God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, AI Nuclear Development, ChatGPT Upgrade, Reid Hoffman, Lina Khan, Tehran Hamas Ismail Haniyeh, AI Controlled Drones, Bloomberg Polling, Harris Battleground States Poll, Political Strategy Word Weird, Policy Distraction Techniques, Pirate Ship Populist Trump, CNN Daniel Dale MIA, Kamala Harris Lies, Harris Reparations Policy, Populist President Assassinations, President Maduro, Venezuela Election, GAB Thomas Crooks Account, Project 2025, Democrat Brainwashing Review, World War Preparedness, 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, would you like to hear some good news about coffee?
Of course you would.
Well, it turns out that there's some kind of ingredient in coffee, the polyphenols, that can help your cognitive deficits that are caused by childhood stress.
Did you know that childhood trauma and stress can make you dumb your whole life?
It'll hurt your brain.
But apparently you can fix your brain With coffee.
Now, what kind of science is this?
It's the kind I want to believe, because it agrees with me, and I like coffee.
So, should you trust the science?
Well, I don't know.
50% chance this study can't be reproduced, if it's like every other study.
But I'm going to believe this one, because I like coffee.
Well, if you haven't seen the Dilbert Reborn comic, let me show you what you're missing here.
I can only show you the first two panels unless you're a subscriber.
So you'd have to be a subscriber to know how it ends.
But how it starts is Catbird is talking to the boss and he says, I got the employee political survey results.
Every employee claims to be a Democrat except for one Trump supporter.
And the boss says, send me the one Trump supporter.
And I'll make up some reason to fire him.
Well, that's all I can tell you.
I wonder who that will be.
Who will be that one employee?
How will that go?
Mysteries, mysteries.
But if you'd like to subscribe, you can do that either on X, see my profile for the button, or on Locals, where you get a lot more, including the Robots Read News comic every day, which has about five jokes a day in it.
Here's something that is so cool and potentially awesome.
So one of the biggest costs in shipping is the ship itself.
If you need to, especially now with the hoodies making people go the long way.
So the cost of shipping is gigantic and fuel is a big part of that of course.
But there's this new way to build tubes on big tankers Where it's just this big cylinder, and the cylinder doesn't move.
So it's not like a sail in the sense that it's not, you know, grabbing the wind like a sail does.
What it does is, somehow the wind just goes past it in any direction, and it would have several of these big tube towers on each boat, and the wind will get compressed into the tubes, And then somehow they can shoot it out the back of the boat and reduce the energy consumption by 50 to 90 percent.
And the wind doesn't need to be blowing in one direction, because these are tubes, so no matter what direction the wind is coming, the tube transfers it into some kind of energy that propels the boat.
There might be more details than that that I understand, but apparently they've already tested and it looks good.
Now just imagine that, a 50 to 90% reduction in the energy cost of your ship.
That's pretty amazing.
But that might be coming.
And engineers are using AI to figure out a much faster way to make nuclear power.
As you might know, it takes in the US 20 years to get approval and to design the thing and all that.
But if you use AI to design it, A BYU professor has figured out it could maybe take 10 years off the process.
10 years is not nearly enough to take off the process.
We need to take probably 15 years off the process.
If we get a nuclear power plant down to five years from idea to completion, then we would be a competitive country.
And I think you, uh, I'm sorry, I just saw a very funny meme go by on the Locals platform.
Anyway, here's another story that sounds like a small story, but it's actually a big story.
Well, there's not much bigger than that nuclear power one.
If you could get nuclear power in the U.S.
from 20 years down to 5, Maybe this is only the first half of that, but that's everything.
Basically, it's the difference between surviving and not surviving.
But ChatGPT has a new upgrade.
It's not rolled out to everybody yet, but apparently they've made some big efficiency gains in the conversational part.
Now, I've demonstrated to a lot of my subscribers on Locals conversations with ChatGPT.
Where I'll ask it a question, it'll answer, and we'll have a little conversation.
And it's kind of miraculous already.
But the one thing it doesn't do well is be fluent and fast.
So this would be me talking to AI in the current version, before the upgrade that's here now.
The current version, I'd say, hey, AI, can you tell me something about the Sumerian culture?
Then I wait.
And then I wait some more.
And then I'm not sure if it heard me, because sometimes it did and sometimes it didn't.
So now I'm not sure if I should say it again.
So I start talking, hey, and then it starts talking.
So that's how it has been up to now.
You couldn't really have a conversation with it.
You could ask it a question and get a reply.
But if you tried to go back and forth, it immediately would crap out.
So now apparently they've solved that.
So it'll give you a quick immediate response, full AI, and you don't know how much that's going to change the world.
Because let me tell you, and this is by the way, one of the best ways to know how a new technology will do.
If the bad version is wildly desired, It's going to do really well.
Yeah.
I use cell phones as the ultimate example or smartphones, especially when smartphones came out, they were basically useless.
But boy, do you want one anyway?
I mean, speaking for myself.
So if you can make a product that's useless and everybody wants it really badly, that's really predictive.
The internet was like that when it first came out.
Couldn't get to anything.
There were no websites, but boy, did everybody want it.
Really, really, really wanted it.
And I can tell you from my brief experience talking to AI, if they've solved the fluency thing, where I could have a genuine conversation that could last as long as I want, My car rides are going to be completely different.
Especially if you're single.
If you're single, this is like a transformational technology.
I don't think you understand how big this is.
Seems like a small thing.
It's not.
It's maybe the biggest thing in AI so far, if it works.
Anyway, Michael Malice was on Joe Rogan recently, and he had a great characterization of Kamala Harris as a wine mom.
And he talked about the three stages of wine moms.
You know, the first one's the happy one where you're laughing too hard.
And then there's a couple other stages after that.
And once you hear it, the wine mom reference, it's hard not to see her as a wine mom.
She, you know, even in her rally yesterday, I don't think she was drinking.
Like she didn't come across to me as she'd had a drink before the rally.
But her persona is such.
They can still sort of imagine it.
So I'm trying to be honest about the fact that sometimes she looks legitimately drunk in public.
But other times she definitely doesn't.
There's not a trace of it.
And I think yesterday there was no trace of any, you know, alcohol impairment.
But keep an eye on that.
CNN, Jake Tapper had an interview with Reid Hoffman, biggest donor.
I think he's the biggest donor now to the Democrats.
And asked him about his opinion that the head of the, who is it, the FTC, Lina Khan, the antitrust enforcer, that must be the FTC, head of the FTC.
So, Reid Hoffman is the biggest donor, or one of them, to the Democrats, and he's saying that he wants somebody who's in charge to be fired.
Now Jake Tapper says, Isn't this a little, uh, you know, I'm going to paraphrase Jake, he didn't use any of these words, but my own words for what he said was, isn't this kind of suspicious and creepy that you're giving them money, but you're also asking for something specific, like firing a person?
Now you'd want to fire that person, as he explained, because if he puts his business hat on, it's somebody who's bad for business.
So his explanation, Reid Hoffman's, was he can separate When he's talking as an expert in business, oh, I'm an expert in business, this person is bad for business, they should be replaced.
Versus when he donates, where he doesn't ask for anything, he's just donating.
And it was hilarious to watch Jake Tapper actually laugh at him because his answer was so unbelievable.
As Jake explained, well, you know, I see what you're saying, but you're one person.
You're not really, it's not like you're clones.
You're the same person who gives the money who's asking for the big change in the government.
So you could understand how people looking at this would look like you're buying some influence over the government.
And you know, Reid did the best job he could explaining that those are different domains.
And by the way, I agree with him.
I agree with him.
It's a free country, and he's transparent, because everything that was discussed, he does publicly.
He publicly funds Democrats, and he's proud of it, and he publicly thinks that the end of the FTC is a bad choice and should go.
So, I have to say, I'm really glad that CNN dug into that so we could understand it better.
But when things are fully transparent and also completely legal, it's hard for me to complain too much.
That's just the system we have.
So, I guess just being transparent is the best we can do on that.
You may know already that the political leader of Hamas was taken out.
Everybody assumes Israel did that.
But he was taken out in Tehran.
He was visiting Iran.
And staying at some guest villa or a guest home, and it went explody.
Now, I don't think Israel is taking responsibility, but they don't have to.
Nobody's going to be surprised.
But apparently his mistake was staying at an Airbnb.
The B&B, meaning bomb you in your bed.
Yeah, bomb you in your bed, Airbnb, from the air.
I don't know where the bomb came from, but it was an exploding situation, I think.
Was he shot?
I don't know.
Somehow he was murdered.
So, what do you think Iran is going to say about that?
First of all, I was surprised that that guy is the political leader of Hamas, because I thought that Salman War guy was the head, but maybe he's the military head?
So they have more than one head of Hamas, I guess.
Now, this guy who was the political head was, some say he was more moderate, but come on, how moderate could he be?
And some say he made, you know, billions of dollars by charging for illegal goods coming under the tunnel into Gaza so that, oh, Sinwar, Sinwar is his name, not Somawar.
Sinwar.
Yeah, so they've got some more Hamas leaders who have to Make sure they don't stay in an Airbnb, so to speak.
Now, of course, the Iranian military commander says, be prepared to tell the Zionists that punishment is coming.
And then Khamenei, the grand leader over there, said, following this bitter, tragic event, which has taken place within the borders of the Islamic Republic, it is our duty to take revenge.
So, have you wondered what it would take for Israel just to kill the leader of Iran?
Do you think they're close to that?
And do you think the only reason it hasn't happened so far is that they were able to anytime they wanted to, because they probably know where he is all the time.
Do you think that Israel could have killed The Supreme Leader of Iran anytime they wanted.
It's just that they thought it'd be too much blowback to be worth doing.
I feel like they're very close to thinking there won't be much blowback, meaning that they'd be better off just taking out the leader of Iran.
So I wouldn't be super surprised if that happens sometime around Election Day.
Why would it be around Election Day?
Well, to take the pressure off.
It'd be a good way to hide some really dangerous news under the news that's, you know, impossible to ignore, which is our elections.
So if I were the Supreme Leader of Iran, I'd be really uncomfortable in the next few months, because I think the green light is there.
I think if Iran is supporting the Hamas fighters, And the Hamas fighters attacked Israel.
Israel probably has a totally ethical, moral, you know, response.
So I would not be surprised if they take out the leader of Iran.
I wouldn't bet on it, but I think we're up to maybe a 30% chance that's going to happen in the next few months.
So get ready for that.
Apparently, according to somebody named Benjamin D. Craker, K-R-A-K-E-R, I'm going to pronounce that cracker because it's funny.
I don't know how he pronounces it, but cracker is just funnier.
So his name is Ben de Kraker.
So Ben de Kraker.
That sounds like a Democrat sex party, but that's just me.
So apparently there's a new kind of AI, SAM version 2, that can run on local devices, including a drone.
So now, even if your drone gets jammed, so it doesn't have GPS, let's say you've got a military drone, the AI can come on and complete the mission.
Because I assume the AI could just look at the ground and look at a map and it has in its memory and say, oh, you know, based on my map and my memory, I must be over this target.
So militarily, it looks like AI added to drones is now very much a thing.
And I don't know if AI can natively do facial recognition or if that's a separate module.
I think the facial recognition would require data about existing faces, so AI doesn't necessarily have that automatically.
But if you added facial recognition, which doesn't seem like the biggest technical obstacle, you would have a drone that could Sort of hang around an area and just look for somebody.
Maybe it could identify them first by the way they walk, or their height, or who they're with.
But then get a little closer before it lets the bullet out.
So you could imagine a drone just sort of hanging around an area that, let's say, some Hamas leader or Iranian leader is at.
And, you know, if after a couple hours nothing's there, maybe it just goes home or something.
But if somebody comes out and gets in that limousine, the drone says, wait, a bunch of important people getting in a limousine.
I care about that.
Then maybe go down for a closer look and see if I can see a face.
And then if I can see a face, guns go hot and bad things happen.
So, so that's coming.
There's a Bloomberg poll that says Harris is pulling ahead in battleground states.
On average, he notched 48% to 47% in the battleground states.
Now, what do you need to know about the Bloomberg poll?
Well, is Bloomberg a trusted name in political commentary?
Not in my opinion.
In my opinion, Bloomberg is not a credible source for either a poll or any kind of news or story.
I say that because they wrote a hit piece about me in 2016, which was clearly politically motivated, totally bullshit, and it was meant to take me out of the conversation.
So Bloomberg, here's my revenge.
I think none of you should see them as a credible source for anything political, including anything they put their name on, even if it's different people.
So if they're putting their name on this poll, and oh, big surprise, it's exactly the poll you predicted, wasn't it?
How many of you said the minute that Kamala Harris is the candidate, there will be a fake poll?
One of the ones that you know is fake.
And it will say, oh, she's already winning.
So that everybody would get excited and they would donate money and they'd think, we can win this, we can win this.
And here it is.
It's exactly when you expected it.
And it's coming from exactly the kind of entity you would expect to be fake.
Now, I don't know for sure.
If you say, can you prove that the poll is fake?
No.
It's just exactly what you predicted.
And it's coming from a non-credible source.
Bloomberg, as a brand, is not credible as somebody to tell you what's true.
So, it looks fake.
That's all we know for now.
But there are other polls.
Nate Silver's prediction, he gives it percentages.
So, his latest is that Trump has a 61.3% Chance of winning in an electoral college sense, maybe not the popular vote.
Now, is Nate Silver's prediction more reliable than Bloomberg?
Well, probably not.
Here's why.
I think Nate Silver is trying to get the right answer, as opposed to a political answer.
But, I think he looks at other people's polls, and then does his little magic calculations to figure out the odds.
But any poll that's a week old is useless, because the magic transformation of Harris from one of the people to be considered to the greatest politician since Barack Obama, and maybe better because she's a woman, because she's dancing backwards with high heels, damn it.
So, I wouldn't trust Nate Silver's current numbers But not because I don't trust Nate Silver, because I do.
I think he's actually trying to give real answers, you know, based on his, I say that based on his activity on X. He seems very cleanly able to see things on both sides and, you know, talk about the bigger picture.
So it does seem like he's trying to get the right answer and he has the right kind of tools.
But if he's looking at any polls that are a week old, they're useless.
So I would say let's put a pin in the Nate Silver prediction and say check that in a week.
See if that changes.
I'd expect it to change because the other polls that he looks at I think will be updated.
Let's see, how about the RCP average?
That's real clear politics.
So they take an average of the existing polls and they still have Trump up The highest ever.
48% versus 46% for Harris.
Now, the same problem with that one.
I assume that the average of polls includes polls that were before Harris became the superstar that they made her through brainwashing in the last few days.
So wait for that too.
We'll see.
What I expect is that the polls will be basically tied by Election Day.
Because of brainwashing.
And that's all it takes.
Mike Benz warns us about what he's calling Transition Integrity Project 2.0.
Transition Integrity Project 1.0, if I understand it correctly, was some war games that the Democrats did in which they got together and tried to game out what would happen if Trump won the election and how they could keep him from taking power.
And one of the plans, if I understand it correctly, was to field a slate of alternate electors.
Does that sound familiar?
Yeah.
When they war-gamed what they would do if Trump won, one of the explicit written things they planned to do was maybe have some fake electors.
You know, the thing that Trump got impeached for?
When they were wargaming it, they thought it was perfectly acceptable.
When Trump actually did it, they said it must be impeached.
It's an insurrection.
And now apparently something like that is being reconstituted to plan what I would call an insurrection.
But they would call the other side the insurrection.
That's how they work.
Anyway, let's talk about the ongoing framing of the use of the word weird.
And all the Democrats saying, you're weird, you're weird.
I saw somebody argue that it wasn't an organized campaign, but rather there was just one governor who said it, and then people said, oh, that's good, and I'll copy it.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe it was just somebody heard one person say it, and they said, yeah, that's good, I'll say that too.
No.
Maybe one person said it first, and it's possible that somebody at the top said, oh, that's good.
Let's try that.
But I don't think so.
I think this came from a professional, and somebody who actually is a professional in persuasion.
Didn't look like it came from a politician, because it's too good.
It's too good because it perfectly makes you not think about policy.
Sort of like the, he's going to be a dictator and steal your democracy.
The beauty of that is that there's no policy related to that.
You just scare people and then they think they know something.
Oh, I know something.
He's going to steal my democracy.
Yeah.
It's like that.
But, uh, as I posted yesterday, um, nobody, nobody normal ever changed anything.
So if you're worried about being weird, maybe stop.
Nobody normal ever did anything good.
Everything that changed the world in a good way was from somebody who was a weirdo.
So I think, you know, it's not quite the deplorable situation where the word deplorable is so fun that you might, you want to make a t-shirt about it and call yourself a deplorable.
It's not that fun.
Well, I would say that being weird is certainly not what I'm not proud of.
I'm a little bit proud of being different from other people.
Now, my view is that identity politics is stupid because it doesn't understand that people are infinitely different no matter what they have that's the same.
We're just so, so different.
Everybody.
Not just, you know, whites from blacks or men from women.
Just everybody.
Like, if you said, Scott, you're a man.
Do I have to take on everything that every man has ever done?
Like, is that my responsibility?
No, how about I am completely unique?
And that's the only thing I want to defend.
I don't want to defend that white people invented things if they weren't me.
I don't care if white people invented things.
Good for them.
But it's not good for me.
I didn't invent a damn thing.
Well, I mean, I did invent a few things, but that's not what we're talking about.
So, I think that the right framing is that Trump has always been a pirate ship populist.
Do you know what a populist is?
A populist is somebody who says, you're on my team, even if you're weird.
You're on my team, even if you're weird.
That's a populist.
Because the populace says these are things that everybody wants, and you could be weird, and you could be weird, and you could be weird, but you all want the Constitution to be ruling, right?
Okay, good.
Be as weird as you want, but we're all on the same page about this Constitution being a good thing.
Good.
So, how long have I been calling Trump supporters a pirate ship?
It's a pirate ship.
He's bringing in people that don't make sense on the same team.
It's very weird, but it's the kind of weird I love, which is everybody's different and we can, you know, be on the same team if we just have some common ambitions for the country.
But the main thing about that weird thing is it allows them to avoid policy.
It's also a sort of a projection thing.
Because, you know, there's nobody weirder than the Democrats.
So it's their standard projection thing.
And also, if you can say that Republicans are weird, it has the occult benefit of saying you don't need to talk to them.
Right?
So it's a way to further divide the country.
The weird thing is divisive.
But what I say is, The whole pirate ship is welcome.
So there's a way to turn that into a positive message and I think Trump does that actually very well.
But it is divisive.
So I think somebody needs to point out that calling one side weird without understanding their unique differences and the fact that America has some things in common.
I think it's bad messaging.
Anyway, so Kamala Harris did her big rally in Georgia, and obviously she made lots of claims, and it's your biggest moment.
So as you would expect, CNN's Daniel Dale did a very aggressive fact check on her claims.
Oh, wait.
No, he actually didn't.
I think he's on vacation.
Can somebody give me a fact check on my fact check?
I feel like Daniel Dale is sort of missing in action when Kamala Harris does anything.
Is that my imagination?
Yeah, I need you to confirm that.
Because I didn't see any stories today that Kamala Harris told 15 lies and Daniel Dale's calling them out.
Didn't you see 15 lies?
If you turned it on for like a minute, you saw nothing but lies.
I'm going to go further and say I believe 100% of what she said was a lie.
100%.
Now, when I say lie, I mean that at the very least the context is removed.
Now, does Trump do better than that?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe all politicians are 100% lying.
But I would say that what Kamala Harris says about Trump's ambitions, his plans, that's all lies.
None of that's true.
If you imagine that you can tell what's true and what's not, you've really missed the last 10 years.
None of it's true.
And if CNN doesn't have their fact checker working on this major first rally, the real introduction of Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate, how do you explain that?
And by the way, if he did fact check it, I will apologize publicly tomorrow, and I'll let you know what he said.
So if I'm wrong, that would be ideal.
I'd like to be wrong about that.
But you tell me.
CNN has a fact-checker.
Checking the presidential candidates would presumably be the top fact-check purpose, and here she is.
So where is he?
Where's that fact-checker?
Probably on vacation.
Yeah, vacation.
That's my guess.
Well, Kamala Harris did the Hillary Clinton thing where she adopted a weird accent to make herself sound more Southern.
It's just weird when you hear it.
But I will say this.
She looked presidential to me.
And already you can see a change in her, in which her demeanor has started to adjust to her lofty position in the world.
So I'm seeing her change right in front of us.
Meaning she's coached, but also the moment is big.
I noticed this when I was working at Pacific Bell.
When somebody would get promoted to the director job, which would be a pretty well-paying job, they would go from being an ordinary, weak employee that would not be impressive at all, but six months later they were acting like leaders.
And they would just change their personality entirely and just sort of adopt what they thought a leader was supposed to act like and then they would act like it and actually sell it.
You know, it didn't seem fake.
It just looks like they actually grew into the job and it happened kind of quickly.
So that's what I'm observing with Kamala Harris, that she has already shown growth into the job of being the leading candidate on the Democrat side.
And I think it's different.
I think she's got a seriousness.
I think her, I think her advisors are better.
She probably prepares more when she goes out to do something because all the stakes are higher.
So you'd expect that.
So, She had her usual statements like she wants you to have more freedom from guns.
More freedom from guns.
Let's see what I'm looking at here.
Trump is pulling 10 points better than this day in 2020.
Yeah, I don't believe any of that.
I don't believe any polls at the moment.
It's going to take a week or so for the Kamala Harris brainwashing that's just massively hitting the country to work its way into the polls.
I think that she'll probably be ahead in the polls by Election Day, unless we have new surprises, but we probably will have new surprises.
All right, so she wants to Ban the AR type rifles and she wants red flag laws to take guns from people who have, I guess, mental problems or other problems.
Universal background checks.
So that sounds like a gun grab to Second Amendment people.
And she's, unbelievably, if you want to know how well the brainwashing is working, unbelievably, she's making the case that she did more for the border than Trump.
So Kamala Harris is selling two messages at the same time.
I was not the border czar.
Are you kidding?
I wasn't the border czar.
And number two, I did way more for the border than Trump did.
You know, you might say to yourself, you need to choose one of those.
You either weren't in charge, and therefore you're not responsible, or you were in charge, in which case you are responsible.
But she's chosen the most magical position, that she wasn't the czar, But yet, she fixed the border better than Trump, despite all observation and data clearly indicating the radical opposite.
And part of the argument is that Trump got Republicans to turn down the border deal.
Now, you know that trick, right?
So they know that their base will not know what was in that border deal.
And they will think, oh, that border deal would have sealed the border.
And the Republicans turned it down for politics.
Is that what happened?
Do you think they turned it down just for politics?
Now, of course, there was a political element to it.
But do you think that plan was going to close the border?
Of course not.
No, it was.
I don't know the details, but even without looking at the details, here's what I'll say with confidence.
It would have made it more efficient to process more people into the country.
And they would have said, well, they're coming in legally because they're coming through the asylum process.
And now we process them much faster.
So we have no illegals because we turned everybody into a legal entrant by having so many people to process the asylum people that we just redefined them as from illegal to legal.
And I've solved the illegal crossings.
Now, how many Democrats would understand that's what really was going on?
And that it was a trick to get the Republicans to say no.
That's what it was.
It was just a trick.
So there's a poison pill kind of a bill.
It wasn't a real bill.
Anyway, she says, I'll put my record on immigration.
She says, I'll put my record against his any day of the week.
And everybody cheers.
I will say that the Republicans don't have a good answer to that attack.
Because when she says, you turned down the border bill, therefore you're the problem.
They don't really... I've not heard any response to it.
And I think the response is, you were just trying to redefine the illegal people as legal.
That's what the bill did.
That's how I do it.
The fastest answer is, all the bill did was let more people in, but you would call them legal.
Because they were going in through the asylum door.
Something like that.
Well, we've seen some videos now where Harris in the recent past, I don't know how long ago, was asked about reparations.
Reported for The Root asked her that.
Should black people get reparations?
And her answers are a little ambiguous.
At one point she said there have to be some form of reparations.
Something about the undiagnosed and untreated trauma of slavery and its ripple from the past.
But she did say, at least in one clip before it got Rupard, that she's not going to do something that only benefits black people.
Well, that would be not reparations, wouldn't it?
You know, at one point I floated the idea that you could do reparations, If you said the reason we're doing it is for reparations, but since we live in a country where you don't want to discriminate by race to fix race, we're going to do something that's good for anybody who's in a low economic situation, such as fix school.
So suppose she said we're going to like really fix schools for everybody who's at a bad school.
Now that would be way disproportionately beneficial to black Americans because they have the worst situation in terms of the current school situation.
So it would help them the most, but every single American of any color would benefit from having the worst schools turn into better schools.
So if you said, all right, let's call this reparations because We're doing it for the reason that black America is so behind, but we'll make sure everybody that's in low income gets the same benefit.
I could, I could live with that.
I could totally live with that.
I would even call it reparations.
Um, but you have to do it the American way.
You can't do it in an un-American way where you're just taking my money and giving it to somebody else.
Cause let me say it again.
Systemic, uh, systemic racism is real.
I do expect that it makes sense.
There's some kind of generational trauma from slavery.
And I think that that has a ripple into the current and is affecting people alive today.
Also, I believe your problems aren't so fucking special.
You don't have special fucking problems.
Are those problems?
Yeah.
Yeah.
They sound pretty bad.
I could pick anybody at random who has just as bad problems.
You got a health problem?
Were you sexually victimized?
Are you living in a high-crime neighborhood?
Yeah.
Do you have psychological problems?
Yeah.
Your magical black problems are not special.
They might be unique, but they're not fucking special.
They're not magical special fucking problems.
If you tell me you want to fix the problem that school is bad everywhere, that's not magic.
That's just common sense.
So if you want to do something that's common sense, I'm all in.
But no, I don't want to feed your special magical fucking problems.
I don't care.
I have no interest in your special magical fucking problems.
So, that's where I stand.
Let's talk about Venezuela.
So you know the situation there.
Maduro, the so-called dictator, stole the election, say everybody who's observing it, and that the challengers really won, but Maduro is claiming they didn't.
And Maduro went further, he says the CIA, he just made this statement the other day, or yesterday, he says the CIA killed John F. Kennedy, tried to kill Donald Trump, and wants to coup his government.
I have a question for you.
Has every populist presidential candidate of the United States been shot?
Because I was trying to think of presidents who've been shot.
All right, so you got Trump, he's populist.
You got Reagan, I would call him a populist.
And Kennedy was not maybe a populist in the normal way, but he was unusually popular.
Like popular beyond just the party.
So in a way he was like a populist in that sense.
Didn't Teddy Roosevelt get shot?
And wasn't he a populist?
Do all of our populist presidents get shot?
Am I wrong?
I'm not good on presidential history, but it feels like everybody who Was a populist got shot.
So does Maduro have a, uh, does he have a point that the populist presidents of the United States are going to get shot by their own intelligence agency?
I'd say he's got a, a point worthy of discussion.
I don't know what's true, but it's certainly worth a discussion.
And are they, is the United States trying to coup his government?
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
Yeah, obviously.
Now, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
It doesn't mean it's bad for Venezuela if the United States is trying to coup him and get him out of office.
That's a separate conversation.
But yeah, of course.
Now, Chris Murphy, he was the big Kamala Harris advisor, I guess.
He's making the case that Biden cleverly was hurting Maduro by removing the sanctions so he could have money and run for power again in a country that was doing better because the sanctions had been removed.
Now, you need to help me connect the dots because I can't quite connect them in my own head.
But Chris Murphy is basically arguing that under Trump, Who had sanctions on Venezuela.
There was no leverage because it was just sanctions and they were going to do what they were going to do.
But the Biden cleverly took the sanctions off in return for a promise to hold elections, fair and free elections.
So what did Maduro do?
He held totally rigged elections.
So he got all the money from Biden with the sanctions removed.
And then he didn't give anything back because he did a fake election.
So Chris Murphy is saying that this is a big move in the right direction.
Because I think the argument is that it rallied the opposition.
So now the opposition might be strong enough to topple the dictator because he had the fake election which activated the public.
Do you buy that?
Here's the thing.
You don't know what would have happened if Trump had been in office and kept the sanctions on.
What would have happened?
Don't know.
Don't know.
But we'll never know, because the sanctions were removed.
Now, was that a terrible situation for the citizens to be in?
Yes.
Were the citizens better off with the sanctions removed?
I assume so.
So it did give some relief to the Venezuelans, and it did unleash this gigantic opposition party, and it did reveal that Maduro was cheating in the election in an obvious way.
Is that enough to get the control of the country away from Maduro?
I don't know.
If it does, then it's going to look kind of smart.
If it doesn't, Might look less smart, but maybe not much better or worse than the sanctions idea.
Maybe there was just nothing you could do.
Maybe there was just nothing you could do.
But what I expect is that there will be an assassination attempt on President Maduro, It'll be a young male who doesn't have anything on social media.
There's going to be some sketchy assassination attempt, I think, or some CIA-backed coup, but we'll see.
I saw a video of police officers allegedly taking off their official shirts to join the protesters, but I don't think we can necessarily believe those are real.
Those could be CIA planted.
Maybe it happened in one place and they're trying to make it look like it's bigger.
So we'll keep an eye on Venezuela.
But to me, the big takeaway is that governments can rig elections and still stay in power.
That's a pretty big takeaway.
Governments can rig an election right in front of you in a way that's obvious, and they can remain in power.
And if you think the court system in Venezuela is going to Help out.
I wouldn't expect it any more than the American court system and for largely similar reasons.
All right.
Um, there is a, uh, social media site called Gab, you know, sort of a ex Twitter competitor kind.
And, uh, allegedly the shooter, the Trump assassination shooter Crooks, uh, was allegedly had an account there and allegedly it was more, um, Pro-Biden, anti-Trump.
But the authorities are saying that they have not validated that it was definitely his.
I don't know how long that takes.
A little suspicious they don't know if it's his.
But I guess the CEO of Gab wanted everybody to know, but we don't know if it's true.
Don't know.
Well, there's a lot of intrigue going on in this Project 2025 situation, which, as you know, the Heritage Foundation put together a 900-page document of what Trump should do if elected.
A lot of it was more extreme right than Trump's position, so there was a big conflict there.
And it allowed the Democrats to say, see, see, look at all this extreme stuff Trump wants to do.
Then Trump would say, no, no, that's not my plan.
I like them, and some of them worked for me, and we're all friends, but that's their plan, not mine.
Now, of course, that didn't work at all, because if there's somebody prominent with connections to Trump who have an extreme plan, the Democrats, reasonably, I would say, are going to say, look, look, this is what you could get if Trump's elected.
So, I think the Democrats had, unfortunately, a good point.
That this group that were associated with Trump wouldn't put together this set of ideas unless they thought there was some chance it could happen.
You know, I imagine they left out any ideas that were literally impossible, even if they liked them.
So it would send a message that maybe Trump could embrace those ideas later.
So it puts him in an awkward situation.
But apparently the The person who was heading that project has stepped down from the role of being in charge of it.
Now, that doesn't mean that the project's dead, because it's already written.
Basically, it's a document, so when it's done, it's sort of done.
You know, they've done whatever, publicly.
But the Trump campaign was trying to dance on their grave a little bit.
You know, get them to back down even further so that there's more distance between the campaign and their messaging.
And so Trump and his campaign said, Reports of Project 2025's demise would be greatly welcomed.
So this came from the campaign managers for Trump.
Would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign.
It will not end well for you, they said.
So this is campaign managers Chris Luss, Evita, and Susie Wiles.
And they wrote, quote, President Trump's campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with it.
Right, so Trump's people trying to put some distance to it.
But, apparently there's some extra intrigue involved in this story.
I don't know the details, but Mike Certevich is all over this, and he says Trump's campaign manager, once Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, jailed, wanted Trump indicted for January 6th, and is now purging all of the loyal former Trump staffers from prior elections.
So, there's some issue about the people working on Project 2025, whether they were loyal soldiers who should have been wrapped into the administration, and that maybe the Trump's campaign managers are not the best pick for staffing, etc.
Now, I don't have an independent opinion of that, so I'm just going to tell you that that controversy is swirling around.
The questions I would ask would be, Why would Trump have somebody as his campaign manager who thought that he should be indicted for January 6?
Now, my best guess is that he said at some point, OK, this was a total mistake.
I misread this.
January 6 was not what I thought it was.
I'm all in on your side, President Trump.
So probably Like a lot of other Republicans who were anti-Trump on January 6th, because people had a lot of criticism, a lot of it deserved.
And I think just people came to terms with it and probably just said, you know what?
I was totally against it.
I spoke out against it, but now that I see all the evidence, I've got a different opinion.
Okay.
We work together.
So something like that probably happened, but I'd be worried about it.
I don't know about the Ken Paxton part, that's a little alarming.
But at the same time, I would say that the Project 2025's messaging was very unpleasant for the Trump campaign's chances.
I think it hurt them, and therefore was bad, because it gave an easy target for the bad guys to go after.
Now there is an argument that Trump should not try to give anything to anybody.
Don't bow to any pressure from the outside.
And it was sort of outside pressure that made him disavow the 2025 project.
But I think that Trump is the only one who gets to say what his message is.
And if there's somebody confusing his messaging, they have to be removed.
So to me, Trump's campaign against Project 2025 is completely, completely appropriate and has nothing to do with the people, has nothing to do with the ideas in it.
It's just you can't have two campaigns.
There's only one person who should be saying what Trump's, you know, strategies are and policies, and it should be Trump.
As the campaign is communicating.
You can't have this, like, shadow campaign that's trying to influence the president in a variety of ways.
That's a bad, bad, bad, bad look.
So, we'll see if anything changes there.
I saw Mike Benz and, of course, other people, politicians, asking, tell us who's in charge of the stand down order in the Secret Service?
You know, who's in charge of saying, you know, don't Don't cover the roof.
You know, stuff like that.
And I'm going to push back on that.
Yes, we want to know everything about who did what.
We all agree on that, right?
We all want more information, not less.
And we want it faster, not slower.
But these are real human beings.
These are citizens who probably Most of them did their job.
There may be a problem that happened that should not have happened, probably.
There may be some communication issues that people are arguing about, like, no, you told me this, but no, you told me that.
I think we need to be patient.
We don't want to be.
I hate it.
But because they're citizens, and they may have been loyal patriotic service members for a long time, people who've been in the military, you know, people who've been in secret service for decades maybe, these are not the people I wanna play fast and loose with because there's some political advantage.
I would like to see the secret service and the local police and everybody involved be 100% protective.
And I don't care how long that takes.
So I will wait.
If it takes a year to figure out who is guilty so we don't throw somebody on the bus just because their name came up, I'm good with that.
I'm good with that.
Is that acceptable that it takes a year to find out?
Well, not as a person who wants to know what happened and I want to know it now.
But on the other hand, I will not support throwing anybody under the bus until they know exactly what happened.
And they need to know that internally before they tell us any names.
By the time I hear a name for the first time, I want to hear everybody's cleared, or we're firing somebody and here's the name, then you can tell me.
But I do not want to hear any names until you know exactly what happened.
Now, does that give them the opportunity to hide the information forever?
Yes.
And I'm completely aware that that's part of the risk, but I just can't take that group of people who literally put their, this is a group of people who put their body in front of a bullet to protect your own leaders.
I'm not going to throw them under the bus.
Take as long as you need.
But we're impatient.
We can be impatient.
All right, let's do a little Update on the brainwashing and the Democrat game so far.
Let's see.
We have confirmed that the search engines are rigged, as we expected they would be.
Google says it's some kind of anomaly or mistake, or I don't know, maybe we should improve this.
So Google looks like they're lying, and it looks like they rigged their search engines.
If you look for Trump, it'll show you Harris' accomplishments.
If you searched for Trump assassination, it would just hide it like it didn't exist.
Meta hid the actual image of Trump pumping his fist.
So every look looks like it's gamed, and that would be enough to take the election.
Let me say it again.
I don't think there's any chance the search engines are going to be fixed.
They'll just kick the can and change how they do it and say they fixed it, but they didn't.
And this is enough to determine the race.
So if nothing changed, Harris wins.
Because the search engines are obviously gamed.
Then we've got the mail-in-vote advantage, which we assume allows massive cheating, and Democrats have an advantage in that, because they're more mail-in-voting organized, let's say, both legally and maybe illegally.
So that should be good for Harris.
Then you've got the fake polls.
Bloomberg, I think, is non-credible as a polling entity, or anything really involving politics are not credible.
I don't know about their financial reporting, but for the politics, you should not consider them credible.
So we got a fake poll, we got fake social media, we got fake search engines, and fake voting, in the sense that mail-in could, you know, open you up for fraud.
Then let's check on the brainwashing.
The brainwashing is telling us that Harris was better on the border than Trump.
Daniel Dale's going on summer vacation, so there's no fact-checking.
And I think.
You can fact-check me on my fact-check there.
And the brainwashing says Trump's going to steal democracy, and most Democrats think that's true.
So on the brainwashing side, much stronger game on the Democrat side.
We know that they've also primed the public so identity is all that matters.
So Kamala Harris should do great with women and great with black Americans and great with Indian Americans.
Just because she is those things.
So I don't think that people really make decisions based on policy.
They don't even know the policy.
Their weird persuasion probably works a little bit.
They've erased Trump's assassination energy that totally changed the story so that you can just move on past and forget it.
And in Act Blue, one of the big money situations, appears to be a money laundering operation per OMG, O'Keefe Media Group.
So they've got evidence that shows that they're using fake names of elderly people To give massive donations that would not be legal if they came from one person or entity.
But they can say, oh, this came from Grandma Jones, who never answers her mail.
And they can just put out massive amounts of money fraudulently.
OK.
So they have almost a complete dominant control over the brainwashing apparatus.
And I don't think that Trump has an answer to that.
You might later, but at the moment Harris has a pretty clear path to victory.
When people were asked what are Kamala Harris's big successes, Nobody knows.
So if you stop a young person and say, who are you going to vote for?
If they're a Democrat, they're going to say, Kamala Harris.
Do you like her?
Oh, I'm so excited.
She's great.
She's great.
What has she ever accomplished?
Well, I can't think of anything.
I can't think of anything.
So maybe that's something you could hammer on better.
Here's a brainwashing update on one guy.
So I had a little back and forth with a gentleman named Kevin, Kevin Gogan, I think.
And in my exchange, he wanted to remind me that Trump was an insurrectionist.
And he said to me, in reply to a comment, he said, oh, maybe I was just imagining that coup attempt on January 6th, 2021.
So he said to me, Maybe I was just imagining that there was a coup on January 6th.
Well, I'm not going to let that alone.
So here was my response.
No, you were brainwashed.
No one tries to conquer a country by trespassing in one building and doing some paperwork about alternate electors.
Who told you that's how the most well-armed citizens in the country do a coup?
And then here's the active part.
So by the way, you should copy that form because it's the shortest explanation that gets to everything you need to know.
But here's the payoff.
So here's your little persuasion lesson.
If you can anticipate how somebody is going to respond and you call it out before they do it, it really messes them up.
So here's what I did.
After giving my argument, I said the following.
To prove you are brainwashed.
See, this is the clever part.
To prove you're brainwashed, please explain to me that some of the protesters were violent.
That's irrelevant, but you have been conditioned to say it.
Don't let me down.
Go.
Because you know what would have happened if I hadn't said that?
He would have said, they were violent.
It was a violent insurrection.
Are you saying there was no violence?
And then we'd be in that dumb argument about You know, 1% of the people were violent, so therefore the other 99% must have been insurrectionists.
So I'm just saying, that's dumb, but you can prove you're brainwashed by bringing it up anyway.
So, I'm basically, you know, salting that earth so that he can't use the argument that's basically a dodge.
It's not really an argument.
Anyway, he disappeared after that.
How dumb are Democrat voters?
Well, let me give you an idea.
So Harris said in her speech, on day one, I will work to take on price gouging and bring down costs.
She's talking about corporations.
We will ban more of those hidden fees.
We will take on corporate landlords and cap unfair rent increases.
And we will take on big pharma to cap prescription drug costs for all Americans.
Wow, that sounds like good stuff, doesn't it?
I think I might vote for myself.
Look at all that good stuff she's going to do.
And then Stephen Miller, advisor for Trump, posted this on her post about that.
And Stephen Miller said to Kamala Harris, you're literally in office right now and have been for the last four years.
Yeah, what about all those things?
Is there any reason you're not doing them now?
Why not do them now?
You've been in charge for four years.
You've got another few months.
Now would be good.
Any day now.
Jump on that.
Now, I'm joking when I say that these are good ideas.
These are actually civilization-ending ideas.
If you put price caps on companies, do you know what happens?
All bad things.
You're messing with the free market and it's just all bad.
What happens if you put rent control?
People stop building buildings because you can't make money as a landlord.
It's the worst thing you could do to the economy is rent control.
It's the worst.
It would be hard to come up with a worse idea for civilization than rent control.
That'd be tough to top.
You've destroyed your whole country with that.
Let's see, what else?
We'll ban more of those hidden fees.
Well, I don't like hidden fees, but telling corporations what they can charge for their products seems a little bit interfering.
Maybe competition would be a better way to get there.
All right.
So you heard the claim that one of the reasons that Kamala Harris is so successful on the border is that she got big corporations to donate billions, not donate, but to invest billions of dollars in Central America because those billions will, you know, cause jobs and better economics so people won't need to leave for economic reasons.
Wait a minute.
I thought they were coming here for asylum.
But why would you be working on the economic causes if that's not the cause?
Huh, well that's confusing.
But, so do you believe that Kamala Harris got big corporations to invest billions more dollars than they were going to invest?
Let's ask Daniel Dale to fact check that.
Daniel?
Um, Daniel?
Well, he's still missing.
Oh, he's still missing.
Yeah, Daniel Dale's not around to fact-check this for us.
It's almost like he only appears when Trump is going to do something.
Anyway, let me give you the Dilbert filter on this.
It used to be my job to collect data and to present things that made my boss look good.
So let me explain how probably this happened.
Now I don't know, but this is the Dilbert filter.
So if you know how the, the real world works, that's what the Dilbert filter is.
It's like the real world where all the, all the mistakes and selfishness and the lying and the ass covering, that's the real world.
So the Dilbert filter looks like this.
You talk to the big companies that have already invested in those areas and you say to them, What do you plan to invest in these areas going forward?
Because remember, they're already investing.
And then they say, oh, well, our normal business is, you know, we put in half a billion, you'd put in another billion.
And then you say, all right, so I guess I got you to put in a collective, you know, 20 billion.
And then the people will say, well, I'm not sure if you got us to do it.
That's what we were already planning on doing.
Cause we have operations there and they need to be upgraded.
So we were sort of going to put that money there anyway.
All right.
All right.
So can I talk you into putting extra money?
And they say extra money, like more investment.
Yeah.
Cause that would look really good and really be helpful.
So then what do the corporations do?
Do they commit to the extra investment and then invest it?
If it's not economical, Why would they do that?
The companies didn't become charities.
The companies are going to put in exactly the amount of money that they think will make them more money in return.
Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.
So, those companies have the following opportunity.
You can make the maybe future President of the United States angry at you if you say, no, I'm not putting an extra penny in.
We're just going to do the money we were going to do normally.
Or you say, uh, how much are you talking about?
Well, how about another billion?
And you're, you know, many billion dollar company.
And you say, sure.
I mean, obviously it would have to pencil out, but absolutely put us down for a billion extra.
So then they compile the list and they start with all the money that they were going to invest anyway.
So this is totally fake.
They were going to do this anyway.
And then on top of that, they boost it by the amount that the CAO has promised, but they promised with a condition.
That if it pencils out, I'll put another billion in.
But it won't pencil out.
So they won't put a billion in.
But you won't know about that until later.
You'll just know that less was spent than you wanted.
Or they'll just make up a number and say, yeah, totally, it was spent.
Trust us.
They could just make up the number.
So if you believe that a bunch of corporations said, I'm going to put billions of dollars into this thing that doesn't make economic sense to us, you're not experienced.
You might be young.
That's not how the real world works.
The real world is all fake data.
All fake, all the time.
That was my job.
My job was working for two different corporations for 16 years, and I was mostly in charge of pulling data together from my bosses.
It's all fake, because you can pull together any data you want, make any story you want, and people can't check, because you're the one who has the data and they don't.
So as long as you're the only one with the data, data is never going to be real.
Never has been, never will be, except weird coincidental times.
All right, that's the Dilbert filter that nothing actually has happened with that funding.
There was an interesting story of a young man who did a test of wearing a Trump-supporting shirt to a Biden event, and then he did the opposite.
He wore a Biden-Harris shirt to a Trump event.
How do you think it went?
You already know, don't you?
He wears a Trump event in the midst of a bunch of Biden supporters, Harris supporters, and he gets verbally just abused and somebody actually threw water on him.
And he wasn't causing trouble.
He was just trying to be friendly and was totally physically and verbally abused like you've never seen in your life.
So then he changes his shirt, puts a Biden-Harris shirt on, and he goes to a Trump rally.
What do you think happened?
Laughter?
Slaps on the back?
Shaking hands?
Good times?
That's true.
And I'll bet you could recreate that, I'll bet you could recreate that a thousand times and it would look the same.
The Trump supporters are not looking for a fight.
You know, they have preferences for sure, but it's not about you.
It's not about you individually.
But somehow, somehow the Democrats have made every Trump supporter a monster.
They've divided the country like nobody's ever divided the country before.
I mean, just remarkably.
And you can see that the Trump supporters are not, they're just not primed to see every single person who wears a Biden shirt as a monster.
We think they might be brainwashed.
We think they might be bad at analyzing things.
We think they could maybe be turned.
Maybe I could talk you out of it.
Maybe if you saw our side plus your side, you might have a different opinion.
So there's definitely a difference in evil.
The Democrats appear to be mentally having some emotional and mental problems way beyond the average.
And that's backed up by data, by the way.
And there seems to be some, let's say, impulse or reflex toward evil that makes sense if you think you're fighting Hitler, which is what they've been told for years.
You're fighting Hitler.
So, I mean, if Hitler shows up at your gathering, you might throw some water on him.
But the Democrats, the Republicans don't have that.
They think if you change your mind, That's all they want.
They just want you to like their policies better, or at least understand them, or at least be a good American and, you know, don't lie all the time.
All right.
There's a study, doesn't matter if it's a study, big study that says the U.S.
military is not prepared for a world war with China or Russia.
Good.
Do you know what would scare me?
If we were prepared for a world war, The last fucking thing I want is to be prepared for a world war with China or Russia.
Do you know what I want?
I want to know that if we get a war with China or Russia, we're all fucking dead.
Everybody in China and everybody in the United States, all dead.
Everybody in Russia, everybody in China, everybody in the United States, dead.
That's the only situation I want.
I want to know that we only have nukes, and we don't have enough tanks, we don't have enough ships, and we don't have enough drones.
I want to know we're underpowered, so that our only choice, if you push us, is we're going to take you out to hell.
That's the safest world for me.
Because if we have a conventional army that looks like it could win a battle, we might be really, really tempted to use it in some situation, and I don't want that to happen.
Because making war with China or Russia would be crazy.
And even a proxy war with Russia is pretty dumb.
Well, there's a robot dentist that apparently can do its work way faster than a human.
And as I saw in the story, somebody said, somebody is really brave.
Can you imagine being the volunteer?
Yeah.
So you want to use a robot and AI to replace the crown on my teeth.
And it's never done anything like that.
Sure.
Go ahead.
No, thank you.
No thank you at all, but at some point I think the robot dentist will be better than the human one.
I expect that.
All right, that ladies and gentlemen is all the news for the day.
I hope I amused and delighted you, and I'm going to say hi to the locals people privately, the subscribers, and bye now to people on X And on Rumble and YouTube.
If you haven't bought my book, God's Debris, The Complete Works, you're missing the best summer reading of your life.
