God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Stranded Boeing Astronauts, Lynda Carter, Female Voting Majority, Joe Biden's Robot Walk, Ken Paxton, Google Monopoly Lawsuit, Free Speech, Elon Musk, UK Race Riots, UK Anti-Opinion Law, Stock Market, Unrealized Profit Tax Proposal, Kamala Harris Opinion Changes, VP Candidate Tim Walz, Kamabla Harris, Adin Ross Trump Interview, President Trump, Trump Secret Service Lead Agent, DEI, Butler Rally Anomalies, Laura Loomer, Raskin Swalwell Plot, Financial Times Edward Luce, Non-Assimilating Mass Migration, Morgan Ortagus, 16 Embassy Closures, AI Writing Detection, 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, let's start with these silly stories and we'll get to the VP choice and all the politics and the funny nicknames and all that.
There's some guy named Nigel Richards.
From New Zealand, who memorized every French word in the French Scrabble Dictionary, and he managed to win the French Scrabble Championship without speaking any French.
Well, that was pretty good.
Feels like cheating.
But, I will tell you that the Scrabble Dictionary is different from a regular dictionary.
So, memorizing a regular dictionary would be Really hard.
Memorizing the Scrabble Dictionary would also be really hard, but not as hard as a regular dictionary.
But still pretty impressive.
Let me tell you what I believe about this story.
Nothing.
Do you believe he really didn't know French at all and just won the French Scrabble because he memorized the book?
How about we just say that's probably not true?
It's in the news, but it's probably not true.
I'm going to say no on that.
Anyway, I could be wrong, but it looks like fake news to me.
There's Alex Finn is reporting on X that looking at some of the code, developers code for the X platform itself, that we're getting close to crypto payments.
And so you might be able to tip people, he's speculating.
So imagine if somebody did a good post and you say, wow, that's good instead of just liking it.
You could tip them 10 cents.
Crypto.
That'd be kind of cool.
So that's coming.
That could actually change everything.
Imagine if the people on X who have the most value were also tipped.
There are some people that I follow that I have more followers than they do.
You know, just because.
But they should be making a lot more money than I do, because I end up retweeting them all the time.
So if they were getting tips, maybe they could make some serious money.
So I'm liking this.
Apparently those two astronauts that went up to the space station on the Boeing rocket, we're hearing that the reason the Starliner is having difficulty coming back is Let's see.
Will this sound like a Dilbert comic?
What do you think?
It's a story about a big company that did something that didn't work out.
Let's see if there's a Dilbert angle to it.
Let's see.
So the story is that the reason they're stuck up there Is that Boeing hasn't been willing.
Um, no, let's say cause they didn't finish their software.
They didn't finish the flight software on the Starliner preventing the space capsule from unlocking and returning to earth autonomously.
So apparently they didn't want to bring them back because they didn't finish the software that would allow them to return.
So, does that sound true?
Do you think there was somebody who knew when the rocket took off?
Do you think there was somebody sitting in a cubicle who was saying something like this?
I told my boss, I told my boss that we haven't completed the return software.
I told him, I sent him an email.
He never answered my email.
My email very clearly said that the software is not complete.
They'll never come home.
You're murdering them if you send them up there.
But my boss, no, he never even responded to my email.
I feel like something like that's happening right now.
There's somebody in a cubicle who's saying, I tried to tell you, I tried to tell you, you weren't listening.
So that's happening.
Do you remember, uh, Wonder Woman, Linda Carter back if you're, if you're my age, you remember, uh, actress who played Wonder Woman, Linda Carter.
And she was talking about, uh, how angry she is that if, uh, Trump gets elected, that women won't have control of their bodies.
If those darn Republicans get in control, women will not have control of their bodies.
To which I responded.
Women are a voting majority in every state.
Why are you talking to us?
You don't need to talk to me.
You don't need to talk to anybody.
Women have complete control over what happens to their bodies.
In rough terms, I don't know the actual number, but let's say Let's say half of men are divided on abortion.
I think men are maybe 60% or so in favor of abortion, nationally.
It's somewhere in that neighborhood.
So if men are already about 60% in favor of abortion, and women want it, they can have it.
They can have anything they want.
If women as a group said, We want to control our own bodies and 60% of men agree.
How could they possibly stop it?
They could get anybody elected for anything because they would have a gigantic dominant majority on the issue that seems to matter the most.
So I realize that, you know, it'd be easier if you didn't have to go through the work and there's going to be a time lag, but I absolutely don't buy the argument that men are controlling women's bodies.
When we live in a system where women can vote anything they want in their state.
There are more women than men and 60% of the men already agree with the women.
All you need is a good dominant political movement.
You get anything you want.
So stop complaining to men.
Men have already agreed with you enough that you could have anything you want.
60% agreeing with you is really, you'd be lucky if you could get that on any topic.
So men are more supportive on that topic than any other topic as far as I know.
Well, a company has created a Joe Biden robot.
They just don't call it that, but it is proof that Joe Biden is a robot and has been for some time.
It's the, it's called the figure two or figure Oh two.
And we're going to see it soon, but it's, it's going to have an AI conversational mode and it can run for up to 20 hours.
And well, I think they're trying to get it to 20 hours, but apparently it's got full, full controllable fingers.
And AI, and it can walk around and do stuff.
Now, I don't think it's quite available.
I haven't seen a price for it, but here it comes.
And, but with all kidding aside, is it a coincidence that Joe Biden walks exactly like the robots?
And I'm not joking.
How in the world did robots get invented?
At exactly the one time ever, we've had a president where we're not even sure if he's alive and maybe he has body doubles, and then when he walks, he looks exactly like a robot.
And that's a lot of a coincidence, really.
I've never seen anybody walk like that.
You know, I've heard it's some kind of standard way to walk if you have a certain condition, but I've never seen it.
I've never seen one person in my entire life who walked like that, exactly like a robot, even with his hands out.
Like, even the hands out, where he puts them out like he's a robot.
I don't know how to explain that.
In my reality, that's a puzzle.
Well, let me tell you, I'm getting so bored with all the lawfare and legal cases, but just in case you haven't heard it, Attorney General Ken Paxton from Texas had some big triumph over Google.
Apparently, Texas has ruled in a federal court That Google, well Texas wins but it was a federal court, ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly by exploiting its dominance to squash competition and hamper innovation.
I don't know what that means.
Does that mean they pay a big fine and then they just go back to doing it?
Or do they change their business practices in some way that's going to make a difference to me?
Here's my problem with all the legal stories, whether it's the lawfare story about Trump, or it's this story about Google.
These stories always start in the middle, and they don't give you the background, because it'd be too boring to explain the whole thing again, and they don't tell you what it's going to lead to, because you're not really sure.
So these stories all look like they should be important to me, but I can't tell.
Oh, I guess something about Google happened that might be unwound in a future case or possibly they do something different.
I don't know.
And there's a Trump story, too, about his sentencing has been moved.
And I look at that story, and I don't know if you're having the same reaction I am.
I go, all right, which judge, which case?
Wait, so it's not the trial, it's the sentencing for the thing, but he could delay the sentencing, but if it's after he gets elected, but if he doesn't get elected, And I can't even, I don't know how to even put a bite on it.
These stories are the kind that can't seek into my head so that they're not making any impact in my mind because I don't have a framework I could easily attach them to.
I think you'd have to be like a working lawyer to keep half of this shit straight.
So my point is, As a consumer of news who is not an expert on the law or these specific cases, it's weird that they're so non-effective.
They just sort of wash over me like, ah, another legal thing.
I'm so bored.
All right, Apple released some kind of new Safari feature, Safari being their browser, that hides what they call the distracting parts of your web page.
So, if you get a lot of pop-ups, it will stop the pop-ups and hide the distracting things that are trying to cover up what you're reading at.
Now, I wonder, is that because they want to make the experience better, or is it really a way to stop the independent news sites?
Do you know which news sites do the most outrageous pop-ups, right?
If you've gone to any conservative, independent news site, not one of the big names, but one of the ones that I talk about all the time, the pop-ups are outrageous.
You can barely read them.
It's just like pop-up, pop-up, pop-up, pop-up.
And it makes me wonder if this is just a way to demonetize the independent news people.
But they're making it look like, hey, we're getting rid of distractions.
But all those pop-ups are how those sites pay their bills, as much as I hate them.
So I guess this is a story where I think, the way it's presented is as a benefit to users.
But does it have some sneaky other benefit to it?
Because I don't know any other class of websites that have as many pop-ups as the conservative news sites.
So it looks like maybe that's something that's going to hurt them.
We'll see.
Don't know, just speculating there.
What about Elon Musk versus Great Britain?
How does Elon Musk become the center of every story?
I have a theory.
I mean, part of it is his impact on the world.
He's the richest guy.
He owns big companies like X, but some of it is also that he's willing to say honest things out loud.
If you're just willing to say honest things out loud.
Now, when I say honest, That doesn't mean he's right on every single topic, right?
That wouldn't be a standard anybody could meet.
But it always looks honest.
It never looks to me like, oh, he's saying this so that he can get over on people in this way.
It never looks like that to me.
To me, it looks like a well-informed person who's giving you his opinion.
Might be right, might be wrong.
Maybe you agree, maybe you don't.
But it always looks like it's his actual opinion.
And that is so dangerous.
You know, if there's anything I've told you before, too many times, the governments cannot survive honesty.
The reason that the news is fake is not because something went wrong in America.
All news is fake everywhere.
It has to be because no government could survive real news.
The real news would just peck them to death and criticize them until they couldn't function.
It wouldn't matter what kind of government it was, wouldn't matter if you loved the government, wouldn't matter if they were Democrats or Republicans or anything else.
A actual free speech or free press with no influence from the government would destroy every government because you would see all the negative, which they can hide better if they control the news.
So here's what's happening with Musk versus Great Britain.
So as you know, Britain's in the grips of what some call race riots, meaning a lot of the migrants are getting, are mixing it up with the, what they're calling the far right.
I'm not sure they've characterized that group correctly, but that's what the news is saying.
It's the far right.
So it's basically a bunch of white people who are getting into fights with a lot of Brown people from other countries who have recently come in.
And here's what Musk said about that.
Apparently he must have been in an ex-post.
He said, civil war is inevitable.
Talking about Great Britain, civil war is inevitable.
And that was roundly condemned, his statement that civil war is inevitable.
Condemned by the UK Prime Minister, Starmer.
He said there was no justification for Musk's comments.
No justification.
Let's see.
It was an honest opinion.
So when do we need justification for your honest opinion?
I didn't know I needed justification for that.
How about speaking up about an issue where people are dying at the moment?
You know, we're getting beaten up.
It's an important issue.
So, aren't you always justified when you try to say something about an important issue?
Something that would be contribution to the understanding of it?
Even if you're wrong.
Even if you're wrong.
No, it's the most justified comment I've ever seen in my life.
You could agree with it.
You could disagree with it.
But it's very justified.
That was the best they could do.
It was unjustified.
Now let's talk about whether it's true.
I would say that when somebody like Elon Musk, or even somebody like me, says something like, Civil War is inevitable, it's really a warning.
Meaning that it's inevitable if you don't do anything differently.
Meaning that you would really like to do something differently.
So, inevitable always means unless something changes, right?
The way you should interpret that is unless something changes.
So, something should change and maybe it will.
However, my reading of it from the outside would be similar to Similar to Elon Musk.
To me, it looks like civil war is inevitable.
Because where are the white people going to go?
They're not going to leave.
And they can't live with the current situation because it looks like it's, you know, pure racism has been imported.
When I say pure racism has been imported, I mean that a lot of the people being brought in have a strong cultural background that they're not going to want to get rid of.
And I'm not saying they should.
I'm not saying they should change.
I'm saying that if you build a system that brings together people from radically different cultural backgrounds and the way they want a world to run is completely different and not compatible.
It's not like you can meet in the middle.
What else could happen?
I don't know how anything but a civil war could happen.
So you'd either have to immediately close the border and start massively deporting people, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Or you'd have to somehow convince the people who were raised in a completely different culture that they should give it up and just join your culture.
That's not going to happen.
So can anybody describe me any scenario in which there's not a civil war, and I think the white people will be largely driven out of Great Britain.
That's what I would expect.
I would expect a fairly massive, what would you call it, just people leaving Great Britain to get away from the carnage.
So I think the United States should think a lot about opening up migration from Great Britain for asylum.
Because I think a lot of white people are going to leave Great Britain in the next coming years because it won't be safe.
They'll just feel it's too unsafe to live in Great Britain if you're white.
So I think there'll be maybe millions.
That are going to try to get out of the country before it goes under.
So to me, it looks like it's going to go under.
I don't think the country is going to survive at its current pace.
But, you know, the thing to look forward to is that everything changes and the world is unpredictable.
So it's unlikely that anything goes in a straight line the way it's going.
This or anything else.
Nothing really goes in a straight line.
So again, I would agree with Musk that if nothing changed, It's Civil War, it's the end of Great Britain, and there will be massive asylum requests to come to this country, and other countries.
So that's what's going on there.
So the big market sell-off, the last I checked today looked kind of stable.
What's the market doing right now?
Can you give me an update in the comments?
Because I go live about the same time that the markets get active.
So I think it was sort of flat today.
A little bit flat.
All right.
So here's what to expect.
And this is one of those situations where old people can be useful.
I'm putting myself in the old people category.
I've seen a lot.
So if you haven't seen a lot, you can rely on old people because we've seen a lot.
When the stock market does a 10 or 20% pullback, that's just normal business.
You can make up the reason for it.
You can say, oh, the reason is, let's see, the reason is we decided that AI was maybe a little overdone.
Okay, sure.
We decided that the debt was too high, the interest rates.
There's maybe a war.
Yeah, that's it, that's it.
There's maybe a war, so the stock market should go down.
But I would point out that the stock market took a shit at exactly the same time the polls showed Kamala Harris was roughly a tie with Trump.
Thank you.
You think that's total coincidence?
Do you think that the big money people, the smartest people, because they have all the money, do you think that they all said to themselves, huh, I think we better worry about whatever Iran is going to do over there in the Middle East?
Or do you think they were more worried that a drunken idiot is on the doorstep of the White House.
Well, already in there.
I feel like the fact that we're electing a drunken idiot to replace a dementia-riddled cadaver might affect your confidence in the future.
But when you reopen the news, the news gives you all these reasons why the market's going down.
Those reasons are never real.
By the way, did you know that?
There's a whole industry Financial reporting where they give you reasons that the market moved.
Those are never real reasons.
They'll just look at whatever the news says is like, okay, the market's down 2% today.
All right.
So what's the news?
Uh, let's see.
Oh, there's some bad news today.
Like every fucking day, like every day, there's bad news.
And every day, you know, there might be a little good news, but they'll just pick up the newspaper and go, Oh, let's see.
Oh, there's some bad news here.
So that's why the stock market went down.
Trust me, I'm an expert.
I saw that bad news and that's why the market went down.
Well, why didn't you tell me before it happened?
Well, yeah, most financial reporting is fake news.
They try to tell you there's a reason for what you're seeing, but they're just guessing.
We don't know why anything's happening, really.
All right, so the sell-off is just normal business.
My technique when there's a big sell-off like this, because I've been through a lot of them, is to not look.
So I've managed to not look at my portfolio even once since the carnage started, and I'm not going to look at it again until we have a really big up day, which might be a few years.
I just won't even look at it, because it's just going to make me feel bad, and it's going to make me think I have to sell it, and that would be the wrong decision.
Because where am I going to put it?
So, if you're worried about the stock market, you know, just continuing to crash, I would ask you this question.
Where are you going to put your money if you take it out of the stock market?
Are you going to put it in real estate?
I don't know.
Are you going to put it all in crypto?
Maybe some of it.
Gold?
Are you going to buy guns and ammo?
What are you going to do with your money if you take it out of the stock market?
The big money people are the ones who don't really have options.
You're going to park it in cash?
That seems pretty risky.
Anyway, but I think that Marcus Selloff also showed how ridiculous it is that Democrats were looking to tax people on unrealized profits.
In other words, you'd get taxed for just having money and then it would go down 30% and then you wouldn't have money.
But you got taxed for having money that you didn't really have because you never got to cash it out and it just went down again.
So the dumbest ideas you could ever have in the whole world are the Democrat economic ideas.
There's a new compilation clip of Kamala Harris explaining that she doesn't want equal opportunity in this country, she wants that too, but she wants equity, equal outcomes.
And she's very clear about it, and has been clear about it for years in multiple interviews.
There's no taking out of context here.
She says it all the time, or had.
And if you're pushing equity and things like taxing unrealized profits, you're destroying the whole country, if not civilization itself.
The most dangerous mammal in the world right now is a drunken Marxist president.
What would be more dangerous than that?
A drunken Marxist president with a low IQ for president.
Not low for general people, but low IQ for being a president.
There's nothing more dangerous than that.
I mean, even Biden is less dangerous than that because there's no thinking going on.
But Kamala Harris will do something like thinking, and God knows what's going to come out of that.
I mean, when you see all the opinions that she reversed, they're really big ones.
Really, really big ones.
Like, defund the police?
Oh, I reversed that.
And a whole bunch of others that you've probably heard a bunch of times.
But if she's reversed most of her major policy preferences just to be a candidate that the Democrats can back, what exactly are you getting?
So here's the thing that I think the Republicans are missing.
The Republicans are trying to frame Kamala as a flip-flopper.
Somebody who didn't have, you know, let's say she wasn't attached to her own opinions.
And that what is happening is you're seeing that she immediately changed all of her progressive opinions to be more electable.
So that what she really cares about is power.
So the way the Republicans are framing this is as power.
It doesn't matter what the policies are.
We only want power.
So therefore we can just move to whatever policies give us power.
Now that's not wrong.
You know, the, the power element is clearly dominant in this situation, but you know what it does is it covers up the bigger problem.
Let me say what the bigger problem is.
There were a set of things that Kamala Harris used to believe and would say often in public.
And now she says she is supporting a whole different set of things which are actually the opposite.
Literally the opposite of the other things.
Now the story is not that she's a flip-flopper.
The story is that the first set of things that she believed was not when she was 20 years old.
These were her lifelong adult beliefs, and they're fucking stupid.
Do you fund the police?
And the rest of them?
So the part that the Republicans are missing is that she spent her lifetime supporting fucking stupid ideas.
Now, do you know why I know they're fucking stupid?
Even the Democrats won't accept them.
Right?
Nancy Pelosi and You know, the leadership are like, uh, no, you can't really get elected president with those ideas.
So you have to change them all.
So we're giving her quite a pass to say she's a flip-flopper.
That is quite a pass.
Here's the real story.
For most of your adult life, your ideas were fucking stupid in a way that even Democrats can clearly see because they don't even support them.
So we're not even talking about, oh, you don't like Democrat ideas, Scott.
You like Republican.
No, I'm saying that Democrats don't even like them.
They're so fucking stupid.
And it's not like one thing.
She's got like a whole portfolio of stupid fucking things.
And we're acting like, oh, she's a flip-flopper.
No, she's a person with stupid fucking ideas her whole fucking life.
And now she's pretending she has different ideas.
Well, she picked a vice president, it looks like.
Well, let's talk about the markets a little bit more.
So, Democrats are saying they can't possibly win if the market is in the toilet and it looks like there's a recession.
Is that true?
That was certainly true in the Bill Clinton era, where it's the economy, stupid.
You know, James Carville famously advised Clinton to focus on the economy and you'll do great.
And sure enough, that worked.
But I think we're in a different world now.
We all got to watch Kamala Harris, the worst politician in the history of politics, go from, it's ridiculous to imagine she could ever be president, all the way to, Madam President, the most courageous, the first this, the first that, the first this.
Oh my God, do we love her?
Let us dance on TikTok.
Come on, dance with me.
Kamala Harris!
We love her.
I'm sorry you had to see that.
So we live in a world where the brainwashing is so strong that Democrats took the worst politician in the world, completely kept her away from reporters so that she wouldn't accidentally talk to anybody.
The Democrat process for getting Kamala Harris elected is pick somebody that's brown looking, female, and don't let them talk in public.
And the polling shows it's a tie.
Do you really think she has to say smarter things?
Do they need a better candidate?
Apparently not.
Apparently the brainwashing is so strong now, and they've demonized Trump to the point where anything but Trump makes sense to them, that we're just in crazy town now.
So I disagree that if the economy looks like it's in the toilet, it will make any difference to voters.
Because the voters will say, well, Morning Joe told me That the market is down because of something Trump did.
Morning Joe told me the border situation is bad because of something that Trump did.
And they will believe it.
So I would reject the idea that if the stock market and the economy are in the toilet, that you can't elect a Democrat.
I don't think we're in that world.
Because that would be a rational world.
A rational world would say, oh, you know, the economy is so important, I'm going to have to go with who's strongest on the economy.
And that, at the moment, that's Trump, according to polls.
I don't think it's going to matter.
Let's talk about the VP choice, Tim Walz.
Well, you know, I'd like to introduce the first dad joke of the news cycle.
Unless somebody beat me to it.
You know, they've been telling us that the walls are going to close in on Trump.
And then she picks Tim Walz.
Well, the walls is closing in on Trump now, I'd say.
I just had to be the first dad joker to say that.
Well, let's look at this choice.
He's a 60 years old, bald, ugly guy from Minnesota.
Governor.
And he's, uh, he's got a long record of, uh, being quite progressive and liberal.
So he sounds good.
And he might be a state that they need to capture.
And, uh, here's why I think he was chosen.
Cause he doesn't have presidential qualities.
Uh, my, uh, here's what I thought would be the big problem.
You know, the president always needs to pick a vice president who is less capable.
Because if you see the vice president as more capable, then everybody says, maybe that person should be at the top of the ticket.
And it's just, that's awkward.
So she did succeed in picking somebody who looks less exciting than her.
He might be smarter.
But because of the way he looks and he just looks boring and old and white and bald and fat, he just doesn't look like a presidential anything.
In our biased way that we analyze these things.
But here's maybe the most important part.
Remember I said in other shows that Kamala Harris has got a problem because if she picks a strong white male vice president, Then that person would be maybe first choice to be the next Democrat presidential candidate.
But I didn't think... uh... just a funny meme go by on the locals platform.
They can do images in the comments on the Locals platform.
All right, I'm not going to repeat that one because it was unkind, but it was funny.
Anyway, so if you pick walls, here's what you do.
You guarantee that the most likely person to run for president next time will not be the vice president.
Cause he just doesn't have that presidential vibe about him, you know, for all the wrong reasons.
Cause there's look mostly.
So I think what she did was she made it safe for whoever wants to run president after her, that could be another woman or another person of color or both.
And they don't have to worry that the strongest candidate accidentally was the vice president who did such a good job that everybody says, well, maybe you should run for president.
So she picked somebody who couldn't possibly become president through elections, I don't think.
Because again, just the physicality of it.
We don't pick fat, bald guys for president.
Probably never will.
Probably never will.
I'm not saying that's a good reason.
I'm just saying it is what it is.
So I think it was a brilliant choice politically because it keeps the door open for A future diversity hire candidate next cycle, no matter what happens with Harris.
Well, Trump has a new nickname for Kamala Harris, and I don't even understand it, but he's called her Kamabla.
Kamabla.
Kamabla.
He's adding B-L-A, not H, but just B-L-A to the end of her name.
Now, some people say it reminds you of Obama.
But I don't know how blah reminds you of Obama.
And some people might say it sounds like blob, but I don't think it's that.
Comma blob would be funnier.
And some say it's because she goes blah, blah, blah.
And some say it's because she's boring.
Does anybody have any idea where this nickname comes from?
I have no idea why this nickname is a nickname.
But I will also tell you it made me laugh.
So it was funny.
When I first heard the nickname, I heard it in a context and I didn't know that Trump had assigned it.
So when I first heard it, I was like, nah, that's weak.
That's weak.
Comma blah.
That'll never catch on.
And then I saw that it was part of Trump's official statement and he just sort of randomly calls her comma blah more than once.
And it made me laugh.
It made me laugh.
It only made me laugh because he said it.
So it's not what you say, it's also who you are when you say it.
It just made it funny.
Just the fact that, well, here's what makes it funny.
So you've all heard that if you mispronounce her name, you're called a racist?
So he's introduced a nickname that is nothing but a mispronunciation of her name.
So if we all call her Kamablah, we'll all sound racist, but it will just be a joke.
So I think it might be brilliant.
It might be.
Like, I don't know if it'll catch on.
It doesn't really feel like it would catch on.
When I say it, I don't say to myself, oh, I can't wait to say it again.
All right.
Scott predicted a soft landing.
I still predict a soft landing.
I think we had a soft landing.
Whatever's happening now is some new cycle.
And by the way, I predicted that the vaccinations would not work.
There's a whole set of trolls now that are coming after me because they believed what they saw on 4chan.
Oh, Dean Davis is back again.
All right, so I've got my drunken trolls, I've come back in.
Dean Davis, the drunken troll.
I don't know if he's drunk, but he acts like it.
All right, so Trump had a big event with a podcaster, a streamer I guess, live streamer, on the Kik platform.
And Aiden Ross is his name, I guess he has a gigantic audience.
So he met with, uh, he live streamed it and he met with Trump in Mar-a-Lago.
And then he brought Trump a gift, which was a Tesla Cybertruck wrapped with the image of Trump, you know, holding up his fist after being shot.
And so then he didn't think that he could, of course, go for a ride.
You know, you can't just put Trump in a car and go for a ride.
And Trump's like, hey, let me get in that car.
And he gets in the car.
And so they're filming him as they're like playing with the radio and picking songs and stuff.
And so as a way to sort of humanize Trump and get him bonding with, I think there are probably more young men who watch that live stream, I'm guessing, than women.
But it was perfect.
And then I saw somebody suggest That that should be the way he campaigns.
You should just give up on the mainstream media and just have one podcaster after another come down and talk to him at Mar-a-Lago.
And when I heard that idea, I said, is that the best idea I've ever heard?
And I was trying to think if I've ever heard a better idea than that, like in any realm.
It's one of those, when you hear it, you go, wait a minute.
That would be easy to execute, could be done immediately, the podcasters would like it, it would expose them to the people who don't yet understand all the news, the exact audience he wants.
It might be the best idea I've ever heard.
Would you agree?
There's nothing that would stop you from doing it.
It would be cheap.
It would be fast.
It would get exactly the right people you want.
It's just the best idea I've ever heard.
I forget who said it.
I think I wrote it down somewhere, but I'll tell you if I remember.
It's not my idea.
All right.
There's a new poll asking people if they thought they'd be better off under Harris or Trump economically.
How many people who are registered voters Believe they'd be better off financially under President Harris.
I'd like you to guess.
What percentage said they'd be better off under Harris economically?
25%.
Now, if you're new to this live stream, the Adams law, Adams 25% law, is that every poll, 25% of the respondents will have the dumbest answer.
And it's a different 25%.
It's not, I don't think it's the same people, but I love that the trolls are using all caps now because I know what not to read.
I'm reading almost all of your comments going by, but the, the trolls do this entire, like a full paragraph in all caps.
So I don't have to look at it.
It's like, don't look at me.
Don't look at me.
I'll tell you how to not look at me.
So that's pretty good.
Thank you.
Keep using those caps, trolls.
You know what would be great is if... I wish the Rumble Studio would delete comments that have all caps.
Just not show them.
It should be optional.
You know, it should be optional.
But if somebody wants to do all caps all the time, you should just have an option to turn it off so you don't see them.
So, fewer drunks.
Well, every single day we hear something worse about that assassination attempt and the Secret Service protection.
How is it even possible that every single day there's new breaking news that makes it sound worse than you thought it was and you already thought it was bad?
How is it possible every day?
Well, here's the newest.
So, Senator Hawley, Says that whistleblowers tell him that the lead agent, we still don't know who the lead agent was that day, on the Trump-Butler job, was not enforcing the normal security protocols that day.
And she wasn't having IDs checked that day.
And the whistleblower described it as a free-for-all, and the lead agent is still doing all of her duties.
So there was a lead agent who Intentionally relaxed security that day, but only that day, and is still on the job.
And it's described as a she.
So the lead agent was a she.
Now that's not important.
Stop.
Stop.
I know you're going to make a DEI joke.
But we don't have any evidence that would suggest that DEI is any part of the problem.
It's a question.
I think it's the right question.
And if you tell me it's not the right question, I would say, why not?
If we have a system which guarantees fewer qualified people in management, and the problem was an unqualified person in management, isn't that a reasonable question?
How'd that happen?
Was it a DEI situation?
Maybe.
But maybe not.
No way to know.
But it is the right question.
And I didn't invent DEI.
So don't blame me if DEI raises questions.
That's not my problem.
It's a reasonable question, and I didn't design the system.
So I get to ask questions.
Anyway, here are some of the things we know now.
CNN live streamed a Trump rally in Butler, which is completely opposite their normal method.
Almost like they expected an assassination attempt, because why else would they stream the entire thing?
There was really no reason to do it, and it broke with their tradition for years.
It was the first time ever there was a counter-sniper team.
Huh.
That's interesting.
First time ever he had a counter-sniper team.
Now what did the counter-sniper team do?
Did they stop the sniper?
No, they killed the sniper so he wouldn't be a witness later.
I mean, maybe that's not why he did it.
Maybe they killed him because he had a gun and he was pointing it at the president and shooting.
But it did have the effect of taking away that source of information.
So interesting.
First time CNN live streamed it.
First time there'd ever be a counter-sniper team.
First time the lead person didn't do the normal security checks.
First time there was an assassination attempt.
And it's the first time I've ever heard of a criminal who had no social media, but he had lots of encrypted communications that they can't get into.
Huh.
That's a lot of coincidences.
So the people looking for the conspiracy theory that it was all a setup to kill Trump, I still think it could be a hybrid.
A hybrid would be they didn't care enough to keep him alive.
So they just did what everybody in the corporate world does, which is the minimum amount to do your job and then go home and get paid.
So it might be just that they didn't care enough.
Could be.
Could be DEI problem.
Could be.
There's no screaming indication of it, but the system guarantees incompetence eventually.
So maybe that happened.
Yeah, that's a lot of coincidences.
I'm going to stop short of saying that the government was in on it, but can't ignore those coincidences.
Laura Loomer.
Reminds us that there's there's a new story that she was Among the first to break And she's reminding us of that and I think that's that's worthy Worthy of being reminded.
So here's this it's a story about Raskin and Swalwell Let's see if I can explain this.
to declare Trump as an insurrectionist on January 3rd, which would remove him from the presidency should he win.
So in other words, let's see if I can explain this.
So they believe that the Supreme Court misrepresented, I guess, some insurrection 14th Amendment thing, but they believe that they're correctly interpreting it.
And if they had the votes, they would simply vote that Trump is an insurrectionist and then they would not confirm him to be president, even if he won the election.
What would you call that?
What would you call a plan, which they've, you know, they're speaking out loud about it.
It's not hidden.
A plan to remove the legally elected president based on simply voting that in your opinion, it was an insurrection.
In their opinion.
Because no court has found any insurrection.
So it would simply be the opinion that an erection happened.
Insurrection happened.
I knew I was going to say erection instead of insurrection eventually.
I mean that had to happen.
So there it was.
I'm sure there'll be more.
But to me that looks like an insurrection.
Looks like a coup.
And the Democrats can just say they're going to plan a coup.
They can tell you exactly how they're going to do it.
And they can say that in public because they own the media so thoroughly that they can tell you they're going to do a plan.
They can just tell you it's legal.
Oh, it's legal.
So we can just do it.
And everybody's okay with it.
But yes.
And then I guess Raskin was saying that, you know, they'd have to gear up for what he would expect would be a civil war if they did it.
Meaning that the Trump supporters might get violent, he believes, and that you need lots of security to take care of it.
Now, all of this puts me in an awkward situation.
You're probably reading that right now, because I say all the time, violence is never recommended.
Right?
I say that almost every show.
I want to make sure everybody hears it.
I do not recommend violence.
Violence is not recommended.
So my opinion is no violence, even in that situation.
It is, however, objectively true that violence is the only way to solve these situations.
So I advise against it.
And I think that you should quietly allow your country to be stolen from you to avoid the violence.
So that's my recommendation.
Just let it go.
Just lean back and let it go.
So no, no violence, please.
Let's see.
Some guy named Edward Luce made a little noise on X.
And he's an associate editor for the Financial Times, and he posted this.
He said, Can't say this enough.
Elon Musk's menace to democracy is intolerable.
He's using the largest and most influential platforms in the democratic world to stoke racial conflict and civil breakdown.
In his own posts and what X promotes, democracies can no longer ignore this.
So, I said, can you give me an example of that?
Well, why is it that I don't know any examples of that?
I follow Musk.
I talk about him literally every day.
And why have I never seen an example of where he was stoking racial conflict and civil breakdown?
What is that even about?
So, remember I told you that if all you know is the news, you don't know anything?
What you need to know is the players.
Mike Benz helpfully tells us who this player is.
Apparently he's part of the blob and he'd been against, you know, so he's one of these people who thinks America should be very influential in the governments and the workings of other countries.
And he's just a blob guy.
So once you know, he's a blob guy, Apparently, even when Obama—I didn't know this, but Obama was not so much in favor of overthrowing other countries.
Did you know that?
That's good on him.
I mean, we're learning that he was—Obama tried cutting the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy.
Now, according to Ben's, the National Endowment for Democracy is some kind of a CIA cutout for overthrowing other countries.
So Obama wasn't so big on overthrowing other countries.
It's kind of good to know.
I kind of like knowing that.
But it also tells you that the blob is not so much Republican or Democrat.
The blob wants to do what the blob does, which is control the rest of the world, probably for economic reasons.
And Obama wasn't totally on board with that, at least for the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy.
Luce also said that a civilized society does not demonize outsiders.
He did a follow-up post where he said that.
It seeks to integrate them, or where they have no right to be here, to turn them away.
So, a civilized society does not demonize outsiders.
Do you agree with that statement?
That's stated as an assumption that we should all agree with.
A civilized society does not demonize outsiders.
Well, I had to respond to that.
And my response was, all civilized societies must demonize outsiders to survive.
Demonizing outsiders is essential to survival.
There's nothing more important than that.
If you don't demonize outsiders, They're gonna come and take your shit.
Let me ask you, Edward Luce, do you lock your door at night?
Do you lock your car?
And if you don't lock your door at night, why?
Because doesn't that kind of demonize the outsiders?
The people who are literally outside your house?
Why would you assume that some too high a percentage of them might try to get in your house?
What's the difference between locking the door on your house, knowing that most people are fine, but there are some people who are not fine, versus locking your borders, knowing that most people are fine, but some people are not fine?
How's that different?
No, you fucking idiot!
You have this completely backwards.
A civilized society has to demonize outsiders.
Now you can argue about what demonize means, But you have to block them.
Now, if what I say is not letting them in the country because they don't meet some, you know, bar of acceptable civilized behavior, that's demonizing.
You could call it vetting people.
You could call it, you know, making sure you've checked on people.
You could call it making sure that we're bringing in people who would assimilate faster.
Or you could call it demonize.
But if you don't demonize outsiders, you are fucking dead.
You're gonna die.
Now, I'm not in favor of racism, of course.
I'm not saying racism, and I'm not saying that you should demonize the culture.
I'm saying that you can't just assume that every group of people mixes with every group of people.
Now, as I've often told you, if you have not had much experience with the Hispanic immigrant community, they are really good at assimilating.
Right?
Really good.
The Hispanic community comes in with a family preference, comes in with a work ethic, comes in with religious belief, and they want to make it work.
They want to learn English.
They want to live here, they want to maybe help their family back home, but they are really good at assimilating.
Now, if I say that a group from Yemen, who has a different culture, is more adamant about making their culture the dominant culture wherever they move to, is that something that demonizes those people?
I don't think so.
In fact, I might even compliment them, say, you know, your culture is really strong.
The Islamic culture is really strong, and it does have a, you know, a family kind of a sense to it, and it has a sense of, you know, a very well-developed sense of morals and ethics and what you should and should not do.
If I were to criticize it, I think I would be going too far.
I think it's a very successful system, filled with very capable people in most cases.
So I don't have anything against their system.
But what's true is, it doesn't fit our system.
It's too strong.
Their culture is so strong that it's a non-assimilating culture if you go too fast.
If you go slowly, Probably works fine.
There's just some rate at which it can't possibly work.
So this fucking asshole, this, uh, Edward Luce, he doesn't seem to understand really basic stuff about how anything works.
If it were, if we were refusing, you know, three families of Muslims from coming into the country, Because their Muslim and their culture doesn't work too well with our culture, I would say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You're talking about three families?
In the whole United States?
Of course that's fine.
Oh, maybe they don't assimilate so great.
But, you know, by second generation, no problem.
So, it's the rate.
It's always the rate.
It's nothing about the people.
It's nothing about the culture.
It's nothing about Islam.
It's just the rate.
You can have a higher flow of Hispanics coming into the country because they assimilate like crazy.
Really, really good at it.
And they add.
And if you have a group that by their preference, by their preference is not to assimilate, but rather to make you assimilate, that can't work.
But again, if it's three families, no problem.
If it's millions, You got a civil war.
So, when Elon Musk says, you know, civil war is inevitable, that is purely about number and rate.
It's not about anybody's culture.
It's not about demonizing anybody in, you know, some kind of a jerky way.
It's simply a system design problem.
He's looking at it like a machine.
All right?
Just like a machine.
If this machine gives you a small number of people who are hard to assimilate, no problem.
The machine handles that fine.
If you overload the machine with not enough fuel and too much dirt in your engine, well, okay, I'll take that back because then it sounds like I'm calling immigrants dirt.
That's the opposite of what I mean.
So you could have full respect for the immigrants, which I do, and their culture, which I do.
But you can still say that the rate of flow has to be adjusted based on the assimilation likelihood.
So I'm going to demonize this guy, Edward Luce.
I don't think he should be anywhere near our country because he's got bad ideas that are bad for civilization.
So I demonize you.
I demonize you, Edward Luce.
Member of the Blob.
Well, Israel allegedly took out the commander of some elite Hezbollah unit with a drone strike.
Some people say, well, that guarantees some, some war.
And likewise, in the situation room, I guess the vice president was there and Biden was there and all the situation room people were there talking about what's going to happen with Iran.
And, uh, Let's put some context on this, courtesy of Morgan Ortegas.
So, she had a long thread today that was really interesting.
It's not that often that you read something that completely alters how you think about a big situation, but here's one.
So, this is Morgan Ortegas, and it's not the whole thread, I just took out some parts I like the most.
She said, the Biden-Harris administration has set a new record for the most embassy evacuations of any presidency in U.S.
history, topping Obama's eight.
Now, I didn't remember that under Obama there were eight embassies that had to be evacuated, but apparently we're now up to 16 under the Biden-Harris.
16 nations have faced coups or had governments toppled.
Since Biden's been in office as president.
In multiple instances, military protection and escorts were necessary to protect U.S.
citizens in Haiti, Sudan, and Afghanistan.
But their global instability hardly stops there.
So, she's also naming Myanmar, Chad, Guinea, Sudan, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Haiti, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, and the Central African Republic, Somalia, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Bangladesh, and Venezuela have all had coup efforts or toppled governments.
Do you think the United States had anything to do with any of those coups?
I think we're assuming so.
I think we're assuming so.
But I don't know the details.
Yeah.
So from Tehran to Caracas, the Biden foreign policy, Biden-Harris foreign policy has delivered fresh cash infusions to repressive regimes while undercutting America's energy production.
Now that's sort of a big picture view.
So if you think of the United States as continuously meddling in other countries, You don't really see it all happening at the same time.
But when you hear the statistic that 16, 16 embassies had to be evacuated in other countries, that's not looking so good.
All right, so we don't seem to have any Real presidential leadership.
I don't know who's running things, but it sounds like the people in the State Department or the CIA are just sort of doing their own thing and overthrowing anything they can overthrow.
Anyway, there was some kind of attack in Iraq that injured some U.S.
personnel, and I don't know if that's part of the beginning of a wave of trouble or a one-off or what, but that's happening.
Now, I'll remind you again that here's my take on the whole Israel-Iran situation.
I don't think Israel has a choice.
I think they have to destroy Hezbollah.
If they can.
Because Hezbollah will just keep getting stronger.
They just keep adding rockets and adding resources.
And there's going to be war eventually.
So wouldn't they be better mowing the lawn now when they have a chance of knocking it back a little bit?
Now, I don't know if they have the military capability to knock enough of the missile launchers out of action before they take too much of Israel down, so I don't know if it makes sense completely militarily.
The only thing that's obvious is there will never be a better time.
I don't know if it's a good enough time, you know, that they could get what they wanted, Israel, but when will there ever be a better time?
Because they're under attack, so everybody says, okay, it looks like you're not the one who started it.
Now, when you're in that part of the country, everybody argues about who started it.
Well, there wouldn't have been an October 7th if you hadn't done this.
Well, we wouldn't have done this if you hadn't done that.
So there's no such thing as who started it.
That's the dumbest conversation in the Middle East.
Who started it?
Everybody started it.
And everybody's invested in keeping it going, apparently, forever.
So, here we are.
So, I don't think that Israel will ever have a situation where reasonable people will say, yeah, you really did have to do something in that situation.
And they're already geared up, so they don't have to, you know, make war a new idea.
They just have to expand it quite a bit.
And I think Netanyahu wants to stay in office, and some say that as soon as he winds things down in Gaza, he'll be removed from office because he's not popular.
So maybe that has something to do with it.
But even if Netanyahu didn't have personal political incentives, when would it be a better time to take care of this problem?
They can't let Hezbollah just keep growing.
And having more and more military power just aimed exclusively at Israel.
So, to me it seems like there's no way around it.
I think it's guaranteed.
What do you think?
And you could argue that America doesn't have a strong president at the moment to put any kind of guardrails on there.
So, it looks to me like war is guaranteed, but I think Iran is trying to make sure that whatever they do, isn't big enough to give Israel a full green light to do everything they want to do.
And when I say everything they want to do, I'm talking about just taking care of Hezbollah once and for all.
Although you couldn't really finish them off, but you could degrade them and knock them back.
You can knock them back 10 years, maybe.
All right.
So, Scott, do you support Sharia?
Mary, do you have only dumb questions?
Do you have any more dumb questions?
Think of a better question and come back to me.
They could take the British plan and let themselves be destroyed passively.
Yeah.
Yeah, they could let themselves be destroyed in a variety of ways.
But I don't think Israel wants to be destroyed, so I would expect full-out war, and we'll see what happens.
There's no way around it, is there?
How many of you think that there will not be full-out war with Hezbollah, which basically is, you know, Iran proxy?
I think it's guaranteed.
So, Iran has a problem in which they have to do something, but not something so big that Israel will have a free pass to do anything they want.
And I think they can't hit that mark, which is why it's taking so long.
I think Iran has a big conversation internally.
It's like, yeah, we do want to maybe punch him in the nose, but if their nose bleeds, they're going to kill all of us.
So there's no way for Iran to win this, I don't think.
Here's a weird stat in a completely different topic.
74% of Ohio police officers report having head injuries.
30% of that happened on the job.
74% of the police have head injuries?
Would that be true of just any group of people?
Head injuries are like a way bigger deal than we make of them, because I think a lot of personalities get changed by head injuries.
I've seen it happen in my own life.
Anyway, I'm not sure I believe that statistic, but that's pretty alarming.
OpenAI has some software that allegedly could detect AI writing with almost perfect accuracy, 99.9.
So you're saying to yourself, oh, that's good.
So we'll be able to tell AI writing from regular writing.
Nope, they're not going to release it.
Do you know why they might not release it?
Well, it turns out that the people who use AI and also use it to help them write, Don't want to be spotted as having used AI to write.
So the people who produce content really don't want to see their writing being identified.
And the people who see the content would rather it be identified.
So at the moment OpenAI has a problem because the producers of content Won't use their products if it's going to ID them as using their products.
So that's interesting.
I feel like we'll just get used to AI writing and that we won't care if AI wrote the whole thing.
I think it's just a, just a short period of time where we think that matters.
But if there's a human being who pushed the button to send the message, It's fine with the human being.
Do you really care if the human wrote it?
Or if a computer wrote it and the human said, yeah, that looks good.
What's the difference?
I don't know.
Yeah, eventually it will be de-stigmatized.
And I think eventually could be next year.
I mean, it's not going to take long to de-stigmatize that once everybody's doing it.
All right.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, was all that's happening today.
Um...
Uh...
Wow.
Bye.
I'm seeing some bad news in the comments.
People personally.
All right.
Is there any story I missed today?
So we don't know too much about the vice president yet, but we'll find out.
Don't care what team use a calculator.
Yeah, we don't care if a human used a calculator to figure out what something cost.
Yeah, that's exactly like that.
More than a real demon, yeah.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you're not following the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see now on the X platform by subscription, see my profile, or the Locals platform, which has more than the comic,
You would not know that Dilbert will soon be writing some software for a Boeing-like... Boeing-like trip to the Space Station.
And it's such a perfect Dilbert situation.
It writes the whole week.
Yeah, I'm just gonna have somebody say, you know, the software is not done.
But you know, we really have to hit this window.
But you know, the software is not done.
Yeah, but we have to hit this window.
A real-life situation.
Alright, that's all I got for now.
X and Rumble and YouTube.
I'm going to say bye to you, and I'm going to go talk to these subscribers on Locals privately, because they're special.
