God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Aaron Rupar, Fake News Rupar Videos, Michael Ian Black, Harris Poll Leads, Google Search Swing States, Political Smear Words, Political Smear Weird, Coordinated Democrat Media, Media Puppets, Mean Girl Political Strategy, Kamala Harris Policies, Charlie Kirk, Venezuela Election, White Dudes For Kamala, Biden SCOTUS Reforms, Costa Rica, Secret Service Failures, Maxwell Yearick, Alternative Shooter Hypothesis, President Trump, 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
Well, we've got a show to do today as soon as I'm ready for you.
Let's call up my beloved locals people so I can see them separately.
And then we'll get going.
All right perfecto Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, because that's what it is.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, human, shiny brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, shells, a stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the...
Unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now.
Oh Delightful Bye.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
First, some science updates.
Scientists have figured out how to control the minds of mice.
Using some kind of magnetic field.
So without even putting electrodes in their little brains or anything like that, they can use electricity that's designed to hit certain parts of their brain.
And then the mice, they've all become Democrats.
Which is weird.
No, I just made that part up.
The mice part is true.
They figured out how to control their minds with magnetism.
Now, this raises an interesting question.
Do mice have free will?
Because if they have free will, it wouldn't matter what you did to the brain.
Because the brain would not be an organ that makes decisions.
It would just be irrelevant to your decision making, if you have free will.
So, you should be able to send all the magnetism into the brain that you need, and it still does whatever it wants, because of the free will.
Unless free will is just imaginary.
What are the odds of that?
All right, next story.
A couple of fake news.
The first one, a Republican fake news.
Did you see Biden calling himself a former president accidentally in his little speech where he's talking about his Supreme Court stuff?
And he was sort of mumbling through, you know, past presidents and it It looked like maybe he was referring to himself as a former president, which would suggest he's already out of office.
Okay, that's fake news.
Fake news.
So, don't let the Republicans do to you what Democrats do to you, which is to pretend they don't understand how people talk.
If the actual president of the United States says something to you that sounds like it meant former president, A reasonable interpretation of that is that's not what he meant.
That it was just, you know, an elegant sentence.
So no, if it's obvious he knows he's the President of the United States because he's literally doing President of the United States things as he's talking, No, he did not accidentally say he's not the President of the United States.
That did not happen.
So this is just like the fine people hoax.
It's just the Republican version.
They took a swing at it.
RNC Research did.
Anyway, it's fun, but it's not true.
Speaking of that, Aaron Ruppar wants you to know that when Laura Ingraham asked Trump in an interview yesterday, asked him to explain his whole thing about If you vote for him, you won't have to vote again in four years.
Now, the context with that was that he would, you know, make sure the elections were secure so you don't have to worry about it next time, something like that.
And then that got turned into, oh, he just admitted, he just admitted that he plans to be a dictator in four years.
Now, of course, anybody who knows how language works or people talk, no, nothing like that's happening.
You know, just like the Republican version of this.
So it's just a Rupar.
Here's what Rupar says.
Ingram asked Trump about his comments, telling Christian backers they won't have to vote again in four years.
Trump responds by saying Jews should have their heads examined if they vote for Dems, meaning that he sort of didn't directly answer the question, just sort of said what he wanted to say.
And then when Ingram pressed him and Trump doesn't exactly quell concerns, That he wants to end elections.
Now, do you think that's an honest post?
Do you think Aaron Ruppar, who's famous for showing edited posts and acting like it tells you something real, but it doesn't?
Do you think he's really concerned that Trump wants to end all elections in four years?
Because that's what Republicans would be okay with, right?
Republicans who love their constitution and freedom and all that.
They'd be okay with a dictator, right, Aaron?
That's so dumb.
It's so dumb.
I'm sure it works on the people who don't know any better, but it's so dumb to imagine that Republicans are going to, in any way, back a dictator.
It doesn't matter if it's Trump or anybody else.
No Republican's going to back a dictator.
Ever.
Ever.
Not even one.
You probably couldn't find one out of 80 million people.
But okay.
All right.
And then there's a Rupar on RFK Jr.
too.
I guess there's some edited thing that makes it look like he's avoiding a question or that he can't speak or something like that.
Doesn't matter what it is.
All you have to know is that, once again, all three candidates Are the subject of fake news?
All three.
They all got a fake news today.
So if you weren't, you know, if you're not experienced in spotting it, you might think, oh, the other people had some bad news, but my candidate did not.
Nope.
It was three fake stories about three candidates.
And they were all done the same way.
They would show you a thing, but there's something left out, or there's a weird interpretation that nobody would really make in the real world.
That's your quality of politics today.
So I was having a little back-and-forth conversation with Michael Ian Black, which continues to fascinate me, because his view on politics goes through mostly the Democrat window, and I'm looking through different windows, and we're just not even seeing reality the same.
So one of the things that Michael Ian Black challenged me on this morning, Which was a better challenge than I expected it to be, was that Harris is leading in the polls now.
And I said, what?
Harris isn't leading in polls.
How could you possibly be involved in politics and think that Harris is leading in the polls right now?
So I said to myself, well, and then he challenged me to show him why he's wrong.
And I thought, Why?
Why would I even have to do that?
My understanding would be something like, I don't know, 12 out of 15 polls have Trump dominant in the election so far.
I mean, anything could change.
And I thought, how in the world can it be so weighted in one direction and he would think it would be weighted in the other direction?
I thought, how is that even possible?
So I thought, well, public service.
I'll just Google it.
Because you can trust Google on elections.
Right?
What?
No, you can't.
Oh, totally, you can trust them.
Because nobody would game the search results, would they?
What?
Oh.
Oh, in the comments, you're telling me they gamed the search results.
Yeah, they gamed the search results.
Pretty massively and obviously, and they've already been busted for it.
So I went looking for it, and if you were going to search on who's ahead in the polling right now, what do you think Google would tell you?
It would tell you it's a tie, and that Harris is pulled ahead in a few.
Does that sound accurate?
Sort of a tie?
But here's what they don't tell you.
They're talking about the national numbers.
And when they say it's a tie, they're usually saying it's a statistical tie, but Trump is up by two.
One to three or four, I think, is the range, but basically two.
Now, here's what they don't tell you.
If a Republican candidate is up by two, that's a landslide.
Because Republicans can win when they lose the popular vote, because they just need to win in the states that matter.
So I thought, well, I'll just Google what's the current polling situation for the swing states.
Can't even find it.
Now it's there.
I mean, you'd have to dig down.
You'd have to really look for it.
But apparently the swing states, which my understanding from CNN and Harry Enten, are solidly in Trump territory.
So if you searched for polling results on Google, what would be the most important thing that the search results could tell you?
Well, the only thing that matters is the swing states.
And it's not there.
The Google result just acts like swing states don't exist.
That's not important anymore.
Let us tell you how Harris is really surprising everybody in the polls.
So completely rigged, it's insane.
Yeah, it is completely rigged already.
And so obvious.
You know, I thought that Google would at least maybe pretend not to be obvious.
Nope.
Nope.
They're all the way in.
And their entire product is now ruined because it's hard to take them seriously when they game the results like that, so obviously.
Anyway, Wall Street Journal did a poll.
Oh, okay.
There's a poll from the Wall Street Journal who you can trust.
Right?
What?
You don't trust the Wall Street Journal either?
All right.
Well, I guess you've been paying attention.
When it comes to the election stuff, I don't trust the Wall Street Journal.
Because the Wall Street Journal is owned by somebody who has a preference.
That's all you need to know.
Now, they might be good on business stuff.
I think they are usually good on business stuff.
But when it gets right down to the race, you know, when it's who's going to win the next election, I'm not sure that there are any news entities you could totally trust.
Because everybody's sort of, everybody's a player at this point.
Nobody's watching.
They're all players.
So here's what the Wall Street Journal said.
They did a poll comparing J.D.
Vance and his popularity to Harris.
And it said that Harris, that J.D.
Vance is slightly more popular than Harris or something.
He's got a little more favorability.
Now here's my question to you.
Why in the world would you do that poll?
Polls cost money, don't they?
Why would you spend money To compare somebody's vice presidential candidate to somebody else's presidential candidate.
That's dumb.
That is the most useless poll.
So there's where your polling situation is.
The new poll is like ridiculous, comparing an apple and an orange.
And if you Google the other ones, you sort of don't find them.
This really makes Harry Enten stand out on CNN, because I wonder if his employment is safe, because whenever he does an update on the polling, he's very clear that Trump has a commanding lead according to the polls.
But you don't see that if you do a Google search, and if you're on social media and you're leaning left, you'll never see it.
So, good on Harry Enten, and I think CNN deserves a little bit of credit for allowing him to do his thing.
All right.
As you know, the big push by the Democrats is to call Republicans weird, and J.D.
Vance is weird, and Trump is weird, and all the things that Republicans want is weird.
Now, many of you said, that is so weak and stupid.
Well, you're all wrong.
It's super strong, and it's working.
Let me say it again.
It's super strong persuasion, and it's completely working.
Let me explain why.
Number one, it's very much like in 2016, when they started saying that everything Trump said was dark.
And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's professional work.
That's not your regular Democrat strategist.
There's somebody who's got You know, deep knowledge of persuasion.
And sure enough, there was at least reporting that Cialdini was behind it, and he would be like the king of persuasion in that world.
Now, suddenly the word weird pops up.
That's professional.
All right?
That is just like dark.
Here's what they have in common.
What can you put under the label dark?
Everything.
Anything you want to sound bad, you just say, well, that's dark.
What can you put under the label weird?
Anything, anything at all.
Just say, well, that's weird.
So they have that, that professional quality that anything can be put into it.
And it teaches you to see anything under that frame.
When they told you things were dark, at least Democrats started seeing everything as dark, even if they didn't see it before.
Oh, it's a little dark.
Now, the weird persuasion is through.
Did it work?
100% it worked.
You don't understand how powerful that is.
Yes, you've all used the word, haven't you?
Tell me you haven't said weird, the word, out loud.
Or at least put it in a comment.
Every one of you did.
Every one of you was quoting the word.
You have bought into the frame.
If you're criticizing it, you're in the frame.
If you're talking about how it's a bad idea, you're in the frame.
If you're saying weird is just bad persuasion, you're in the frame.
That's them winning.
They brought you into their frame.
Do you know what you're not talking about when you talk about whether weird is the right word to use?
Policy.
Policy.
Yeah.
Harris has a gigantic deficit in policy, because if you took the top five things the country cares about, Trump has a dominant polling lead in all of them.
So if you can't talk policy and win, because the country doesn't like your policies, and by the way you'd better hide them because they're so unpopular, you get into a fight about what's weird or what's dark.
Do you see it yet?
I will go further and say that almost certainly the persuader who came up with the weird persuasion, probably a woman, because I don't know that a man would have been able to see this angle.
Because weird is A woman insult.
It's how women fight.
Others have pointed this out.
When men want to disagree, they go right at each other.
So they say, you're this, I'm going to do this to you.
If you don't do this, I will do that to you.
So it's very direct kind of combat.
When women want to get their way, they're more, well, that's weird.
And then men say, huh, I didn't know anything was weird.
Yeah, that's weird.
And then the men started thinking, well, I don't want to be called weird by women because women decide who gets to mate.
And you don't want to be one of those people who's ruled out because you're weird.
So your mating instinct is completely activated by that word, meaning that you don't want to be called weird Because it would look like you're not worth mating with It's that deep.
This is really deep persuasion.
It's very strong It's this is you know, it's military grade persuasion.
Basically, it might come from some military source actually Now here's some things we know about it It's also Necessary that they change their messaging from the Hitler stuff.
Did you notice the Hitler stuff just disappeared?
Why did that happen?
Because Republicans successfully took the Trump assassination attempt, and even though we don't have a direct connection to what the shooter was thinking, it is a reasonable, completely reasonable assumption that the Hitler persuasion is the reason Trump was number one on this crazy guy's target list.
And once you see how dangerous and reckless Democrats have been to the point where your candidate could get shot, did get shot, then you think they have gone way too far.
They cannot be trusted with any power whatsoever.
And that was going to be a real winning message from Republicans.
That you've gone too far, all you do is try to scare us with your bullshit, and then we're going to get shot.
You've been hunting Republicans.
So it's very clear that the Democrats are aware that their Hitler persuasion was backfiring because of the assassination attempt.
So they had to find something that didn't sound dangerous, but would still be super powerful on an ickiness level.
Yeah, if you get people's ick, like, oh, that's gross, or that's weird.
It's non-standard.
So they've released from fear persuasion.
What's the strongest form of persuasion?
Fear.
Fear is the strongest form of persuasion.
Weird is very effective, but it's not fear.
So they may have given up the high ground of persuasion because they had to.
Their play is still strong.
It's still good play.
But they may have known in a sort of a chess game way that they had to give up the high ground.
Maybe they can get it back later.
But the high ground is fear.
And when you look at Venezuela and you look at countries that are going full DEI and have unfettered immigration, that's some scary shit.
The things that Democrats are doing to the country, and want to do to the country, do look like the end of civilization to me.
I mean, genuinely, they're promoting processes that take merit out of the system and make identity the, you know, the leading thing.
I don't know how that could end except the complete destruction of the country, mass starvation, and violence in the streets.
Now, I'm hoping that it doesn't get to that, because the system won't embrace those crazy ideas.
But if they did, it would be literally, you're all dead.
I mean, that's the size of the risk.
So I think Trump has the fear of persuasion, because I am genuinely afraid of what the Democrats could do with more power.
I'm genuinely afraid of that.
Now, I think they could be stopped.
I'm just saying that that's an actual existential risk, that their level of incompetence may be papered over with good intentions.
In many cases, people have good intentions, but they don't know how systems work.
You can't build a system where you're rewarding people for identity and expect that when you come back in 100 years, everybody isn't dead.
They'll all be dead if you focus on identity.
There's no way around that.
That's where it's going to head.
So that's got to be stopped.
So I think that the Democrats have embraced the fact that it's the girls against the boys and that the Democrat Party is the party of women.
And it's the batshit crazy women against the people they call weird.
So, I think also women have the problem that they have a very high level of mental illness, and that really comes across with a lot of their most vocal persuaders.
Whenever you see one of the Democrat women do an individual video that they made holding their phone, and they're mad about Republicans, They look actually just mentally ill.
They don't look like they have different opinions.
They look batshit fucking crazy.
And I'm not going to back off of that because it's just so obvious.
I mean, there's a mental illness issue that's pretty obvious.
But here's the fun thing.
There are already, of course, compilation videos of all of the people in the news suddenly using the word weird.
Because, you know, the memo goes out, use weird, don't say Hitler.
Hitler's too scary.
Say weird.
So, and, you know, even Elon Musk posted and said they should coordinate their propaganda better because it's too obvious.
But here's the thing.
Would it be obvious if you hadn't seen the compilation clip?
If you just checked in now and then to a news program, like most of the world, somebody would be saying, this is weird, that's weird.
You know, that would get in your head.
It's very sticky.
And you wouldn't notice that it was a coordinated campaign.
But when you see all the people coordinating, you can see the entire infrastructure of who's a puppet.
So the ones who just immediately said, oh, weird is the word, we'll say weird.
They're basically, they're more like government employees than they are like news people.
I mean, the news business might pay them, but if they're just taking literally the government's message and pretending it's their own opinions, they're government employees.
They just get a paycheck from somebody else.
Now, here's the funniest part.
Have you seen any of the puppets pretend it was their own idea, to use the word?
You have to see the compilation clips.
I have to do my impression of a Democrat pretending they came up with the idea on their own.
Say, well, I've been looking at the J.D.
Vance and Trump and I don't know, there's something.
There's a word.
Could I say it's weird?
And then you look at their eyes and they're trying to convince you that they literally just came up with this idea on their own.
It's like, I'm searching for a word.
What would sort of capture this situation?
Oh, oh, I got an idea.
How about weird?
And it's so sickening to watch them lie to their audience.
I don't think they're lying to me because their game is too obvious.
But watching them lie, About how spontaneously they came up with that word?
It's really creepy.
So, while it might be true that they think Republicans are weird, because everything's weird, because everybody's unique, they've got a creepy problem.
Even if Republicans are weird, they're not that creepy.
I mean, some are, of course.
But the creepiness Olympics, I think is clearly going to the left at this point now.
And then the Washington Post piling on, of course, because Washington Post should not be seen as legitimate news.
It's just a Democrat CIA propaganda machine.
And it says that somebody had an opinion piece that Trump and fans seem ready to offend as many women voters as possible.
OK.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what they wake up in the morning and think, I think I'm going to go offend people.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm seeing the comments.
Uh, it should go without saying that simple repetition of the weird thing is all you need.
You don't need to sell a heart of that.
Just repeat it.
People will just pick it up as their frame.
It's working already.
So anyway, um, I would call this the mean girl strategy.
So calling other people weird is a mean girl strategy.
But before I went live here, I was doing a pre-show with my subscribers on Locals, and one of the subscribers pointed this out, that mean girl strategy only works when the mean girls are hot.
To which I said, oh shit, that is a problem, isn't it?
Because the Democrats are not leading with hotness, they're leading with people that Republicans think look unattractive.
And so if the unattractive people are telling you you're weird, it doesn't really hit the same.
So I think that one of the problems that they may run into is that mean girl strategy only works when you're hot.
And at some point, people might figure that out.
Because Republicans are already doing compilation images of all the, what they would say would be weird looking people to fight back.
And I think that's the problem.
If the mean girls had all been super hot, they probably could get totally away with labeling the other people as weird.
But you're going to have to be a little less weird to get away with that, maybe.
We'll see.
But it is working.
Overall, the strategy is solid and working, I would say.
It's good for their base.
Obviously, it's not going to convince any Republicans, but they're just trying to solidify the base.
But we know who all their puppets are now.
If you haven't watched the compilation clip to find out who not to listen to in the future, You should.
I mean, it's really obvious who the, you know, the intelligence-related assets are and who the Democrat operatives are.
It's just so, so obvious.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, you know, there are a bunch of, you know, operatives over on the Republican side.
It's not on one side.
There really does seem to be a difference, though.
There does seem to be a difference.
A lot of the people who are opinion people on the right Make sure you know it's their opinion, people.
So they're not trying to sell you the same way.
It's more entertainment.
All right.
Why?
Why would the Democrats need to talk to you about who's weird or who's a killer?
The old way.
Why would they have to do that instead of policies?
Well, Charlie Kirk put together a little list of, it was on X, of what he calls Kamala Harris's extreme left policies.
Now, I'm not sure that all of these still are her policies, but at one point they look like things she did say, so she would have to explain why she changed her mind if she did.
So I'll just read Charlie Kirk's list.
I'm not sure I would buy into every one of them being her policy, but you decide.
I'll just rip through them because there's a bunch.
Open borders.
Mass amnesty for illegals.
Citizenship for illegals.
Clearing criminal illegals' records to avoid deportation.
Boys' and girls' locker rooms as bathrooms.
Boys' and girls' sports.
Irreversible body mutilations for minor children.
Kidnapping children from parents who don't want kids mutilated.
Legalizing squatting.
That one's a really powerful one.
Legalizing squatting scares the shit out of everybody.
Anybody who owns a home.
Medicare for illegal immigrants paid by U.S.
taxpayers apparently against the child tax credit.
So again, that's not clear.
Abolish the individual rights to bear arms via state and local laws.
Mandatory gun confiscations.
Mandatory gun confiscations?
I don't know if she's said that, but she's probably gotten close to it.
Demanding that all environmental laws be reviewed for their quote racial climate impact advocating for equal outcomes via wealth distribution We used to call this communism By the way, every time you say communism you are not Convincing anybody on the left.
Do you know why?
They just say that's not communism Let's end So every time you use the word communism, you are not engaged in persuasion It's something that Republicans sort of understand what you're talking about.
But as soon as it crosses over, and by the way, I learned this from Michael Ian Black, that when he hears communism, he just sort of shakes it off.
It's like, it's obviously not communism.
And then you say, well, we don't like income redistribution.
And then he says, you mean like taxes?
Taxes are income distribution.
Right.
Which is a good, which is a good reply.
And here's what I would suggest.
If you're talking about communism, you should define it as you don't like income redistribution and the government being too powerful.
Because those things people understand.
Oh, I don't like the government taking my money and giving it to someone else.
You understand that, and you also don't want the government to have too much power over you.
So it's sort of a leave me alone, leave my money alone position.
Now that's strong and easy to understand.
But as soon as you say Kamala Harris is a communist, you could be technically correct that she is influenced by a communist thought.
There's a lot of connections in her background that would suggest she's had lots of communist conversations.
But I don't see it either.
I mean, clearly they still want something like a president.
So communism doesn't quite work as a persuasion attack.
I'm not saying it's inaccurate.
I'm not saying it doesn't suggest, you know, a lot of communist-looking things.
And I'm not suggesting they're not influenced by it.
I'm just saying it doesn't work when you complain about it.
It's like the word doesn't mean anything in modern politics.
Anyway, so continuing with Charlie Kirk's list of Kamala Harris extreme left policies, race-based reparations payments, trillions for the Green New Deal, pack the Supreme Court, defund the police, cashless bail, even for violent offenders.
How much of that sounds accurate?
Does Charlie's List sound accurate?
I think there are a few you could argue, well, that's not exactly her position, but she's sort of leaning in those directions.
So I think it's pretty close.
I think it's close enough to, I would say it's directionally correct.
There might be some things you'd quibble with.
All right, let's talk about Venezuela.
Now, the Venezuela situation is just fascinating to me, because the way a human brain works is we're influenced by stories, and we're influenced by patterns, and we're influenced by how things feel.
So suddenly this Venezuela election happens, and what we feel is it looks just like the 2020 election in America to a lot of people, right?
Now, you can argue the details, but I'm just saying how it feels and how it looks to a lot of people.
Meaning Republicans say, wait, we think our election in 2020 was obviously stolen.
The Venezuelans believed that their election was obviously stolen.
And so apparently they're forming mobs of what Democrats would call insurrectionists to go try to overthrow the government.
Now, it's an insurrection if they know they lost.
Would you agree?
If the crowd knew they lost fair and square, and they still got together and tried to topple the government, well, that would be an insurrection.
Successful or not, it would be an attempted insurrection.
But suppose they were positive that the election had been rigged.
They could be wrong, by the way.
Maybe all the polling was wrong.
Maybe.
But they're positive that it was, right or wrong, they're positive it was rigged.
Is that still an insurrection?
In America it was.
In America, nobody gave a fuck what the January 6th people were thinking, which was the only thing that mattered.
Ask yourself how many interviews have you seen on MSNBC or CNN where they took somebody who went to the protest on January 6th and say, tell us what you were thinking.
Were you thinking that you lost the election but you wanted to take over the country and install Trump as a dictator?
And people would look at you and say, what?
No.
No, why would I even want that?
No, if he lost fair and square, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
To me, this is what a January 6th would say, to me, it looks like it's obvious the election was rigged and we want to delay it so that it could be looked into to avoid a coup.
Because we think a coup just happened.
Now, all I'm pointing out is that when you're watching the Venezuela experiment, you're going to find a lot of parallels and your brain will not be able to reject those parallels because stories and stories just fit together.
Like one story is just going to look too much like the other story.
There's no way around that.
Right?
And what's happening is you're going to say to yourself, well, maybe the election was stolen in Venezuela.
But at least their courts will work it out, right?
There will be legal challenges.
And then the courts will say, oh, this is a illegal election.
You better redo this or change the result.
Right?
Because they, well, they have a court system.
Why wouldn't the court system fix all this for them?
Well, it's because we don't trust the court system in Venezuela.
How much do you know about the court system in Venezuela?
I'd like to volunteer how much I know about it.
Nothing.
Don't know anything about it.
But what do I assume about it?
I assume it's crooked.
Because they got a dictator.
There's no dictator who's gonna let the court system have control.
He's gonna make sure all the judges that didn't like him were already fired.
Or worse, jailed.
So you're gonna watch that the court system, which is probably as biased as the American court system, is completely unable to reverse it, and they might have tactical reasons like ours did.
As in, well, you don't have standing to bring this case.
What?
I'm part of America, and I'm part of the election because I'm a voter.
I don't have standing?
Nope, you don't have standing.
So we're not even going to listen to it.
Or they'll not have time to really look for the evidence that would be more conclusive.
They're just immediately filing something in the court and the court says, there's no evidence here.
Get out of here.
Or the court says, you haven't proven that there's enough fraud to make a difference.
Get out of here.
So the American courts had all kinds of reasons.
That somebody couldn't bring a case.
It was too late.
It was too small.
They couldn't prove it was big enough.
Just all kinds of things.
Do you think Venezuela is going to be different?
Do you think the court's going to look at it and say, you know, well, yeah, tons of corruption here.
You better do that election again.
So I think that the Americans are going to get a little wake up call that trusting our justice system is a little ridiculous at this point.
Because we do know that the reason people want to change the Supreme Court, you know, Joe Biden's ideas for reform, are because they don't think the court is viable or credible.
And it's just because they didn't get their way.
So whoever's not getting their way is going to think the courts are not credible.
So both sides basically think the courts are not credible in the United States for the political stuff, maybe credible for other stuff, but not for the political stuff.
We just don't think it's credible.
So the correlation with Venezuela, very strong.
There are other accusations about what voting machines they used.
I don't have any confidence in those accusations, and I don't have any reason to believe that the technology they used had anything to do with the result.
But it could have, in the sense that, you know, I doubt there was good cybersecurity, but you never know.
So, Anyway, that should make a difference in the American minds of what is likely to happen in our election and even what did happen in 2020.
But you want to make this interesting?
Let's make this Venezuela situation interesting.
What did the news tell you happened?
The news said the strongman lost the election, probably in reality, but then stole it.
Right?
So, did you know that the polling that was used to show that the challenger really won by a lot, did you know that was a CIA-linked U.S.
state propaganda poll?
Oh, now it's getting interesting.
Did you know that you shouldn't trust the polling that said the challenger won?
You just accepted that, didn't you?
Didn't you just uncritically accept that the polling said the challenger won?
And I'm sure the people in Venezuela have uncritically accepted that too.
But has the CIA ever tried to rig anything in another country to cause a natural-looking, organic overthrow of their own government?
Wouldn't that be a clever trick by our CIA, hypothetically?
To tell the public of Venezuela that the only credible poll says that the challenger won by a lot.
What if that's not true?
Do you know it's true?
No, you don't.
No.
Our news told us a story that happens to be very compatible with what the CIA would want you to hear.
And our news is controlled by the CIA for anything that they want to control it for.
It's entirely possible that Maduro won the election fair and square.
I'm not going to put odds on it.
I'm not going to say it's more likely than the alternative.
I don't know.
I'm just saying that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the real play is to make it look like the election was faked, even if it wasn't, and get the population to revolt and just kill Maduro and maybe Get somebody in there that the American CIA is comfortable with.
So this could be a fake revolution fostered by the FBI, and all they'd have to do is run some fake polls.
That's all it would take.
So I think you should doubt everything that comes out of Venezuela.
If I had to bet, I'd bet Maduro rigged the polls.
But that's also what makes it an easy manipulation.
If you're already inclined to believe it's true that he would do such a thing, then you'll easily be convinced that he did it by a fake poll, if it's a fake poll.
So you can't trust anything, especially when the CIA has some interest in the outcome, and they have a big interest in the outcome.
And by the way, if the CIA isn't trying to control Venezuela, they're not doing their job.
That's what we pay them to do.
So if it's not the CIA is doing, what the hell are they doing?
They should be trying to overthrow Venezuela, you know, cleverly using the media, using fake polls, paying people.
That's what they do.
If they're not doing it, I'd be a little bit disappointed.
So don't trust the news on it, though.
Anyway, the internet searches we talked about are now totally fake.
I guess one of the search engines was hiding that famous Trump photo.
I think that was meta.
One of the AIs says the assassination attempt against Trump was fiction.
If you Google Trump, Harris's accomplishments come up first on Google.
If you Google Trump's name, The top search results are how great Harris is.
Is there any question about what's going on right now?
It's just so heavy-handed and obvious.
And by the way, a lot of this is because, of course, X is now, you know, a free speech platform, so you're going to hear things you wouldn't hear otherwise.
But we're so much smarter than we were a few years ago, just about how everything fits together.
Then now you can see the gears of the machine, can't you?
Can't you see the gears of the machine?
When that weird thing dropped, did you know right away that this is just the new made-up thing and they're all going to do it?
Of course you did.
You knew it right away.
All right, well, so this is funny.
Kamala Harris had a white dudes for Kamala event over Zoom, I guess.
And there were tens of thousands of men who signed up, and apparently there was some concern that the Republicans, or specifically the MAGA people, were trying to bully white men into being Republicans.
So that was actually a thing.
Did you know that the Democrats were worried that their men were being bullied?
Apparently that messaging broke through.
I didn't know that anybody in the Democrat Party had ever heard that Republicans were basically saying their men need to become Republicans and become real men.
But apparently they were worried about it.
So they made sure there was a big show of force, if you can call it that, of lots and lots of white men.
Getting on a racist feed, obviously it was racist because it was literally white men for Kamala.
So you don't have to ask, is that your opinion that it was racist?
No, it was designed to be racist.
It was exclusionary of brown people.
Yeah, it was racist by definition.
Maybe not evil.
I'm not saying it's evil, but clearly racist.
Anyway, what did people who watched this show have as a takeaway?
Well, you got to see lots of faces and voices of people who were pro-Kamala and white, and they did have something in common.
Anybody want to mention what that was?
What do all of the white male Kamala Harris supporters have in common, as far as I could tell?
Number one, No muscles whatsoever.
No muscles.
They look low-T, most of them, and they present as though they have major psychological problems.
I want you to look at any of the clips from any of the notable people who spoke, and you tell me that doesn't look like mental illness.
Now, I'm no doctor, but I think we've all learned that when things are glaringly obvious, you don't really need to be an expert, do you?
Like, if you saw somebody walk out of a bar and they were like, rawr, they fall down and they're drooling and they pee themselves, do you have to be an expert on addiction to know they're drunk?
No.
Sometimes things are just so obvious, expert is unnecessary.
And I'll tell you, I looked at the men on those feeds and every one of them looked like they had major mental issues.
To me.
Now, am I being, is it just confirmation bias?
Could be.
Could be.
But I'll bet if you fed those faces into an AI with a bunch of randomly picked faces and you said, identify the ones who have mental problems, I'll bet you the AI could do it.
And by the way, that's a challenge.
If somebody wants to do that, Take one of the compilation pictures from the event and just feed it into AI and then feed, you know, an equal number of pictures that are from some Republican event.
So, you know, one is all Democrats and one is all Republicans, just men and just white men, just to keep it comparable.
And then you ask AI, one of these groups, AI might have more mental illness than the other.
Can you identify the one that has more mental illness?
What do you think it would do?
I don't know for sure, but I think it could spot it just as easily as you could.
So yeah, there's a low T, no gym memberships, and they look to be weak and feminine men.
A woman named Brianna Morello, who I think she leans right politically, she attended it and she said, I'm 45 minutes into the white dudes for Harris virtual meeting.
And here's a quick summary.
She said, here's what they're learning.
Calling Kamala Harris a D.E.I.
hire is racist.
Kamala Harris is a D.E.I.
hire.
So I like to say that as clearly and as publicly as possible.
She's obviously a D.E.I.
hire.
Meaning, well, you all know I don't have to explain it.
She's obviously a D.E.I.
hire.
White men must repent because we're all just naturally bad.
Trump is a rapist.
Now, There's a reason that they can get away with saying that.
And I'm probably the only person who could tell you what the reason is.
It just occurred to me.
So here's something that nobody else can tell you.
You ready for this?
All public figures who are male are falsely accused of sexual crimes.
Do you know why nobody can tell you that?
Well, the women can't tell you that because they haven't experienced it.
It would have to be a man.
Do you know why a public figure who is male can't tell you that it's routine for high-profile men to be falsely accused of sexual harassment or rape?
Do you know why they can't say that?
Because they probably have women in their lives, right?
If you're married and you're, let's say, a TV host, Can you go on TV and say, well, just for context, you should know that powerful and rich men, especially, are pretty much universally all falsely accused of rape and sexual harassment.
Now, they might also, in some cases, be doing the raping and sexual harassment.
I'm not saying they're innocent.
I'm saying that 100% of them have false accusations.
Now, if you say to me, that can't possibly be true.
Well, I should tell you about mine.
I think at least three times I've been falsely accused of a sex crime.
Now, I can tell you that because I'm already cancelled and I'm not married.
So, I'm the only person who can tell you what happens if you're a public figure, people think you have money, and you're just male.
It's the most ordinary thing in the world.
So Democrats are selling you that because Trump was found responsible, I guess is the right word, by 10 out of 12 jury members, based on something that really was he said, she said, which is exactly how the false ones look as well as the real ones, then you should, I basically discount it to zero.
So when I look at Trump, I don't say, huh, Maybe he's, you know, did these bad things.
I'd discount it to zero.
Because in my worldview, in my experience, being falsely accused of exactly that kind of weird sex crime, I'll use weird there, it's very routine.
It's really normal.
And when you look at all the political pressure and other pressure that was on the accuser, well, then it gets really suspicious, right?
So take the fact that it's Trump and everything they say about him is fake.
And then add on top of it that when you're in his situation, false claims of sexual impropriety are universal.
100%.
Do you think Bill Gates has any accusations?
Of course he does.
Are any of them true?
Maybe.
I don't know.
But I guarantee some are not.
I guarantee some are not.
It would be the easiest prediction in the world.
Even if some are true.
I guarantee you some of them are not.
That's just how it works.
Now, if you didn't know that, you would think it would be pretty serious that some group of jurors, by majority, said it sounded more true than false.
Which is what a civil case is.
It's not, you're guilty.
It's, well, a majority of us thought it was more likely true than not, because we were convinced by the persuasion of the lawyers.
That's really different from guilty.
That's a world apart.
Although, anybody could be guilty.
I'm just saying that if you assume it, you're on shaky ground.
All right.
Let's see.
Brianna Morello, who was on that White Dudes for Harris call, also learned that abortion is a man's right.
I don't even know what that means.
MAGA is toxic and you're all evil.
All right.
Now, I understand that after the White Dudes for Harris, the main event was over, they did breakouts.
So they broke into smaller groups.
And I think the breakout groups, they were trying to teach each other how to scissor in a non-gender specific way.
So it was a lot of scissoring.
And they wanted to make sure it wasn't like only women or only lesbians can scissor because it's a little bit Biased a little bit bigoted so they want to make sure that everybody can scissor men on men men on women Women on women you name it So scissoring for everybody.
So the break-in groups were very scissory But here's what would have been the funniest part about watching it Do you think any of the men who were on the white dudes for Harris meeting Do you think any of them did any mansplaining?
I don't know if they did.
Maybe it was the least mansplaining ever, because most of them barely qualified as male, but it would be hilarious if a bunch of men got in there and tried to explain to the women how they feel and just mansplain that thing until the women are like, get the hell off of this call!
Why did we do this?
What were we thinking?
It would have been hilarious.
If they had to end the call because all the men were mansplaining and they couldn't cut it out.
Now, it didn't happen, but God, it would have been funny.
All right, let's talk about Biden's Supreme Court reforms.
Nobody thinks they're serious.
Even the people on the left say, oh, it's a wish list.
None of it's going to happen.
He's never going to reverse the presidential immunity.
He's never going to get term limits.
He's never going to get a binding code of conduct.
And so it's just political bullshit.
But it keeps you from thinking about policies, doesn't it?
And it allows them to demonize the Supreme Court.
Do you think that the executive office should be demonizing the Supreme Court?
Well, I'm sure Trump would do it if he wasn't getting the decisions he wanted.
I'm sure he would do it too.
But it's not a good idea in either case.
Here's a surprising news.
Disclosed.tv says this is an accident.
That Germany's economy under the left-green liberal government, quote, unexpectedly contracted in the second quarter, meaning the economy shrunk in Germany during a quarter, this recent quarter.
If Germany's economy is shrinking, that's like a five alarm fire.
So, you should be worried about what that means, but it's also evidence that there's never been a left-green liberal government that's succeeded.
Has there?
Has there ever been one that's succeeded?
The one that I think might have done the best is Costa Rica.
Costa Rico.
And I always think that Costa Rico should create a second America.
So Costa Rica decided not to drill for oil.
I guess they had some, but they wanted to go green instead.
So they pushed, you know, a lot of green things and a lot of tourism and they did well.
So the economy is doing smart things, educating people well for the industry they have.
They have actually college for being a bartender because those are the jobs.
So, So Costa Rica was, I don't know, I haven't caught up with them recently, but they were like this seriously smart little country that knew they didn't need a military because the United States was right there.
So they didn't waste money on military.
They didn't do polluting stuff because other people had oil.
They would just go a different way.
And they build an industry that would be clean and give them lots of jobs and a really well-managed country.
I would love to see them say, Hey, If the United States is getting too sketchy, all you white men and Republicans should move down here, because we have freedom down here.
I feel like somebody's going to make a play for the richer Americans who can bring their money down, and especially tech people.
It would be easy for me to imagine tech people who don't have too many ties to keep them where they are, to just say, you know what?
If I could go to a country that had the actual freedoms that America says it has, but they're not hunting Republicans, and they're not going DEI crazy, I'll take it.
I mean, I think you might be better off going to a country that already doesn't have a majority of white men, or white citizens, because then you're not going to worry about DEI.
Right?
If you throw me into a pool of people Applying for a job, and there's no DEI?
I'll do fine.
I'll get my, you know, percentage of successes.
But, you know, in the DEI world, you don't really have a chance.
I mean, not really.
So, I'm surprised there isn't some smart little country that's already well-managed, and again, I'll give Costa Rica a call-out, because they've got some, they've got some really well-managed history behind them.
So maybe somebody like that that's not too far away.
Because you'd still want to visit, right?
You'd want to visit America.
But living there might get dangerous.
Let's give an update on this whole Secret Service fiasco with the attempted assassination of Trump.
Every day there's some new bombshell.
Now we're learning that at least the law enforcement knew an hour before that there was danger, and yet the people guarding the president directly never heard of it.
So for one hour there was somebody wandering around that looked like a potential assassin, and the people who were closest to guarding the president on the stage didn't hear about it.
And there's something else about 20 minutes they knew something dangerous was happening and you know that they knew they were looking for that guy and couldn't find him and then nobody told anybody.
Now to me it still looks like mostly incompetence but there's a new element that I'm not convinced of yet.
There's some guy named Maxwell Yurek who some independent people have decided might have been a second shooter.
Or might have been involved somehow.
The word on him is that his home was listed as the home base for something called Yerrick Armory Explosives.
He was allegedly in the same gun training group as Crooks.
And some people say that the body that was on the roof was actually not Crooks.
Some are saying, wait a minute, Crooks doesn't have a tattoo, but this other guy does.
And wait a minute, his face looks exactly like the other guy.
Which it kind of does.
If you see the picture of the other guy, this Yurik guy, and then you see the picture of the dead perpetrator, it looks exactly like the other guy.
Now, I'm not saying he is.
I'm just saying it's a fascinating little side detour.
I don't know how much credibility to put on it.
Not very high.
I mean, it's not better than a coin flip, but it's sure fun.
There's some stuff going on here.
What else do we know?
So he would be a member of the same shooting club, had an interest in explosives.
His white van was found at the event and towed, and he hasn't been seen.
Any more questions?
How is any of that possible unless he was directly involved?
Now, some are suggesting that he was the shooter on the water tower.
Maybe.
And others are saying that there was another shooter, because there's something that looks like a flash from a gun coming from the window, which would not be shooting at anybody except the President, because he would have no... It was the one below the attempted assassin.
So the window directly below him seems to have a gunshot that's facing out.
Now, is that real?
Probably not.
Probably not.
But my guess is that it's just too easy to rig a photo like that, so it's probably fake.
So, how much should you believe about this alternative theory of the shooter?
I don't know.
I think this was destined always to be a JFK assassination thing, where there would always be alternative explanations, and they would always be unsatisfying.
When they were debunked, you'd be like, hmm, I see you trying to debunk that, but I don't think you all the way debunked it.
So I think that's our fate.
We will just never know, and nobody will ever get to the bottom of it.
There's word that Iran is trying to influence our elections, and we assume that they were a little bit more pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
I don't know.
No, I guess they were anti-Trump because they thought he'd be tougher on Iran.
And that Iran has a bunch of bots or trolls pretending to be real people and getting into our social media interactions.
Do you think that's true?
That Iranian influences are in your social media interactions?
Oh, let's talk about the ear.
There's also a picture of the ear of the shooter, Crooks, does match the real Crooks.
So if you look at the dead body of Crooks, he has an unusual ear that looks like it was either damaged or something.
So the dead body has the same unusual ear as the person who's accused of being the shooter.
Which would argue against the Eurek thing.
So just know that there's conflicting data out there.
So I'm not on the page that says that this is a second shooter.
But there is some questions that are unanswered, so we'll see.
Anyway, so I think Iran is probably influencing elections.
Here's a, I think CNN, I forget who had this, but 86% of renters think they can't buy a house and 54% think they'll never buy a home.
And since buying a home is how people have built wealth in this country forever, it feels like there's a whole generation left behind.
I agree.
This is why I think that Trump's idea of building a new city is so much a great answer.
Because if you build the new city, you can make everything affordable and you can make sure that people who've never owned a home can get into one if you do everything right.
You just can't build homes the way you build them now and expect people to get back, get into a home.
Anyway, Trump decided he's going to attend a National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago.
This will make part of his base say, stop pandering, you know, stop pretending that you're going to be identity related and Stop trying to get votes you'll never get.
What do you think?
Do you think he should try to directly ask for the votes of groups that he hasn't gotten in the past?
Or should he just let them go their own way because he's never going to get them anyway?
Well, here's my persuader's take on that.
Number one, he is not afraid of anything.
Can we agree on that?
Can we agree that whatever it is that made Trump Trump, he's not afraid of anything.
I mean, he wasn't afraid to run for office.
He wasn't afraid, I don't think he was that afraid when he got shot.
And here he is doing the most dangerous thing you could ever do in politics, which is go into the belly of the beast.
And it's not the black part so much, it's the black journalist part.
Because I don't think the black journalists As a group are going to be too pro-Trump.
If it were just an area of the country that had a lot of black citizens, you'd say to yourself, all right, that makes sense.
You know, he's asking for the votes, but black journalists are just going to slam them.
I mean, you figure some percentage are.
However, I think it's the right move.
I think it's the right move, whether he gets even one vote.
Because you don't want a president who can't do this.
Do you?
Do you want a president who says, oh, that's a group of people I can't talk to?
Nope.
Nope.
I want my president to shake hands with Kim Jong-un.
I want my president to talk to the church groups.
I want my president to be able to talk to Muslim Americans.
I want him to talk to the National Association of Black Journalists.
And I don't care if he gets one vote.
I gotta see that.
I gotta see that.
I gotta see that he's at least trying to be the president for everybody.
Alright?
Now it's a tough reach, because we're so divided, but you gotta put in the work.
You gotta make it look like, and I believe it's true, I don't think it's just looking like, He's trying to be the president of everybody.
And if you don't put some risk into that proposition, nobody's going to believe it.
You know, you need to put a little skin in the game.
So I love Trump putting his skin in the game to talk to the Association of Black Journalists.
Will he convince anybody that this was a worthwhile trip?
If I had to guess, He might score a solid 10% support.
Not changing their vote at all, not that.
But rather, he might get 10% of the journalists to say, you know what?
We don't love all of his policies.
Wish he'd done more.
But if we're being honest, we don't think Kamala Harris is going to do everything we want either.
We haven't seen Biden do it.
And he came to talk to us.
He showed us respect.
That's something.
That's not nothing.
That's big.
I think that Trump's simply showing respect to various parts of the citizenry.
Anything else.
I don't need him to do anything else.
Just show respect.
Because that's the big problem that we have with Democrats.
There is some disrespectful stuff about MAGA, and of course it's, you know, it's a big old fight, so it's not that big a... not surprised that people are being disrespectful.
But I think that specifically Trump needs to show respect for the groups that believe he's not that person.
And I think he can do it easily and naturally and he would be comfortable in front of the crowd and probably will have some laughs, probably make some jokes at his own expense.
And when he leaves, people are going to be like, ah, damn it.
I like him a little bit better.
That's what I think.
I think the view is going to be damn it.
I do kind of like that a little bit better.
So I think it's a brilliant move.
I'm totally in favor of it, even if it doesn't work.
Even if some bad news came out of it, because they can always turn anything good into bad, you've got to show the respect, you've got to put in the work, you've got to show you're for everybody, however it goes.
Well, Zero Edge is reporting that apparently the government, the Biden administration, is looking to draw down its crypto.
So it's got a few billion, I guess, that it has from the Silk Road, or basically captured from criminals.
And so 48 hours after Trump said, you know, Bitcoin is great and the government should never sell it, the Biden administration is looking to sell it, which looks like it's already reduced the price of Bitcoin substantially.
So basically, they're attacking Bitcoin now.
Now, was that a coincidence?
Somebody says it's an old story.
Is it?
Because I was wondering if the story is legitimate and on target.
Is it an old story?
So then it would not be true that it was something new 48 hours after Trump spoke?
All right, well, we'll put a pin in that because there's some question in the comments.
By the way, I love doing this live.
I love getting fact-checked in real time.
Now, you'd think I'd hate it, but since what we're trying to do here is trying to determine what's real and what isn't, I do enjoy getting fact-checked in real time.
Because we just can't be the ones who are just saying, here's the narrative, accept this.
It's got to be open to the other side.
All right.
Well, I may have mentioned this before, but there's a material that could be used for solar cells that would make them way more powerful.
But the problem is this new material As you know, weird crystalline microstructures and its shape doesn't really work.
But if it had the right shape, it would be way better than silicon for solar power and would change the economics of the entire industry.
Looks like somebody solved that.
This is one of those little stories that could be so big.
I mean, it could be civilization altering big.
But apparently they found so that it's a halide perovskites.
If I said that right.
So it's a bunch of materials that would give you a huge gain in power conversion.
If only they could find some clever way to get rid of the weird little shapes of it.
And apparently some Hong Kong University science and technology group figured out how to use a process to normalize the structures.
Which would mean that the, um, oh, somebody was saying that Yurik, that Yurik guy who some think is the second shooter was Antifa.
Again, I don't know if that's true, but I did see that in social media.
So I'll just put it out there as part of that speculation.
Anyway, so we've got now China's experiment with a Generation 4 nuclear power reactor, where they turned it off and it didn't melt down, and then just turned it back on, I think.
So that tells you Gen 4 works.
That means nuclear power could get standardized.
The government could potentially say, here's a model that you could build all day long, and it's already approved.
And then we go nuts.
So between solar maybe being 10 times better, not too long from now, and nuclear coming online, it's going to be a lot of fun, energy-wise.
Fox News is saying that recent college grads are terrible at job interviews.
So, 50% struggle with eye contact.
That makes sense, because young people are sort of used to looking at their phones and not dealing with people in person.
So that doesn't surprise me.
They're bad at eye contact.
Half of them ask for unreasonable compensation.
Now, This is on a list of things that, you know, make it look like the young people are defective.
But I don't think that's defective to ask for too much compensation.
I kind of respect that.
Now maybe they don't get the job.
But maybe that wasn't the job for them because it didn't pay enough.
So I don't interpret asking for too much money as a negative.
Go ahead and ask for too much money if you need that much and you would be willing to work someone else if you can't get it.
All right, 47% of them dressed inappropriately for a job interview.
What in the world is an inappropriate dress for a job interview?
Like, do you show too much skin?
Or are you wearing blue jeans?
Or you don't have a suit?
I made the same mistake my first big interview, by the way.
I didn't dress properly.
That's interesting.
27% used inappropriate language.
What?
27% of job interviewees that are recent college graduates used inappropriate language?
You mean swearing?
Or was it just they were talking too casually?
Maybe using too much, you know, young people speak or something like that?
Probably the latter.
21% — this is the funniest one — 21% refused to turn on the camera during a virtual interview.
So the interview was on the computer, and they would be on Zoom or whatever, and they would refuse to turn on the camera even when asked.
How in the world do you expect to get a job if you won't turn on the camera during a video interview?
And then the best one, 19% of them brought a parent to the interview.
What?
Have any of you seen that yet?
I keep seeing statistics about it, but I've never heard of it.
Have you?
Have some of you seen that yet?
I saw a yes go by.
So some of you have actually seen that.
I'm seeing another yes.
My God.
That is just so shocking.
I never would have expected that.
19%.
That's a lot.
Anyway.
Well, let's hope the young people survive.
The robots will do all the hard work and they can just cash their UBI checks.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
We'll go forward and find out what the fake news has in store for us.
Don't be weird.
And I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately now.
But if you're on X or Rumble or YouTube, thanks for joining.
