God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Reopening Nuclear Plants, Trump Assassination Attempt, Secret Service Failures, Employment Statistics, Kamala Harris Interview Blackout, Doug Emhoff, Trump's NABJ Strategy, Democrat Identity Politics, Frank Luntz, Governor Josh Shapiro, Ellen Greenberg Death, US Election Integrity, Venezuela Election Integrity, Israel Iran Tensions, MSNBC Lies Challenge, Anti-Trump Democrat Lawfare, Year 2300 Climate Fears, Anti-Trump Project 2025, 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
Up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass.
A tankard shells or 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 of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sipping.
It happens now.
Go.
All right, this will be a test of your social media awareness.
When I say better, and I pronounce it that way, it's better.
Who talks like that?
Who says, instead of better, says better?
Andrew Tate.
Andrew Tate.
He has a very interesting speaking style.
Well, I would like to give a little advice to anybody who's live streaming.
Do we have anybody listening who's a live streamer also?
I've been using the Rumble Studio for a number of months now, and like any new technology, it's going to have, you know, a bugger here or there.
But I got to tell you, it just instantly increases your income for the same amount of work.
So if you're only streaming on one platform, Instead of using Rumble Studio, which is free, by the way, doesn't cost anything.
It's just on your browser.
And the Rumble Studio lets you do what I'm doing right now, which is live stream to Rumble and YouTube and X and Locals all at the same time.
So that's pretty awesome.
So all I did was push a couple of buttons and it's live streaming on more platforms and the other platforms are monetized.
So X is monetized in the comments, you know, for the advertisements.
So I basically just push one button and my live stream income goes up by 40%.
So if you're not using it because you don't want a 40% increase in your income, I don't know why you wouldn't use it.
I mean, even if you think, oh, it's newish, it might have a bug here or there, like everything in the world.
But for the things which are attempting to do multiple platforms at one time is by far the best solution.
There's nothing close, really.
So go get yourself some free money.
My favorite story of the last day was the French pole vaulter who was lost by a wiener.
He literally has a large penis.
There's no other way to tell the story.
It is so large that when he pole vaulted, it got stuck on the pole and knocked the pole down because he cleared the pole except for his large penis that was hanging down.
Now here's the fun part.
Apparently, because his exercise shorts are kind of thin, you can see a perfect outline of his entire wang.
Which they captured at the moment of contact with the bar that he was crossing.
So we actually got a perfectly clear image of a pole vaulter's penis as outlined by his shorts.
We still don't have a clear picture of a UFO.
Did you see the one recently that looked like it was a clear picture, a video, of a UFO?
And I looked at that thing and I thought, It doesn't look like a UFO to me.
It looks like some kind of balloon or something.
And then separately, people showed videos that were real videos of tents.
Like an actual camping tent that if the wind catches it, they can actually become airborne.
So you can watch like an actual complete tent.
Just be airborne and flying around like it's a UFO.
So, it's easier to get a picture of a Paul Valter's penis than it is to get a picture of a UFO.
Whatever that means.
Well, there's research out of Cambridge.
SciTech Daily is reporting that The love hormone called oxytocin, that's the chemical in your body when you're in love and you're rubbing up against people you love and that chemical comes out and you feel good.
You're like, Oh, it feels good to rub against people I love.
So that's oxytocin.
And it turns out if you give that to people, certain people, uh, it can fix their obesity and their behavioral problems and their postnatal depression.
You know what else it can help on?
Again, Here's some research you could have saved some time and just ask me.
If you give people oxytocin, it solves basically all of their problems.
Oxytocin is literally the drug that makes you feel everything's okay, even if it isn't.
So yes, if you give that drug to people, it will solve most of their problems.
And am I surprised that it helps with obesity or behavior problems?
No!
Because I've long had the theory that I call the pleasure unit principle, which is humans have to have a certain amount of pleasure or else they'll just go crazy.
And that's why if they don't have access to any other kind of pleasure, they'll do drugs or they'll have, you know, casual sex with people they barely know because people need pleasure.
It's not optional.
We just have to have it a little bit.
Or we'll do anything to get it.
We'll break laws.
We'll kill people.
We'll do whatever we have to do to get a little bit of pleasure.
We'll just build so we need it.
So yeah, you give somebody this pleasure drug and it should make them need less pleasure in other domains because they are a little bit satisfied.
Makes sense to me.
Here's another one that seems like, um, maybe it's a big deal.
So, you know, the biggest, um, indicator in the world of how everything's going to be in the future is energy, energy prices and energy availability, especially battery storage.
That's why I talk about it so much.
So here's another, Battery storage kind of device made from bricks.
Turns out if you just heat a brick until it's super hot and then you put it in an insulated container, it will just stay hot.
So you can essentially store heat for when you need it later.
And apparently it's pretty efficient.
You just heat up a bunch of bricks and keep them insulated and they'll be almost just as warm when you check on them the next day.
And then you can use it to heat things and do whatever you do with heat.
So apparently there's a Stanford-led study on these fire bricks, they call them, and it's really promising.
It looks like there'd be no new technology that needs to be invented.
It's more of an engineering thing, right?
You just take this idea and you engineer it, and you're good to go.
You know the Truth Social platform that President, ex-President Trump is on?
They're introducing a new feature for streaming.
I didn't quite know from the The news on it, whether it means live streaming, or does it just mean a streaming TV of TV shows that they think you should want to see that maybe are not so available in other places?
So we'll wait and see what that means, but it could be kind of a big deal if they create a streaming service for content that you wouldn't see in other places.
This is another big deal.
We'll get to the politics next.
But there's a shuttered up nuclear power plant in Michigan.
And as you know, a number of nuclear power plants have been closed in the past, but it's going to be reopened fairly soon.
And the plant's owner, Holtec International, they're going to open it in late 2025.
So next year, it will be reopened, which is a big, big deal.
If you can reopen existing plants, you don't just get the nuclear plant.
And I guess the government, it was helpful with some loans and stuff, but you don't just get the electricity.
Um, this one is going to add small modular units.
So here, the big play is not that you reopen an old one.
That's cool.
And it's a step in the right direction.
But the big play is that once it's opened, You've got an approved nuclear site, so you can add small nuclear, small modular nuclear, nuclear units to it to vastly improve the energy and the safety, really.
And you can just keep growing that way.
So this is a big, big deal in terms of a model for how to get nuclear as fast as possible.
So we'll keep an eye on this.
The small modular nuclear units, which have not really been invented yet, but are pretty close.
That's the bigger story.
So if you're following this Trump assassination attempted assassination sniper story, is it my imagination or is everything we learn about it make it sound worse than the day before?
And the fact that it just dribbles out is just hilarious at this point.
You know, it started out with, there might have been some kind of communication problem.
And then it turned into, well, you know, we think the police maybe didn't communicate so well with the Secret Service.
And then we're like, well, maybe, maybe it was a management problem.
You know, they knew there was somebody there, but somebody gave a, you know, a stand down order.
There's no evidence of that, but maybe.
So we all, we thought it was bad.
Right.
From the moment the first bullet hit the president's ear, everybody knew that something bad had happened.
And, you know, there was some, let's say, let's say some capability was not quite satisfied there.
So they weren't quite doing the job.
So we all knew that.
But as of today, it just keeps getting funnier.
So apparently we just learned, and why did it take us this long to learn this?
I think yesterday we found out that it was the first time they'd had counter snipers at a Trump rally.
Now, why did it take so long to learn that?
Didn't you just normally assume that it was normal?
And that they probably had a crack team who was used to working together.
And so they would have, you know, their situation would be all worked out.
They'd know how to operate together.
Nope.
It's the first time they'd ever put a counter snipers on a Trump rally while he's a candidate.
Not while he was president, but while he's a candidate.
And, and then we also learned.
Instead of having radios where the local police, which were part of the operation, could easily talk to the snipers and the Secret Service, they were told to just use their cell phones and text.
And you know how easy it is to send a text when there's an emergency.
Have you ever tried to text somebody really, really fast because it's an emergency?
I don't know about you, but my thumbs do all the wrong stuff then.
No, no, stop autocorrecting.
No, damn it.
No, that's not the word.
Autocorrect.
Yeah, the autocorrect alone would want to make me shoot the phone instead of the bad guys.
But yeah, the story just keeps getting worse.
And I continue to say that the Dilbert filter is the most predictive.
The Dilbert filter, which is just bad management and employees acting like regular employees, like everybody does everywhere.
And maybe the people who were most wrong were the professional snipers who weighed in right after the thing.
They said, oh, let me tell you how there's no way this could have happened on its own.
This had to be some kind of an inside plot because there's no way these professional snipers could be operating so poorly and so unprofessionally.
To which I said, have you spent five minutes in the real world?
Have you ever been part of an organization of high-level professionals?
Not as good as you'd think.
Nope.
There's no place you can go with all the high-level professionals who've been highly trained and have years of experience.
And it's not stupid.
Every organization is stupid.
That's why Dilbert exists.
I don't know if you know the origin story for the Dilbert comic.
I was working at a bank and everything was, you know, crazy and ridiculous.
And I just thought, well, I have some bad luck here.
I got a job at the craziest, most ridiculous business in the whole world.
I can solve this by moving to a different company.
You can laugh at me.
It's okay.
I was young.
I didn't know any better.
So here was my brilliant idea.
I would move from the bank to the local phone company at the time, Pacific Bell, and I wouldn't have any more of these big company problems.
Pretty, pretty good plan, wasn't it?
It's so dumb when I think about it.
Like I literally, the problem was I was young.
And when you're young, you sort of believe what people tell you because you haven't, you haven't seen it falsified yet.
So I thought, well, all these big corporate professional places, you know, if I go to a good one, I'm not going to see any management problems.
They obviously have the best management, the best employees.
So, you know, it's a high paid job.
I mean, it's going to be some really efficient operations.
Nope.
So when I got to the second big company that had nothing to do with the first company and the problems were exactly the same.
The names were different, you know, there were different acronyms for projects and stuff, but it was all the same.
And that's how Dilbert was born.
Once I realized that two completely unrelated companies would have all the same dynamics, that was the birth of the Dilbert comic.
Because I presumed that it was universal.
I didn't know.
So it wasn't until the comic got out there and other people kept saying, you must have a spy at my company.
That's when I realized, oh yeah, it really is universal.
So I was right.
I just guessed that there was more of it than the two companies that I had experienced.
So no, if you thought that these snipers were crack teams of professionals who would never make an easy mistake, you haven't spent much time in the real world.
I'm sorry.
All right.
We got the drunks coming in with the all capital letters.
All right.
You know, everything's easier on social media when you realize that the people who write in all caps are drunk.
Watch.
So the trolls will come in, because they always do, and they'll be in all caps, and they'll be yelling, and they'll never stop.
They'll do it all the way through the show.
They're just drunk.
That's exactly what it is.
Somebody's writing in all caps, check my YouTube stream.
Thank you.
I don't think I will.
All right.
So, the Heritage Foundation economist E.J.
Antoni, I guess he told Breitbart News that most of the job growth Has been foreign-born workers.
He says we've lost 1.2 million jobs among native-born Americans, so all of the job gains, 1.3 million, have gone to foreign-born workers.
Really?
Now, I don't know if foreign-born includes.
If that includes people who are legal citizens, or here legally on green cards or whatever, I don't have a problem with that.
That would suggest that there were jobs that were hard to fill and skilled people are coming into the country.
That's good news.
It's good news if we're bringing in skilled people from other countries.
But if they are non-citizens and they're not here legally and they're taking the jobs, that would be bad.
So I guess I have an additional question about this.
We want High-quality, hard-working immigrants.
That's basically the power of this country.
It came from exactly that.
So we just don't want to do it the stupid way, where you open the border and let everybody stream in.
All right, ABC was going to do a debate with Harris and Trump.
But Trump said no on ABC, doesn't like them, but he wants to do it on Fox News.
Fox News says yes, but Harris says no.
So now they have this weird situation where they both say yes to a debate, but no to a debate, because they only want to do it with their preferred network.
I would think, I agree with Anthony Scaramucci who said this is probably just negotiating and probably they'll end up with some kind of debate that's neither ABC nor Fox News or maybe it's just both.
Both wouldn't be bad.
So I think there'll be a debate.
I think that neither of them can say no to the debate.
All right.
It's been 13 days, I think J.D.
Vance said this, 13 days since Kamala Harris did an interview.
Well, 13 days since she became the presumptive nominee without doing an interview.
Now, can you really imagine anybody running for president and two weeks go by and they haven't sat down for an interview and there's no other candidate on their side?
How do you explain that?
There's only one explanation.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Her team, the Democrats, managed to find the only two candidates in the world, first Biden and then Harris, who can't do what every other candidate in the world can do, which is talk to the press.
The only time there was somebody else who couldn't do that was Federman.
When he had major medical problems.
But even Fetterman now can certainly talk to the press anytime he wants to, because he's recovered.
But how in the world did the Democrats land on the only two people who can't have a conversation with a reporter, the most basic thing that a politician needs to do?
The only two.
I mean, have you heard of anybody else who was not qualified to talk to the press?
And I think the real problem is going to be when she talks about anything that has to do with energy or the economy, because I don't think she's good at explaining things.
Have you ever met somebody who was very smart, but they couldn't explain things?
Does anybody have that experience?
Because I think, you know, I think Kamala Harris's native intelligence is probably, you know, average-ish, a little bit above average, maybe.
But there are people who have, who are smart, sort of in a general way, but absolutely cannot explain even the simplest thing.
You know those people, right?
She seems to be one of them.
Because I can't tell if it's a lack of knowledge, or that she's freezing up when she's in some kind of a tense situation, or what.
But I'm starting to think she's one of these people who can't explain anything.
And it wouldn't matter what it was.
Because have you noticed that every time you see her talking word salad, it's always in the context of trying to explain something.
It's not even her opinion.
When she's just talking about her opinion, she does okay.
I would like this.
We shouldn't do this.
I like that.
But when she's trying to explain to you why her opinion makes sense, or to give you a lay of the land, here's our situation, here's how inflation works, off the rails immediately.
So if you're a reporter and you want to send her off the rails, ask her not just her opinion, which would be easy, just say, can you explain How the debt works for this country, and then explain how your policies would pay down the debt.
That would be the end of her.
Could Trump do that?
Yeah, he could.
Because he would bullshit and he would change the topic if he needed to.
But he also knows enough that he would say stuff like, we've got to cut expenses and we're going to boost GDP and stuff like that.
Now, I don't think that's enough.
So Trump would be full of shit because he doesn't have any plan for the debt either.
Nobody does.
It's just way too big.
But at least he could bluff his way through it.
And when he was done, you'd say, oh, well, OK, he handled the question well, even though it's not a solution for the debt.
But can you imagine Kamala Harris even trying to handle that?
Just even trying to handle that?
I don't think she can do it.
So the big issue with her is not what today's polls look like.
The big issue is how in the world is she going to do normal campaigning?
I don't think she can do it.
So there's another clip going around where Kamala Harris is trying to explain to an audience about cloud storage.
And people are laughing because she sort of acts like the cloud is in the sky.
And so the story that people are telling when they're passing around this video of her doing a bad job of explaining what cloud computing is, how are you missing the bigger story?
She's drunk in that clip.
You don't see that?
So people are sending it around like she's bad at explaining cloud storage.
No, that's not what you're seeing.
You're seeing a drunk trying to explain something.
You tell me that's not drunk or high or something.
Yeah.
I mean, I'll just say drunk, but watch the clip again.
If you've seen the clip once, because it's all over social media, just watch it a second time and say to yourself, Does she look like she's inebriated?
And your answer is going to be yes.
Very yes.
A hard yes.
It's just that if you're not thinking in those terms, you think maybe it's just a bad explanation of a technology.
It's not that.
She's clearly and obviously inebriated.
How in the world are we not talking about that every day?
Are we just going to ignore it like fucking Joe Biden's dementia that we could see for four years?
We're just gonna do the same fucking thing with the fact that she's clearly drunk in public a lot.
Just gonna ignore it.
Now, I think the problem is that your traditional news, maybe they don't have, you know, evidence, so they don't want to accuse her of something that they can't back up.
Which would be fine.
You know, if you're Fox News, I don't think you can report it as news that she's drunk, because there's no verifiable news.
But that was hard to do with Biden too, right?
But we can all see it.
We're all looking at it with our educated eyes.
If you can't tell she's drunk in those videos, you need to talk to a drunk.
Ask somebody who drinks a lot.
They'll fill you in.
There's something going on.
Maybe not alcohol, but there's inebriation of some kind.
Well, let's get into this story about her husband, Doug Emhoff.
Allegedly, I guess he admitted it.
So he did a statement where he admitted that this happened.
That in his first marriage, when the marriage maybe wasn't going so well, he had an affair with, was it his nanny or something?
And she got pregnant and did not keep the baby as far as we know.
Now people are asking, did he pressure a woman to get an abortion?
Because if he did, that would sort of be bad for him.
But I'm going to say, I don't care.
I don't care.
I feel like it would be hypocritical to go after the first husband, or whatever the hell he is, for some past marriage indiscretion when Trump is the candidate on the other side.
Now, I get the argument that if you're going for a character kind of an argument, You need to look at character on both sides, but even then, he's not the candidate.
So I'm going to say that I don't really want to see any traction on this.
It's just not where we need to be as a country.
Because if you start eliminating people for stuff like that, you end up with no politicians.
I don't think that you quite understand how many high-end politicians are having affairs.
If you knew the actual percentage of, let's say, elected federal officials who are in basically the highest sex city in the world, Washington, D.C., and surrounded all the time by people who might want to get with you to improve their careers, I just assume if you start looking at their sex lives, it's all going to be bad.
So I'd rather just say, can you do the job and, you know, whatever you're doing on your own time, just go do that in your own time.
I can't, I just can't get excited about that element of any of this.
So Doug, good luck to you.
I hope you do okay on this.
Well, let's talk about Trump's strategy.
Some smart consultants who are Republicans say, That Trump should be just talking about economics.
That's pretty solid advice, meaning that the only people who matter are independents.
You know, the hardcore Democrats have decided, and the hardcore Republicans have decided, and they're not going to change their minds.
So you got some independents.
Independents do get influenced by the better economic argument, and Trump has the better argument.
So do you think it's true that he made a mistake, this is what some would say, when he questioned the identity of Harris?
Is she a black woman, or is she Indian-American, and that business that he did at the black journalist event?
Well, here's my take.
I think it was the right play, and it worked.
So Trump never has to go back there again.
He never has to bring it up again.
He could, but he doesn't have to.
And if you've seen interviews with people, you've probably seen some women who said, oh my God, look at him disrespecting those women on that stage.
He is so mean to women, bringing up all this racist stuff.
Right?
And then you see black men.
Have you seen any of the interviews with black men?
Do you know what the black men say?
Well, you know, he's got a point.
She's not really black.
Now, of course, there are great differences in both the black and the white, or both the black male and female opinions.
So their opinions, of course, are all over the place.
They're not hardened in one direction or the other.
But I think you're going to see a pretty big difference between the male and female opinion of what happened at the black journalist event.
I think the women saw something like a bully.
And so they're just going to react in purely negative ways.
And I think the men saw somebody talking back to that bitch that they wish they had said something to.
And I think that they're also saying, you know, you have a good point.
If identity is going to be our main argument as a Democrat, it's identity, identity, identity.
I think it's fair to say that her identity doesn't match anybody's.
That's my opinion.
Kamala Harris's identity doesn't match anybody.
She's not black, she's not Indian.
She's both black and Indian and maybe something else, who knows?
And I've never met one like her in my whole life.
I was trying to think if I'd ever met anybody who was both black and Indian American.
I can't think of one.
And this goes back to my point that everybody is infinitely different from everybody else.
The moment you say, she's one of me, You know, then you want to support her.
Hey, she's like me, but we're not, we're all just so different.
There's not a single person like her who is, you know, brought up in America, part black, Jamaican, you know, even to add a little extra flavor.
And I think the, you know, obviously there's nothing wrong with either of those things.
Right.
So, so there's nothing wrong with being black.
There's nothing wrong with being Indian American, obviously.
But why can't she just be the one person who's both?
Why does she have to choose one?
See, that's the problem.
The problem that bothers me is that she's being forced to choose an identity that's not her identity.
She's not exactly just black, and she's not just Indian-American.
She's both of those things.
So why can't that be her identity?
Why does it have to be You know, somebody's got to be like her.
See, the trouble is that if you if you acknowledge that she's unique, there's just nobody like her.
She's the only one I know of that I've ever even heard of, really.
I've never even heard of that combination before.
So.
If you see a black man in a barbershop, there was just recently some video like that where the black man said, yeah, I'm not so sure she's black like Like we are.
That seems fair to me.
And I think it could make a difference.
So I think that Trump angered Democrat women, but they weren't going to vote for him anyway.
And I think black Democrat men said, you know, it's not the worst argument, that the identity question needs to be sorted out and you should understand what it is.
So I think Trump actually won.
I think the people that could be persuaded maybe were a little bit, and the people who couldn't be persuaded just got extra mad, which cost him nothing.
A little extra mad of the people who were mad already?
Nothing.
It was free.
I think this was free money.
I think he picked up free money.
And I think it completely worked.
That's my take.
Now, should he talk about economics more?
Yes.
But he put that out there and it can never get back.
You know, you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.
So that will just live out there forever.
He never has to bring it up again.
It'll just be a forever topic and do its work.
Well, Frank Luntz says that the question that would take down Kamala Harris would be, if you were talking to citizens, can you name one thing she accomplished as vice president?
However, I don't think anybody would care.
What were Barack Obama's accomplishments before they voted for him for president?
A junior, junior senator who hadn't done anything?
So I don't think that, I think Franklin's is completely wrong.
That the Democrats have no interest whatsoever in her accomplishments.
And even if, you know, they make up some or they don't make up some, I don't think it makes any difference.
I think they're voting for somebody that represents the policies they want.
And that's the end of the story.
You could put anybody in her place and they'd have about the same support.
So I disagree.
I think it's going to be about how we feel about things.
More than any logic about what she accomplished.
So it looks like this Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, it's not official yet, right?
But it looks like he'll be the choice for vice president.
But Jack Posobiec and Mike Benz were talking about it on video.
I think Jack was hosting that.
And it was on Friday's episode of Human Events Daily.
And they were discussing, apparently there was some case when Josh Shapiro was, he must have been in some kind of district attorney role.
I don't know his background exactly, but there was a case of a woman who, um, was ruled a suicide.
Uh, and she was, uh, Ellen Greenberg and she was 27 and she was stabbed 20 times and died.
And, um, Ten of the times she was stabbed were in the front, ten in the back, and two of the stab wounds came after she was already dead.
So, the coroner, of course, labeled it a homicide, because how in the world do you stab yourself in the back ten times, and how do you stab yourself twice after you're already dead?
So, pretty clear case of obviously, obviously.
And so it's obviously murder.
But it turns out that Josh Shapiro was signed off on it being changed, the opinion changed to suicide.
Suicide.
Now, I don't know which facts about this story are true.
You know, I'd wait a little bit, but suppose the basic facts were true, that she was stabbed all those times and a lot of them were in the back and two of them were after she died.
If those facts are true, then Josh Shapiro covered up a murder and knew it.
He would actually be accessory to the crime, wouldn't he?
If you knowingly covered up a murder when it was your job to do the opposite, Aren't you accessory to the crime in some way?
Like, isn't covering it up pretty bad crime itself?
So, although it seems that Philadelphia is a totally rigged city, we do have a vice president who would have some good old blackmail on him.
And does it seem like a coincidence to you that every time somebody seems acceptable to be a major leader, they're easily blackmailable or they look like they would be?
I've got a feeling that he was selected because he knows how Philadelphia and Pennsylvania can cheat in elections.
I think he's a designated cheater for Pennsylvania.
That's what I think.
That he might be connected to a machine that does some cheating.
Now, if you're new to my podcast, here's my take on the cheating.
By the way, Trump is going hard in his last rally.
Saying about 2020 was obviously cheated.
Have you noticed that it's easier to say that in public now?
Do you know what changed?
What changed was about a hundred different stories about cheating that was detected in various elections.
Now, none of them were big enough and confirmed by court to reverse 2020.
But we have been fed a steady stream of, well, you know, this wasn't right and You know, these names shouldn't be on the list, and they haven't cleaned up their voter rolls, and they do seem to be registering people who are non-citizens, at least gonna mail them a ballot, and wow, it seems like a lot of the ballots that were mailed in had the same home address, and on, and on, and on, and on.
So, here's my take, and it's the strongest take on this.
I don't know if the 2020 or any other election was ever rigged.
What I do know is, If it's not, if our elections are not rigged routinely, it would be the biggest surprise in the world.
Why?
Because I think it's possible to rig them, and the rewards for doing it would be enormous, and the people who do that sort of thing are in fact involved in our domestic politics, which is the CIA.
So if the CIA never did anything that was internally focused, if we knew that the intelligence units had never done an op on American soil, then I'd say, well, The people who would be so well trained to rig an election, you know, the really ones who really know how to do it right, they don't even work in the United States.
So you don't have to worry about it.
They're not really focused here.
But we watched the intelligence people do the laptop op.
We watched them do the Russia collusion op.
So we don't have to wonder if our intelligence assets in the United States have turned their weaponry on the domestic situation.
They have.
It's all confirmed in a number of different ways.
And they do it with, you know, Mike Benz tells the story the best.
But, you know, there are all these NGOs that are funded and they can use European entities to influence businesses in the United States.
So basically there's an entire web set up For the intelligence units of the United States to control domestic everything from domestic news to everything So if we don't have rigged elections, it would be the weirdest thing because They of course have an interest in rigging the election a big interest gigantic interest they have so they have the ability to
They have the ability, it's legal, apparently, or legal enough, and they have an incentive.
In one situation ever, have you seen where there's a huge incentive to cheat, there's the ability to cheat and get away with it, and you have lots of time, so that if you wanted to do something bad, even if you didn't get it done this election, well, you have four more years to get ready for the next one.
How in the world, with that setup, can the elections be real?
I don't even know if it's an option.
If you just said on paper, let me just describe the situation here.
All right, you're an alien from another planet.
Here's the situation.
Who wins the election is of the greatest, greatest import.
Like billionaires can make another billion, and wars will be fought, and economies will be destroyed or helped based on who gets elected.
It's the biggest, biggest, biggest benefit if you could rig it.
How about the ability?
Well, we've got a whole industry of people, our intelligence people, Who know how to rig elections, because they do it in other countries.
Are those other countries so different from America that none of those techniques would work here?
I think they would work here.
We have machines, we have mail-in ballots.
It's all you need, really.
So do I have any specific accusations about machines or companies or entities?
No, I do not.
But that's why they do it.
The reason that our intelligence people can meddle in other elections is that they are pretty confident they can get away with it, even if they get caught.
So even if they get caught, they'll be like, oh, well, what are you going to do about it?
So that's the current situation.
Even if they all got caught, it would be, well, what are you going to do about it?
I'll tell the news to say we didn't get caught.
And then the news would say, nobody got caught.
And you would say, I just saw it, but where's that story?
It's gone now.
Well, I'm going to Google that story and I'll get approved.
Wait, the story's gone.
So they can disappear any story.
They can reframe any story with their immediate dominance.
They have a huge incentive to do it.
No downside whatsoever.
And lots of time and infinite money.
How is it not rigged?
You can't even tell the story where it would sound not laughable that under those conditions we would have a, like a, you know, a good election with no doubt whatsoever.
So I'm going to double down and say that I think that our elections will not produce a winner.
It will produce a result that is doubted by one side, no matter which way it goes, the other side will say it was rigged.
So it looks like we'll have a president who's not elected by the people, because I guess it then goes to the House, right?
And then the House would pick Trump, because there are more states that are Republican.
And then Trump would be considered an illegitimate president.
Because the Democrats would say he rigged the election somehow.
And then they would have organized protests that the intelligence units would organize and make it look like they're normal.
And cities will burn.
So I expect cities will be on fire for much of the Trump term if he were to win.
But I don't think there's much chance it can happen.
Because if they do control the election, they're going to make sure he doesn't win.
Let's talk about Venezuela, which can't be that different from the United States.
But you know how the United States and the opposition that, at least on paper, lost?
They're saying that they won by a major landslide and that Maduro stole it.
Do you know what sources they're looking at and what sources the United States is looking at to determine that the election was rigged?
They're looking at sources that the United States pays.
So the United States funds some people that said the election was rigged, and then the United States says, look, these independent people over here say that election was rigged.
Accept that.
They're not independent.
They're funded by the people who want to hear what they have to say, and they want to say the right thing.
It turns out that there is one Maybe independent polling firm that says the opposite.
So there's an independent polling firm that is not paid for by the United States.
I don't know who does pay for it, but independent would mean maybe not Maduro, but you can never be sure.
And that says that Maduro won fair and square.
Now, I don't know.
So I would say that this is one of those situations where you can't trust anything the United States says about the election.
Because the United States has been very transparent about working on overthrowing the country.
So why would you believe anything they said about it?
And then why would you think that we would overthrow Venezuela so obviously and so transparently and that we wouldn't do the same thing or the same people wouldn't do the same thing in the United States?
Of course they would.
Whatever it is that drives them to do it in Venezuela is 10 times stronger to do it in the United States.
Because you need to control your environment, especially if a lot of resources are involved.
That's the United States.
So of course they're going to try.
Well, here's a report from some auditors.
So, United Sovereign Americans, whoever they are, they filed a lawsuit against multiple states.
This is the Gateway Pundits reporting this.
And this group found that, according to them, 29 million voter registrations that need to be removed, explained, or adjudicated.
Meaning that it would be people who maybe had the wrong address or there was a typo in the address or something.
So there could be lots of different reasons, not all of them are evil.
But 29 million questionable registrations.
Is that enough to change an election?
Yeah, like by a lot.
That's plenty.
If these were all illegal voters, and most of them ended up voting Democrat, yeah, that's enough to rig an election.
That's all you need.
Right there.
So, let's talk about Iran.
Has anything happened in the last 20 minutes as Iran bombed Israel?
So, I know Hezbollah had been sending a bunch of rockets into a city in Israel, but the Iron Dome was doing its job.
I guess these were kind of low quality rockets.
Someone else said that the reason there were so many low-quality missiles being fired at Israel is that Israel would use up its anti-missile defense on the low-quality ones, and then they would also learn more about where the defense is and where it's working and not working, and then they would use their high-quality missiles.
So the thing is that You know, Tel Aviv might be very close to a major missile attack that, you know, at least would have some chance of getting through the Iron Dome.
And there are reports today that GPS is being jammed in Tel Aviv, which would be an indication that Israel expects missiles or drones that use GPS, and it's expecting them any moment.
That's why they're jamming GPS.
So it could go down very quickly.
So Trump did a rally in Georgia and he inexplicably, but I guess we understand why, went after the governor, Kemp, who was a Republican.
So you don't expect Trump to go after a Republican this hard, but he went after him for not being supportive when Trump had been questioning the 2020 election.
But not being supportive now, I guess he's not endorsing Trump.
And so Trump went after him.
He said, he's a bad guy.
He's disloyal.
He's just an average governor.
You could do better.
And then some people said, Trump, why are you going after Republicans?
And then I said, because it works.
That's why you do it.
You do it because it works.
Do you think he hasn't noticed that that works?
Trump's endorsement or lack of endorsement of a candidate is pretty powerful.
And he does make a big deal about loyalty.
You know, look, you're either Republican or you're not.
You should be loyal if you are.
And I think his loyalty argument, which can be kind of off-putting if you're watching it from the other party, you're like, whoa, sounds like a dictator.
He just wants loyalty.
But I think it's a strong play, especially among men.
Among men, loyalty has, I hate to say this, but has a deeper meaning than it does to women.
Loyalty in a political sense has just more meaning to men, I think.
We're just designed that way.
And I think it works.
Yeah, I think if Trump can get people who are more Supportive of his campaign and he can depress people who are against him.
That's part of his job So I don't I don't care that he praises people who likes him and goes after people who don't support him Seems fair to me All right, here's a I did a test well, I posted this yesterday and I asked people to see how long it takes from the time they turn on MSNBC to detect a lie.
And then somebody said to me, but Scott, why don't you try the same thing with Fox News?
Fox News tells lies too.
So I thought to myself, I will do that.
I'll do CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.
And I'll just randomly, this is not science, of course, no science here, but I'll just randomly turn them on.
And I'll see how long before I hear a lie.
So I started with CNN, and within 30 seconds, one of the guests said that Trump lied about the 2020 election results.
That's a lie.
Because what we know is that Trump thought that they were rigged, and then he said he believed they were rigged.
Is that a lie?
It's not a lie.
At worst, he's wrong, but you couldn't know one way or the other.
So do you think there's anybody who works at CNN or is invited in CNN as a guest who would know if state actors had cleverly rigged an election in ways we couldn't tell?
No.
The only thing you can know is that Trump makes a claim that cannot be tracked positively or negatively.
Right?
So it's a lie to say that he's lying about the election, because that would assume that you know for sure that the election was not rigged, which is not knowable.
That's a lie.
So CNN failed within 30 seconds.
A guest told a lie that wasn't checked by the host.
So then I turned on MSNBC and they were going to break.
So they went a good 30 seconds within a lie.
But then as they went to break, they said, and when we'll be back, Alexander Vindman will be here to fact check Trump.
No, I didn't come back, but do you think Alexander Vindman is going to tell the truth about Trump?
There's no chance of that.
There's not the slightest chance he's going to tell the truth.
So they did make it 30 seconds, but only because they went to commercial.
Then I went to Fox News.
And I thought, all right, let's be fair.
You know, I'm sure somebody on Fox News is going to say some bullshit and I'm going to say, all right, you know, you got me.
There it is.
It's, you know, it's, everybody's doing it.
And I turned it on and it was, uh, somebody talking about a bill they were introducing, um, to end sanctuary cities.
And it was just somebody talking about the bill and I'm waiting for the lie.
Didn't see one.
Now, I'm not going to claim that Fox News has never told you something that didn't check out.
That would be dumb.
Because all the news stations get stuff wrong, they all have some, you know, elements of bias.
That's just universally true.
But there's nothing like MSNBC.
MSNBC is only lies all day long.
And when I say only lies, I mean really a hundred percent of what they say about Trump is either the wrong context or just a flat-out lie.
And CNN is somewhere in the middle, and Fox News at least does a much better job of separating its news from its opinion.
So to me that hits differently.
Here's a lawfare update.
I don't even remember what this was.
Judge Tanya Chutkan has Let's see, she's back on the case for the federal election interference case and maybe the Mar-a-Lago boxes or something.
And she's denied Trump's motion to dismiss the case based on selective and vindictive prosecution.
Chuckin found no evidence that prosecutors abused their authority or behaved vindictively.
Really?
Really, there's no evidence of that?
So, it's been denied.
So, I guess that there'll be some kind of hearing coming up on that.
Anyway.
So, I'm just so tired of the lawfare stuff, because I really think none of it's legitimate.
And I also think that Trump's lawyers now know how to stall anything until after the election.
So, I don't know.
Not too worried about it.
Axios is reporting that a bunch of researchers in Europe They say that there could be a tipping point.
Well, they say there is a tipping point and that we might be getting closer to it on the climate, meaning that we'd reach such a point that everything goes off the rails.
It's just like suddenly you hit that point where everything falls apart because it's too hot.
And here's what they said.
there's a 45% chance of triggering one or more tipping points by the year 2300.
By the year 2300.
Now, those of you who've been with me for a while, do I need to explain to you that there's no science that can predict something to the year 2300?
Are you fucking kidding me?
And this made it into the news?
The news is so stupid!
Here's how this should have been handled.
Hey, I've got a story about some researchers who made a prediction for the year 2300.
Oh, well, fuck you and go away.
What?
This is an important story.
It's about climate change and what will happen in the year 2300.
Fuck you.
You're an idiot.
Go away.
But it's coming from researchers, important researchers who do science and stuff.
And they say, with their numbers and their calculations and their percentages, that by 2300, there's a 45% chance that there will be a tipping point.
Fuck you.
Go away.
Nobody can predict anything in the year 2300.
Nothing.
Nothing.
If you needed my help on this one, You haven't been paying attention.
Nobody can predict the future.
It used to be my job to predict the future.
And everybody knew that a three-year prediction was the only thing you could sell.
Beyond that, everybody would laugh.
But even everybody knew the three-year was bullshit.
It's just that you had to do some kind of analysis.
But you didn't want to do it beyond three years because then everybody would laugh at you and say, come on, you can't guess five years in the future.
Nobody can do that.
So now, guessing to the year 2300?
Absolutely ridiculous.
Let's talk about Project 2025.
As you know, the Trump campaign has been trying to slap it down because it has some Policy recommendations that Trump does not embrace.
The best example is that abortion pill.
The Project 2025 people want it to be illegal, federally illegal everywhere.
Trump does not want it to be illegal.
So the Project 2025 people would want to do something that basically tells women what they can do with their bodies.
Trump has said, nope, I'm not going to tell you what you can do with your body.
Is that a small deal or a big deal?
To me, that's a really, really big deal.
Because one of the strongest messages on the left is that the Republicans want to control your body.
Trump is very aggressively saying the opposite.
No, I'm not going to do anything with that drug.
No, the states get to decide if you have abortion.
I'm out.
So Trump wants to have nothing to do with telling anybody what to do with their body.
He doesn't want the vaccinations to be mandatory.
He wants it to be an option.
He doesn't want abortion to be made illegal at the federal level.
He wants the states to work it out.
He doesn't want the abortion pill to be banned.
Again, I assume states can work it out.
So Project 2025 would sort of accidentally brand Trump with some pressure to ban this abortion pill, which would be hugely bad for his political prospects.
Hugely bad, because it just paints a target on his back that isn't even his target.
It's not even his policy.
So the pushback on this, and I've seen some smart people pushing back, Molly Hemingway, Mike Cernovich, etc., thinking that maybe the Trump campaign's pushback of this Project 2025 thing and trying to dance on his grave is really bad.
And the argument would be that these are loyal people who could be on your staff maybe in the future, and you're making your most loyal employees Maybe not like you as much as they should.
I disagree with all of that.
But I'm open to the fact that I might be missing something in this story.
Because I think both Molly Hemingway and Cernovich are closer to the personnel question.
So I'm not as close.
So I'll speak with my level of knowledge.
You cannot have somebody who's making a big noise about political policy when somebody else has different opinions and is running for president at the same time.
That's the end of the conversation.
If you say to me, but, but, but Scott, the, the loyal and good employees that Trump has are working on that project.
I say, well, they're not very loyal.
They're not very smart.
I wouldn't want them anywhere near me.
They've proven that they should not be working on the campaign if they're pushing the 2025 thing, which is nothing but problems for Trump.
We've got another drunk here, in all caps.
LOL Scott, tell us about all the pharma stock you bought before you pushed lockdowns.
I didn't push lockdowns, I didn't push any drugs, and I didn't own any stocks except in index funds.
So I'll assume you're drunk, and I'll assume that you will continue yelling like a drunk, because that's what drunks do.
He'll be back in a moment.
So the fact that none of that is even remotely close to anything that I've done or said or thought, will that stop a drunk?
No?
I think you'll be back in a moment.
All right, so to me there's a It's just a firing offense.
Let me put it this way.
If the people involved with Project 2025 were doing that as part of their, let's say, indirect application for working in the administration, I would say that that's a firing offense.
I wouldn't want somebody working in my administration who is behind the Project 2025 thing.
Because if you didn't understand how damaging this was to Republicans, I wouldn't want you in my administration.
The minimum you'd need to know is that the president's in charge of what the policy ideas are.
It's just the minimum.
If you don't know that, you shouldn't be anywhere near the campaign.
Now, that said, There could be bad hires in the Trump administration too.
There could be, yeah.
So you don't want to get too many rhinos, I guess, and stuff.
But no, the people who pushed a confusing message in the middle of a campaign at a critical time, that is not an application for a job.
That's an application to not get a job.
All right.
Apparently Judicial Watch filed some kind of FOIA request lawsuit to find out how the CIA was connected to the January 6th event.
Because there's some kind of records where the CIA was involved with maybe looking at the pipe bombs or something.
But my question is this.
Is there any such thing as a legal process that a citizen or judicial watch could do that would get the CIA to admit what they do?
Can't the CIA just say, we don't tell you what we do?
Wouldn't that be legal?
Is the CIA obligated to give up their secrets if somebody just files a Freedom of Information Act?
To me, there's something in this story missing.
It seems like you wouldn't be able to do that If the entire point of the CIA is that nobody knows what they're doing, including America.
So even though they would be doing something domestically, which potentially could have been illegal, I can't see any way that they're going to just talk about what they do.
So I can't imagine that working.
But Judicial Watch obviously knows more than I do about this process.
So I assume they know what they're doing.
It's just hard to imagine that would make any difference, that they would give up their secrets, even if it was a domestic stuff and even if it was stuff they shouldn't have been doing.
Project 2025 has been around, was not introduced during the campaign.
That's probably a true fact of no importance.
It became a thing during the campaign, they promoted it during the campaign.
It wouldn't matter when they started.
It acts like it's new.
All right, that's about all I got now.
Yeah, FOIA is going to be denied for national security reasons.
I just assume that's what will happen.
Be denied for national security reasons.
Are there any more drunks in the comments who would like to out themselves by yelling in all caps?
The drunk did come back, by the way, and just yelled the same thing again.
I like our drunk all caps people.
Yeah, the olympics You know what is interesting is, you know, I mocked the Olympics as something I wouldn't want to watch.
Oh, here's something interesting.
Oh, I can't show it to you.
I was watching badminton in the Olympics, singles.
It was one person playing one other person.
And I couldn't tell the genders.
So I'm watching the badminton and I'm like, I think that's a male player.
But could be female.
Could have been born one thing and is now another thing.
I couldn't tell.
Has that ever been true in the Olympics before?
That you would watch a player in the middle of the competition and you'd say, I'm not sure, am I watching the women's badminton or the men's badminton?
It took a while.
I think it was the men's badminton, but I'm not positive.
All right, I'm just looking to see what other topics here...
Yeah, the Turkish Olympic shooter got a lot of attention.
He was the guy who just smoked cigarettes.
Hey, our drunk is back.
Prince Mambo the drunk.
He's just hitting that repeat button.
Ah! Wah!
Bye.
Probably a 4chan believer.
I'm going to stop sharing my screen.
About Cartel's pedo... I don't know about that.
Have you heard the number that there are 85,000 missing children who came across the border?
Is that a real number?
Because when that number is used, it's like, ooh, 85,000 kids got sold into sexual... some kind of thing.
But I think the 85,000 just means that they came in through asylum or something, and we don't know where they are.
It doesn't mean anything's wrong with them.
Could be.
I mean, I don't want to minimize it, but the 85,000 number is just how many we don't have accounted for.
it doesn't mean they're trafficked.
Yep.
I think some reporters need to ask the Democrats what they mean by taking away your freedom.
Can you believe that we've gotten to this point in the campaign and nobody has asked Biden or Harris, what do you mean by taking away your freedom?
What would be some examples of where somebody is taking away your freedom?
Because if they answer the question, they're going to say, Well, and then they're going to mention some things in the 2025 document.
And then the reporter would say, okay, but those are not part of Trump's policies.
He's actually opposed to those things.
Here's the thing that the left doesn't understand, but Trump can't say out loud, but I can.
Republicans are scary.
If you're only looking at the most conservative group among them.
They're kind of scary to the rest of America.
No, just as the far left is scary to the rest of America.
The extremes on both sides are pretty scary to the rest of America.
Trump moderates Republicans.
I used to think Republicans were, it's got to be in my Bible, and I want lots of wars.
That's how I thought of Republicans.
It's got to be compatible with my Bible.
That's the end of the story.
And we've got to have big wars because we need those big wars.
Trump is anti-war and has found a pretty reasonable, or at least defensible, position on abortion.
So it's a non-religious position.
If it were religious, he would probably also want to ban it completely.
But since he doesn't take a religious point to it, he's more of a practical sense and make sure it's compatible with the system, make sure the states set up their own laws.
I think Trump is a moderating force for Republicans, which ironically is exactly what Democrats would want.
Let me put it this way.
If you're a Democrat, Would you rather have Rashid Tlaib, you know, president or somebody who's as left as she is, which is Kamala Harris, or would you rather have somebody who makes Republicans closer to the middle?
If you're a Democrat, what's best for you is watching Republicans move to the middle.
That's what Trump does.
So they're getting what they would most want, which is the other side changing.
Think about it.
So the Republicans would like Democrats to change, right?
But they're changing and going more extreme.
So Democrats are moving further from the middle, which nobody's in favor of.
Even normal Democrats are not in favor of that.
So if suddenly there were some candidate that emerged, like a Bill Clinton, for example, If Bill Clinton or somebody like him were the candidate, I might be backing him.
Do you know why?
Because Bill Clinton wasn't a super Democrat.
He was a moderate.
And he moved Democrats to the middle.
Trump moves Republicans to the middle.
If you can find anybody who can move either side to the middle, that's usually good for the country.
Hey, we got our other drunk back, Mr. Fart Guy, in all caps.
Always extra drunk.
A little extra drunk today.
All right.
Except he was a rapist.
We'll see you next time.
Well, you know, let me say, What I've said before.
Which is, every important male figure has fake rape charges.
Some, presumably, are real.
We can't tell the difference.
So, I've just decided not to count it.
Because if you can take out every man by saying he's been accused of a sex crime, then no man can ever be in charge of anything ever.
Because there will always be a fake accusation, if it works.
So, to me, if it's not proven in a court of law, and I'm not counting a civil suit, but if it's not proven in a court, I'm not going to count it.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
What it means is I can't tell.
And so I'm going to do presumed innocent for citizens, but not for governments.
So candidates, even though they may have done something terrible, I'd rather say, I don't know for sure.
It's the same thing with Kamala Harris.
You know, I hear people trying to make something of the fact that she may have leveraged her relationship with Willie Brown.
To which I say, so?
So what?
Everybody uses every leverage they can get.
As long as it's legal.
If it were legal for her to be in a relationship with somebody who could help her with her career, and then it happened, so what?
That's just the way everything works.
That's just so ordinary, it doesn't... She's either qualified for this job or she's not.
It has nothing to do with how she got here.
I don't care.
Now that she's here, you can say, but where are her qualifications?
That's a perfectly good question.
But I think it's all about... My drunk is trying another approach.
Have another drink.
Get that bottle.
She's always been appointed, never elected.
Yeah, those are good points.
But if she gets elected this time, that's all that matters.
