lying.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
But nearly 100% of Biden's claims during the short time he was in the race were false.
Were they not?
Were there any claims that Biden made about the election?
And now these claims are going over to Kamala Harris.
Are there any claims that Kamala Harris makes that are actually true?
I don't know if I've seen one.
Have you?
She'll make claims about how the administration did, and those all seem to be fake.
She'll make claims about what Trump plans to do, which look all fake to me.
So has she ever told the truth about anything, actually?
Literally anything?
Is there one example where she told the truth with the right context?
I can't think of one.
And I mean that, I can't think of one.
Actually, zero times I can think of when she told the truth.
And yet, still, their idiot fucking Democrats believe that there's only one liar in the race.
Why?
Because people like Daniel Dale are apparently not doing their job.
However, Daniel Dale just showed up on the job.
And apparently he debunked the whole Project 2025 thing, which is the primary campaign claim of Harris.
Her biggest claim is that this Project 2025, which is from the Heritage Group, not from Trump, is that it's Trump's.
Trump has disavowed it.
Every bit of evidence shows it's a separate group.
He has his own policies, which are not from that.
You can see them yourself.
It very much is debunked.
But you don't expect it to get debunked by anything that any Democrat would ever say.
What would you do if you were a Democrat and you thought the main reason that the Harris campaign was trying to save you was to keep you from Project 2025 policies?
And then your own news says, no, that's not true.
He's not in favor of that stuff.
Now, of course, there's some overlap because some of it's just ordinary conservative stuff, but that's not really the issue.
So that's a big deal.
And, uh, but I do think that Daniel Dale is probably got a lot to answer for, for how much Harris says every single day and doesn't get fact checked on CNN.
He's the fact checker.
I feel like the fact checker should say every single day, well, there's no evidence that Trump's going to steal your democracy.
And he should say there's no evidence that the intention of the January 6th people was a coup.
Because that would be true.
But I don't think he's able to say that.
It's too late.
I think he says the opposite.
Well, Trump wants to end birthright citizenship.
At least in May of last year he said that.
So that if you're born here, but you're born to parents who are not here legally, neither of them, then maybe you would not be a birthright citizen.
He thinks he can end that with an executive order.
I think that would end up going to the Supreme Court.
I think the Supreme Court would overrule it, but just a guess.
Anyway, one of the things Trump said is the United States is among the only countries in the world That says even if neither parent is a citizen or even lawfully in the country, their children can be citizens.
And I got some questions about that.
Which countries allow that?
Can you name a country that does allow the child born there to be a citizen if the parents are not and are not there legally?
It'd be one thing if the parents were there legally but not as citizens.
But if you're there illegally, both of your parents, I think Trump's got an argument.
The argument would be you don't want to incentivize that behavior.
But I don't know if it's going to pass any constitutional muster.
I suspect not, because the Constitution seems pretty clear on that point.
One of the funniest sub-stories in politics is Mark Cuban's embarrassing foray in public, arguing that the DEI doesn't mean equity means equal outcomes.
These are some of his quotes, he said on X. Quote, I'm sorry, but I can say with 100% certainty, confidence I think, that the equity part of DEI does not mean equal outcomes.
People.
It doesn't mean equal outcomes, he said more than once.
He also said, diversity is meritocracy.
So no, equity never means equal outcomes.
I don't know how you create equal outcomes in a company.
So he admits that if it were equal outcomes, it would be absurd.
It's not something you could actually do.
And then he is being presented with lots of videos and audios of Kamala Harris saying, exactly.
That she means equity as in equal outcomes.
And she does not mean meritocracy.
Now, if that were me, you know, I don't get embarrassed at anything, but that would certainly challenge my ability to not get embarrassed.
I mean, he really made a big and arrogant deal about, look, you idiot Republicans.
How do you not understand it couldn't possibly mean equal outcomes, because that would be absurd.
And it does mean equal outcomes.
And it is absurd.
And he knows that.
By now he knows that Kamala Harris has a completely different idea of equity than he thought was even possible.
And so what did he do?
Did he say, oh, well, I'm wrong about that.
You know, she's pushing something that would obviously destroy the country, so I guess I can't promote her.
No, he endorsed her.
He endorsed her.
So, we still don't know what's going on with Mark Cuban, but there's some things we can rule out.
We can rule out he understands politics.
Maybe that's the whole explanation.
Because I don't see any possibility he would have made that big argument in public if he actually understood that it was completely opposite of reality.
I don't think he would have done it.
And I'll, you know, some of you don't like this, but I will stand by my statement.
He's not dumb.
That's not what's going on.
He's very smart.
He's proved it a hundred different times.
But it could be just that the news is so brainwashy on his side of the world, he just Isn't seeing the obvious important stories.
Maybe.
Maybe that's all it takes.
So he's still a mystery, but this is fascinating how wrong he could be about something so vital to the future of the country.
I mean, really, few things are more important than that, because it will destroy the entire country.
Anyway, Kamala Harris has also said in the past that she's open to packing the Supreme Court, and how would that go?
Have you noticed that Kamala Harris always has this sort of half opinion, doesn't look like it's thought out in the long run?
It's with everything.
It's a complete inability to see cause and effect over time.
Because if they pack the court, what would the Republicans do when they get in office next?
Pack the court.
And then you would have taken from the Constitution and the country the entire foundation of the Constitution, because if you don't have separation of those entities where they can operate independently, and of course if they were going to get packed and repacked and repacked, They could never operate independently.
They would just give the executive branch exactly what they want.
Now, the left could argue, but that's the way it is now, because it's backed with conservatives, so they're just going to give everything the conservatives want.
Except that hasn't happened.
That hasn't happened.
We've seen that they've, you know, the conservatives and liberals have crossed sides several times.
To me, the most credible outcome from a Supreme Court decision is where at least one person crossed over.
I look for that as much as I can find it, so that you know it's not just who got appointed makes all the decisions.
So every now and then they'll surprise us, but no, packing the court would be stupid.
It would be stupid.
Even if you don't like how it is now, it would be stupid.
And there's no other way to say that.
If you can't understand what the long-term outcome of that is, you have a problem.
And it's probably IQ, by the way.
It's probably IQ.
She doesn't seem smart.
Now, before you say to me, but Scott, you're being racist and sexist by calling Kamala Harris not smart.
No, Obama was brilliant.
Still is.
Brilliant.
Yeah.
And Hillary Clinton?
Very smart.
Did you ever hear me say Hillary Clinton's not smart?
Nope.
Nope.
No, when I call Harris dumb, it's not because she's a woman, has nothing to do with her racial makeup.
She just actually does seem dumb.
That's my actual impression of her.
And it's always in the same way, which is not understanding the ramifications.
She would like to end fighting in Gaza.
Well, what would that lead to?
Rebuild Gaza, rebuild the Hamas.
Hamas attacks again, stronger next time.
How about chasing equity instead of equality of outcomes?
Well, you end up with a destroyed economy at 100%.
Total inability to understand anything about the outcomes of current actions.
What's this?
Is there really a White Dudes for Kamala Harris event coming up?
Is that really a thing?
I'm seeing it in the comments.
I don't know if that's real.
Anyway, have you heard of a entity called NewsGuard?
So NewsGuard is this fact-checking group, I think they're international, and their job is to rate various news entities as to whether they're credible or a bunch of big old liars.
Now, you don't have to be alive in the world for very long to know that NewsGuard is not a legitimate organization.
It is designed to shut down conservatives and not liberals.
How do I know that?
Well, they just came after Jonathan Turley because he wrote an article criticizing NewsGuard.
So he criticized them and then immediately they sent their investigators in to find out if Turley was the kind of news that you should not pay attention to.
Guess what they said?
Well, I'm not sure if they have a rating yet, but obviously they're going to say he's part of the bad People, will they have any examples to prove it?
Of course not, because he doesn't have any bad examples, ever.
Turley's one of the cleanest thinkers and least biased people you'll ever see.
But they went after him, because he was being objectively candid about them.
So now he's on the attack.
So you should know that they go after things like, well, every conservative site.
But they would not go after, say, the Huffington Post or the New Republic, which are ridiculous outlets.
Well, I don't know too much about the New Republic.
But Huffington Post is an absurdly fake news site.
But they're fine.
So in case you wondered, Scott, are you exaggerating about them really only existing to shut down conservative sites?
They don't give the Huffington Post a bad grade.
That's all you need to know.
I mean, that should tell you 100% of everything you need to know.
So they are, in my opinion, an illegitimate fake site that are determining what you can and cannot see on every platform and every news.
They are part of the suppression anti-American operation.
Well, this is kind of interesting.
You may have seen that there was a deepfake of Kamala Harris giving a speech.
It wasn't really her, but it showed the deepfake technology way better than you thought it was.
And by you, I mean me.
Way better than I thought it was.
I did think that by now there were probably some military applications that could do a deepfake perfectly, but I didn't think you could do it just with an app that you downloaded.
But it looks like you can.
Because I don't know how they made it, but they did make a deepfake that talked naturally, and I don't think you would have necessarily identified it as a fake.
Usually you can, but it's reached a new level.
Anyway, what's interesting about this is not just that the technology reached the point where you really can't tell the difference, but that Elon posted it, and he posted it without a parity warning.
Now some people said, wait a minute, X's own rules are that if you do a deepfake, you've got to put a parody warning on it.
But other people said, maybe this is just a fair fight.
Because 100% of everything the Harris campaign has said has been fake.
100%.
Everything.
Everything they've said has been a lie.
Is it Immoral or unethical if you met their 100% lying with 100% lies?
I don't have an answer to that.
I just know it's really interesting that Elon did something that appears to be a violation of his own terms.
You know, doing a fake video that isn't labeled as a parody.
But he may have been doing it for exactly that reason.
We don't know his reasons.
But, you know, you assume he thinks things through.
He's not randomly throwing things up and seeing what happens.
It could be.
It could be that this is a statement.
We don't know.
But it's an interesting event.
Here's what Balaji Sreenivasan says about this situation.
He says it's the first fair fight.
He says, do you remember the Emerald Mines, the fake story about Elon, or the pee tape about Trump, or I can see Russia from my house, or the couch, you know, the J.D.
Vance couch story?
He says, for literally generations, Democrats have controlled institutions like Hollywood and the news, and they could basically Tell you any fake story they wanted like it was true and nobody could tell the difference because they had such complete control over the media.
But now because of X and the birth of consumer level professional memes, meaning that one person can sit in their living room and make something that looks as good as Hollywood could have made a few years ago, then it's a fair fight.
And maybe both sides will go to 100% fake everything.
Because real news doesn't seem to move the needle too much.
But the fake news, because it's always more provocative, does.
So what would happen if both the left and the right said, you know what?
Let's just not even try to do the real stuff anymore.
Let's just go full fake.
Now you say to me, Scott, that's like, that's kind of irresponsible and crazy.
Is it?
100% of what the Harris campaign and Biden before him are saying is fake.
100%.
All of it.
Every single claim.
It's all fake.
Everything they say about the record, everything they say about Trump, 100% lies.
Now, if you don't think so, bring me something that isn't.
See if you can find one.
If you find one, it'll be so trivial, I'll say, well, okay, but that's sort of trivial, right?
No, we're already in 100% lie territory, and I think the conservatives, you know, maybe are a little behind in the lying, but what happens if they decided to catch up?
What if they said, you know what?
There's nothing coming from the left that's true.
We'll just do that.
I don't know.
I'm not recommending it.
I'm just saying it's interesting.
What I do think is that we should have more of the brainwashing tests.
Somebody asked me, Scott, you have that clever little three-question test to find out if Democrats are brainwashed, but could you do that for the right?
To which I say, yes, I could, and I'm not going to.
Do you know why?
Because I want Trump to win, and I don't want to start a fight with the right.
So I'm not going to give you a balance on that.
I could.
I could tell you some things that look like brainwashing to me, but I don't think they're especially important, frankly.
In other words, it may be brainwashing that you gave yourself, or it may have come from outside of politics.
But everybody's got some ideas that are clearly not true, including me, of course.
I just don't know what they are.
The nature of brainwashing is the only person who can't tell is the brainwashed person.
So it's easier to observe it from the outside and say, oh yeah, that's obviously brainwashing.
But the thing you have to be careful of is that someone else can do that to you.
They can look at you and say, yeah, but you know, that thing you believe, That's obviously a little brainwashing, too, and you wouldn't be able to see it.
You'd say, no, I used my judgment.
I did a deep dive.
I looked into it myself.
Sometimes that would be true.
Well, there's a new drunk Kamala video, according to me, and you may have seen it, and the way it's being presented is just another word salad, non-answer, where she's talking about the border, and she doesn't answer the question, and she just says generic things.
But Take a look at her with the idea in mind that she's not just bad at answering a question, but that she's literally drunk.
And then see if it doesn't look like it to you.
And if that doesn't work for you, I also reposted this morning, Breitbart News had a little four pack of four little videos on X that each showed Kamala Harris doing the word salad thing.
I don't think it's word salad.
I looked at all four of them and all four of them look drunk.
To me.
So I would love to get your opinion.
Because, you know, confirmation bias is pretty strong.
So, you know, once I convinced myself that's what I was seeing, it's easy to imagine that then I had confirmation bias and I could see it even if it isn't there.
But I want to get your opinion.
And I have a tell to look for.
And the tell to look for is her shoulders.
All right?
So I'm going to do an impression that you Spotify listeners won't be able to appreciate.
But when she's looking like she's not inebriated, to me, when she talks, her body is calm and she says what she wants to say.
Maybe her hands are moving because people move their hands.
But there's nothing about her body that looks unusual.
When she looks drunk to me, I see her shoulders moving when she talks.
I'll give you an impression of it, just so you can look for it.
It's more like this.
You'll see it's like the body is contorting.
It's like she's searching for words, and the body is trying to help.
To me, that looks drunk.
I could be wrong, but I want you to look for it, because it looks kind of obvious to me, actually.
Well, Janet Yellen has given a speech in Brazil, and she said that the cost to transition to the low-carbon economy and save the world from climate change would be many trillions of dollars, and maybe it would take three trillion globally.
And it's a top priority for the Biden administration.
And said that Yellen vowed to finance green initiatives in developing countries.
Through multilateral development banks and blah, blah, blah.
To which I say, all right, let me understand this.
If you were to take all the already developed countries, and I would add, I don't know what the current definition is, but in my view, India and China are developed countries.
Does that match your understanding?
And Europe, of course.
And then, you know, I suppose Brazil and, you know, maybe Argentina is coming online and stuff.
So let's suppose you took all the developed countries, And you took them out of the calculation for climate change.
Wouldn't that be 90% of all the climate change?
How much climate change problems do we have from, quote, developing countries?
Or is she calling China a developing country?
We're not going to invest in China, are we?
And does India need our outside investment?
I don't think so.
I think they're doing okay.
What part of this isn't stupid?
Why would we put lots of financial resources behind developing countries when they can't be more than 10% of the problem?
And if the big countries found a way to solve their problem, then they would buy that technology until the cost per unit of that technology was affordable for a developing country.
So, it feels like the most Self-solving problem in the entire world like the one that you should put no attention in just Just do what you can do for developing countries, and then the non developed countries that were never a problem anyway They get they get it when the cost comes down like everything else in the world works So I guess I don't understand that Kamala Harris has been in the past against
Fracking, Michael Schellenberger, reminds us that if you're against fracking because it's bad for the environment, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the alternative is coal.
This is another half-pinion.
It's where you're thinking about half of it.
No, fracking's bad!
Okay, so what would happen if you ban fracking, Kamala Harris?
Well, fracking is bad.
I know, I know, we heard what you said.
What would happen if you don't do it?
Well, fracking could be bad for the environment.
No, really.
OK, we got that part.
We hear what you're saying about fracking.
But if we don't do it, what does that look like?
Can you draw that picture?
Because I can, as Michael Schellenberger helps us.
We burn way more coal.
Because that's what's available.
And do you think that the coal business is cleaner or better for the environment than fracking?
Not even close.
Fracking is not risk-free, so let me be as clear as possible.
It comes with risks, but not compared to coal.
If you compare it to coal, it's the least polluting, safest thing you can do, because coal is pretty well connected with all kinds of health impacts if you live around it, basically.
Anyway, so this is just another example where the Democrats cannot do any long-term cause-and-effect analysis whatsoever.
We really are dealing with brainwashing and being bad at math.
And to imagine that we have some kind of priority questions, or one is evil and one isn't, nothing like that's going on.
There's just brainwashing plus people who simply don't have full opinions and maybe don't know it because they're not good at analyzing things.
All right.
Remember when Biden said he was doing better on the border than Trump and it took me, let's see, a quarter of a second, and I think you were with me too, to say, well, that's not true.
That's just totally made up.
There's no way that Biden Got the number lower than Trump had it for immigration.
And do you know what the first thing I assumed was?
That they were counting it different.
Do you know what the answer was?
They're counting it different.
Do you know why Biden can say there are fewer illegal entries?
Because they legalized it.
They said, if you come through this doorway, we'll take your name, we'll put you on the asylum list.
You are now illegal.
So when we talk about the illegal people coming in, we're not going to talk about you.
Because you came in, although you are not a citizen, and although you're unlikely to show up for your asylum court case in two years or whenever, we're not going to count you as illegal because you came in through our process.
That's the game they're playing.
They simply just define it as legal.
Now when they say that Violent crime and everything is better now than it's been.
I just assume they're lying about that.
Yeah, all numbers in an election year are made up.
All numbers in an election year are made up.
That's correct.
But some of them would be directionally correct and some would not.
So I think if Trump says, I did better than Biden on the border, That is directionally correct.
Would you agree?
If Trump says, um, I'll, I'll be better for energy production in the country.
Well, he might say some whoppers as part of that, but directionally, we all agree that he would be better for, you know, domestic energy.
Here's an interesting update.
Remember that Chinese spy balloon?
Apparently, one of the reasons we shot it down in the ocean is so that our divers could go in and recover it and look at all their technology and see what China's up to.
And now they've done that, reportedly.
The government divers got the good stuff.
And now they have a much better idea what China can and cannot do with their spy balloons.
So at least that's a little positive something.
There's somebody yelling in all caps some hallucinations about me.
There's somebody who thinks that they can read my mind and is yelling in all caps about the pandemic.
If you're still talking about the pandemic and you think that that's like the important thing to scream in the comments today, you're a fucking idiot.
We're so over that.
So making up some fake rumors about me from the pandemic and inserting it now?
What is wrong with you?
Just what is wrong with you?
Anyway.
Elon Musk has an opinion of who should win the election in Venezuela.
I guess he likes Maria Karina Machado.
I don't know anything about her, but she noted that Musk had endorsed her.
And I've got a question.
I thought Venezuela was a dictatorship.
Now, how are they having an election?
Is this real?
I guess I thought that Venezuela had gone To their dictator guy who was in Maduro or whatever.
But how do you undictator it?
Did he actually just agree to hold a real open election and there's real democratically oriented people in the election?
Is that actually happening?
There's something about this story that seems really important in a good way, if it's true.
The good way would be, did we somehow, or did Venezuela somehow, maybe with or without our help, Did they somehow right that ship?
Are they actually on a way toward improving things?
Like, what happened there?
Anyway, so I don't know if this is a real election or not.
In other news, Hezbollah did a deadly attack on Golan Heights in Israel and killed, I think it's up to 12, last I looked, 12 deaths and more injuries.
And of course, it's an Iranian supplied rocket that did it.
And then the question is, will Israel have to go in a major war to destroy Hezbollah?
Isn't that guaranteed?
Does anybody think that Israel will not destroy Hezbollah?
Now, I've heard it said that would not be easy like Gaza.
I mean, as if Gaza is easy, but it wouldn't be even doable because now Hezbollah has, you know, so many rockets already aimed at Israel that if they made a major war play, the rockets would launch and Israel would get whacked.
They wouldn't have enough iron dome to take them all down.
No, I don't know if any of that's true.
I mean, it sounds true.
If you see the numbers, it looks like Israel would have a tough time.
But I also wonder, isn't the whole point to eventually get enough missiles so that when they do attack, they can destroy all of Israel?
I mean, if you were just to say, well, maybe we should wait, because they're just doing these low-level attacks, and even though people die, it's better than a full-out war.
Is it?
Is it better than a full-on war?
Maybe Israel just needs to get it over with.
Because the full-on war is going to come, but why would you wait until the other side was better armed and had enough missiles that they could take out your civilization in six hours?
Would you let them do that?
And I don't know what the options are.
I don't know what it would take.
But I can't imagine that Israel won't destroy Hezbollah, one way or the other.
They'll wait until Gaza is maybe digested a little bit, so the military has a little more flexibility.
But can it only go one way?
I don't see how it can go a different way.
Jenny.
So Jenny the idiot is still yelling in all caps, but yelling the same thing over and over.
Jenny, are you having a situation?
Do you?
Do we need to get a family member to look into this?
Are you off your meds?
Jenny.
Or it could be somebody with a different name.
Anyway, I would love, if I could have one magical power, it would be to transport into the room of the person who is my troll, and just like appear next to their computer, and just see, what the hell are you doing?
Why are you doing that?
What gain are you looking for?
What's your upside for this, Jenny the idiot?
Venezuela has never been a dictatorship.
Maduro won an election.
Are you a Venezuelan troll?
I'm supposed to believe that?
I'm supposed to believe that was a free and fair election?
Okay.
Sure.
Um, we had the worst fires in 2020 and not much CO2.
I don't know about that.
I mean, you might be making a good point.
I don't know.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is what I have for you for today.
Okay.
Um, I'm going to go ahead and close this out.
I'm going to say goodbye to the folks on X and YouTube and Rumble.
I'm going to talk to the subscribers only.
Jenny the Idiot says, did you make up to secret insider friend that warned you about COVID to cover for being duped?
Jenny, you just have bad facts.
So you can yell all day, but nothing will take us back to the past.
You need to get back on your meds, Jenny, and stop being a fucking cunt, and just go fix your life.
All right, we're gonna go talk to the people on Locals who are not like Jenny.
