God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Media-Driven Mental Health, Jordan Peterson Re-Education, Kevin Sorbo, Rasmusson Polling, President Macron, Chess Player Mercury Poisoning, Kamala Harris Mannerisms, CNN Financial Losses, CNN's Purpose, Smartmatic Executives Indictment, International Business Practices, Election Manipulation, Cyber Ninjas, Election System Cyber Security, Michigan Election Security, Nancy Pelosi's Highest Priority, Tim Walz, Democrat Messaging, UK Mean Post Arrests, Israel Iran Tensions, Boeing QC, 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
Unparalleled... You know, there was a study that showed that... It's a brand new study.
It says that coffee and tea are linked to a lower risk of dementia.
Two prospective cohort studies were presented at the LZ... Well, it's worth a try.
It's the... It's the unparalleled... Hold on.
Hold on.
It's the unparalleled... Wait.
Pleasure.
Pleasure.
It's the unparalleled pleasure.
There we go.
I hope you took your sip.
That was your opportunity.
Yes, it's true.
Another study says that coffee and tea lowers your risk of dementia.
So that's the good news.
Well, another one of my neighbors got burgled, probably by the organized South Central American gangs.
So that makes three high-end homes in my very safe California neighborhood who have had people break in and steal their shit.
In the middle of the day, usually.
So here's the creepy part.
In each of the burglaries, I think there have been several in the last few years, nobody's ever home.
Now you say to yourself, oh, that's good.
Nobody's home when the burglaries happen.
But it also means they're watching.
How does anybody know if you're home?
What exactly would be the mechanism by which you could tell if somebody is home?
Because they've never once been wrong.
They've never gone into a home and found somebody there and then had to run away.
So how do they know?
And it makes me wonder if they're using drones.
Because remember I told you there was a drone that came down in my pool area of my backyard.
You know, it just came down and looked in my windows.
And it cased the whole neighborhood.
And then it went back to some distant place.
And it was a pretty high-end drone.
And it made me wonder if the criminals just have a way of monitoring people.
The other thing I wonder is, did they just wait until they see a garage open?
And then if the garage is open and there are no cars left around the house, they figure there are no adults, so that's a good time to go in.
I don't know.
But here's the other thing that I wonder if it's a coincidence.
So I have unusually high diversity in my neighborhood, but it's an expensive neighborhood.
So everybody here is doing well.
And a lot of my neighbors are either Chinese American or Indian American.
And, you know, we've got everything else, too.
We've got Hispanic, you name it.
But it's a pretty diverse neighborhood.
But so far, I think only the Asian and Indian American high-end homes have been hit.
And I don't have a hypothesis about that.
But it could be an assumption of lower gun ownership.
Maybe.
I don't know if there's a correlation there or not.
It could be an assumption that they're more likely to have jewelry.
Because I think the criminals all like to just grab what they can put in a pillowcase and then run out.
So it's usually just medications.
I guess they sell the medications or they hope they're opioids or something.
And jewelry.
Now, I have exactly, you know, zero jewelry in my house.
I literally don't have, I don't even have a watch, you know, that anybody would want to steal.
And I, you know, I don't have any good drugs that you couldn't get anywhere.
So, I don't know.
I just wonder if I'm safe because the criminals know too much about me.
Because I can guarantee this would be the wrong house to rob.
But do they know that?
It feels like they do.
It just makes me wonder.
Anyway, so I guess the National Weather Service is telling the Washington D.C.
area that there's going to be a tornado.
A tornado?
Do you think God has finally had enough?
Yeah, do you ever wonder if God is just watching this whole shit show and just like, nah, it's time for another flood, but let's just see if the, let's see if the tornado cleans anything up.
Yeah.
If that doesn't get it done, there's always a flood option.
And of course, Japan is bracing for what their, their, Expecting, or at least they think is possible, not expecting, but they're talking about an earthquake of an 8 or a 9 that they think might happen in Japan like any moment.
Because there have been a number of small rumbles that give them an idea that something big is coming.
How in the world could Japan survive an earthquake of an 8 or 9 on the Richter scale?
That doesn't even seem survivable.
It seems like the whole island would collapse under a tsunami or something.
So, keep an eye on all that, looks like.
You know, this reminds me of why we're all crazy now.
You know, lots of reasons, social media, etc.
But, I wake up in the morning, and I read the news, and I learn about ten different, you know, deadly situations that, if I didn't hear about them, wouldn't affect me.
So now I'm worrying about, you know, people dying in Washington, D.C.
from a tornado, and I'm worried about the, you know, the neighbors getting burgled, and I'm worried about Japan sinking into the ocean from an earthquake.
I wouldn't know any of that stuff if I were born in the 1700s and I just woke up and it was time to do some farming.
So, how in the world do you not go crazy in today's world?
Because you're hearing about everybody's problem.
And then it becomes like it's your own problem.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Then monkey pox and that now it looks like Africa's got a monkey pox problem and it's coming to you.
And I'm thinking, really, if I had never heard about this monkey pox problem, do you think I'd be happier?
I do.
Cause I don't have to do anything about it until You know, there's some reason to do something about it.
And between now and then, it's just one extra thing to worry about, on top of my 50 other things that were in the news to worry about.
Let's talk about the fun stuff.
This doesn't sound like fun, but it might become fun.
Jordan Peterson, he failed in his court appeals to avoid being re-educated.
So his profession, I guess the psychologist of Ontario, College of Psychologists of Ontario.
They want to put him into re-education training so he can learn how to be a better communicator online and not be insulting people, I guess.
Now, the interesting thing about this is that I'm not sure this is true, but it sounds like from Peterson's lawyer that they've exhausted all their appeals and he might actually go to re-education training.
Now, How much would you pay as a ticket just to be in the class with Jordan Peterson being taught how to use social media?
Could that be better?
Like, honestly, if you said, how much would you pay for a ticket to watch Jordan Peterson give, let's say, a speech or a presentation?
I'd pay a pretty good—I'd pay a pretty expensive ticket for that.
I would feel quite confident That if I saw him in person, I would walk away saying, wow, that was a good show.
But how much would I pay to be in this re-education camp with him in Ontario?
I mean, if I traveled.
I would pay a lot.
Like if they said, all right, it's going to be $1,000.
You have to pay $1,000 and you have to sit through the training.
You have to do the training too.
I'd be like, and Jordan Peterson's going to be in the same class, in the same room, right?
And they'll be like, yeah, that's how it works.
And I'd be like, here's your thousand dollars, because I don't think that could be more entertaining.
Anyway, we'll find out.
I'm sure they'll have some stories.
The best stories would be the other people in the class giving their account of how the class went.
Oh my God, that's going to be good.
All right.
Are you ready for the best laugh of the day?
Does anybody want to start their weekend with a good laugh?
Now, this is not my joke.
This is actor Kevin Sorbo.
So this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
So I'm just going to read his joke, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
He posted an excellent quote.
If Kamala really is black, have her say the N-word.
Let the people decide for themselves.
Okay, that's just perfect.
I would like to add to it and add some commentary about it, but you can't do that when something's perfect.
No, you can't say it could be better because it couldn't.
You can't criticize it because it's perfect.
So I have nothing to add to it.
Just take a moment to fully enjoy Kevin Sorbo's best post on X in a long time.
I mean, best post of anybody in a long time.
That is just so clever.
Well, the Rasmussen polling company continues to be provocative, and they're insisting that, based on their expertise as pollsters, that they can tell that the other polls are bullshit.
The ones that say Kamala Harris has pulled ahead, Rasmussen just says, nope.
I'm paraphrasing, but basically they're saying, we're in this business too, and I can tell you that Kamala Harris is not ahead, and we can also tell you how the other pollsters do their fake polls.
Now that's interesting.
It has something to do with a timing difference of how they do it.
But I don't know the details.
But Rasmussen is quite adamant that Trump still has the lead.
I think this is part of my larger theme today, that all data is suspect.
Some of it might be right, but you have no way of knowing, because you can't tell by the source, you can't tell by how many scientists agree.
None of that means anything.
So just treat all data like it's fake, because you can't tell what's real.
So you're gonna have to, you know, make sure you're covering all your risks.
Some of you may have seen a video that purported to show President Macron of France making out with a man at some beach swimming situation where they're wearing trunks.
Now, I looked at that and I said to myself, I don't think I'm going to retweet that.
Because we are in the age of AI, And in the age of AI, it seemed to me that somebody could have faked that video.
And so I said to myself, I'm just going to send it to a friend and say, I think it looks like an AI fake.
It turns out it's an AI fake.
That's exactly what I thought.
Now I could not tell by looking at it.
So if you want a preview of what's to come, I looked at it pretty hard and I said, I don't know.
There's no obvious tell in the video itself.
It just looks like a perfect video somebody took of him making out with a guy.
But it didn't happen.
It was AI.
And here's the only way I knew that it was fake.
Two on the nose.
Remember the two on the nose trick?
I teach you this practically once a week.
If you see a story in the news, That fits your bias or your, let's say, your darker expectations, and it fits it too perfectly, it's probably not real.
It means that somebody created something because they knew they could get you to believe it, because you were already biased in that direction.
So as soon as you see a story that's just so right on the nose, You should automatically say, probably not.
Let's wait a little bit on that one.
So my instinct to say that was too on the nose and wait a little bit was the right instinct.
It's not going to work every time.
But certainly in the age of AI, if you see something that just so perfectly on the nose tells a story, automatically put that in your maybe not box.
Here's a story about a chess champion, Amina Bakarova.
She was caught on video smearing mercury on her rival's chess pieces, causing her to be hospitalized.
So apparently you can sabotage your chess partner by rubbing mercury on their chess pieces, so if they touch it with their hand, They'll get sick and go to the hospital.
But anyway, she was stripped of her title.
I do appreciate that she thinks chess is bigger than the board.
You know, she sees the big game.
But apparently you can be a chess master and not know that rooms typically have security cameras, which was probably entirely visible and pointing right at her when she did it.
So, can I give you this advice?
Should you plan to murder anybody, be it your chess rival or anybody else, and you go into a space, and this space could be indoors or outdoors, there's a thing you should do before you do the murdery thing.
Alright?
And it goes like this.
If you're just listening on audio, I will now be moving my head in many directions.
Do some of this.
Okay, looking for video cameras.
Now that doesn't mean you're going to see them.
If you were at my house, you would not be able to see all of my video cameras, because some of them are intentionally hidden.
But others are intentionally obvious, so that you know I have video security.
So I can get you both ways.
Don't do things in a space that has a high likelihood of having a camera looking at you when you're doing it.
That's my advice for you criminals.
There's another video of Kamala Harris looking drunk, in my opinion.
We're all just going to ignore this, right?
So we just went through four years of ignoring that Biden was obviously cognitively declined, and now we just put Kamala Harris there who Looks obviously drunk in a lot of situations.
And we're just not going to talk about it, right?
So only on social media you get to say it because we can't prove it or something.
So will the news just never acknowledge that whether or not she's actually drunk, that would be a separate question, she acts drunk quite often.
Now, do you want somebody whose natural personality is indistinguishable from drunk?
How is this not a big issue?
Because I don't think it's just me, right?
Okay, let me ask in the comments.
How many of you think that there are multiple videos of Kamala Harris obviously being inebriated?
You could disagree on whether it's alcohol or something else, but how many think it's obvious she's inebriated a lot in public?
How many of you would say that's a fair statement?
We'll wait and see in the comments.
Anyway, so Erica Abinanti has this post in which she's summarizing Kamala Harris' interview—it was over video—with somebody named Angela Rai.
I'm not sure when this happened.
2020, I think it was.
But she was asked by Angela Rai who she thought was the best rapper alive.
Remember, this was asked in 2020, and her answer was Tupac.
Now, if you know the history of Kamala Harris and questions about music, she has said before that she smoked pot and listened to Tupac in college, but Tupac hadn't done any work when she was in college.
So she's lied about Tupac before.
And then Angela Rai said, he's not alive because she'd asked best rapper alive.
And Kamala says, I keep doing that.
And Angela says, keep going.
And Harris says, who would I say?
There's so many.
I mean, you know, there are some that I would mention right now because they should stay in their lane.
And Angela Rice says, I want to know who one of those are.
And Kamala Harris says, keep moving, keep moving.
In other words, she wouldn't answer the question.
Now I ask you this.
How many black women who really enjoy dancing and music As Kamala Harris, she dances in public all the time, sort of like Ellen.
Which I don't mind, by the way.
That's sort of an interesting, fun element she adds to the mix.
I'm okay with that.
I mean, I'm okay.
It's not like it's up to me to be okay with it.
I just think that as a technique, it's not bad.
I think it does show some energy, and I know women in particular like it.
Shows she's lively.
So, who do you know who is black And loves music so much that she's always dancing to it and can't name one artist in that domain?
Isn't that weird?
It makes you wonder if she actually has even one black rapper artist who's still alive that she would listen to.
I'm guessing maybe no.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course.
That's not a criticism.
Except, she keeps putting herself in positions where she can't answer easy questions.
How hard would it be to give a satisfying answer to the question, even if you had been lying about it?
You can say something like, you know, honestly, I don't want to give a favorite because then it'll just become a thing.
But it's not so much that I have favorites.
I just like the genre.
I turn on my, let's say, my streaming service and I just hit hip hop and I listen to it.
I'm not too obsessed with who's making the music.
I just like it.
So when you ask me who's my favorite, honestly, I just blank.
But I like the, you know, I sort of like the genre.
I'm not so into following the details of who's doing it.
How hard would it be to answer that question?
It would be the easiest—and she couldn't handle that.
She couldn't handle, who's your favorite musician?
I don't think you could get an easier question.
So, can't wait to see your deal with the hard questions.
Well, apparently a debate will happen.
I believe three have been proposed, but only one has been agreed by both camps, and I think that's the NBC-hosted one on September 10th.
If I'm correct.
So that would leave two that Trump says yes to, that Harris has not yet said yes to, but might.
If I had to recommend the Harris team strategy, I would recommend one debate.
What would you recommend?
If you were on Harris's team and you were recommending, you can't recommend zero.
Zero is too hard.
And three is just giving you three ways to lose.
I think one is their best play.
Because if you do one, you can't be said that you didn't do one.
And she might get lucky.
You know, she just might have a good day.
So if she has one good day, it would be a mistake to have another one planned.
And if she fails in her one, she probably was going to fail on all three.
So I think one is the right number.
We'll see.
All right, CNN, the company is in bad financial straits.
The parent company just took a $9.1 billion write-off.
Apparently they lost $10 billion this quarter.
Is that even possible?
How do you lose $10 billion in one quarter from a little news site that nobody watches?
I don't even think that data could be correct.
That can't be right.
$10 billion in a quarter?
How could they possibly spend $10 billion in one quarter?
That makes no sense at all, does it?
All right, there's something about this story that's not adding up.
But one thing we can tell for sure is that CNN is not for profit.
Just hold that in your head for a moment.
CNN doesn't run for profit, and it looks like it never could.
If you were the owner of the company, who owned a money-losing, just huge money-losing entity, what would you do?
Would you continue losing money forever with no real hope that it's going to change around, because it's legacy media and it's going to decline until it disappears?
Wouldn't you cut your losses?
Unless, unless there was some other reason that you owned CNN?
Maybe it's so you can have some control over the narrative.
Maybe there's some shady government entity that's saying to you, you know, if you just suck it up and take these losses and keep CNN on the air because it says things we like it to say, well, maybe in other domains, your business would start doing really well because the government would suddenly be flexible about those things you need that you keep asking for that they keep saying no to, but we could get them to say yes.
So it makes you wonder, what is up with CNN?
If it's not being kept alive as a pure propaganda brainwashing tool, which is what it looks like, why is it being kept alive?
It's not for money.
If you're not doing it for money, and you're not doing it because it's a government mandate, you know, if the government said you have to keep it alive, well, that'd be something.
But it's not a mandate.
And there's no profit incentive.
So you tell me why it exists.
I can only think of one reason.
It's because somebody wants to control the propaganda and the brainwashing.
Can you come up with another reason?
I mean, I'm flexible.
I'm open to another explanation.
What would be another explanation?
That they're optimistic that they can turn the ship around?
No.
Nobody thinks that.
Nobody experienced enough to be an executive at the parent company.
Nobody would think that.
So, we're left with the obvious conclusion that it's a brainwashing tool and that's why it exists.
Um, here's some fun.
Do you remember Smartmatics?
That's the software company that, uh, the software that operates in a lot of voting machines around the country and around the world, actually around the world, as well as America.
So, uh, I wonder if anything is suspicious about that company lately.
Well, uh, the founder and president of the whole company.
Along with three other executives that have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida.
It turns out they're being charged with bribery and money laundering over some kind of deal to get their product into the Philippines.
Now, apparently there was a million, allegedly, there was a million dollar bribe.
And these executives were all, you know, part of it.
And they're also calling it money laundering.
But I think maybe the bribe might have been more important than the money laundering.
I'm not sure.
But the idea was to gain the business of the Philippines.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
First of all, how common is it for a multinational company to bribe Uh, locals in another country to get the business.
How common is that?
I assume it's kind of common because as soon as you leave the United States, your odds of having to bribe somebody to do business in another country go really high, right?
I would assume that Central America is largely a blackmail situation or a bribery situation where, you know, there are all these indirect ways to get money to people that need to be bribed.
So I do think that big business in an international sense is probably pretty bristling with bribery.
Now it's illegal in America, but it's also the only way to get business in a lot of countries for a lot of industries.
Probably the only way, because whoever does the best bribe probably gets that business.
So now Now let's go back to the CIA's interest in controlling the elections in other countries.
Does the CIA have an interest in influencing elections in other countries, such as the Philippines?
And the answer is, well, yeah, that's pretty much their business.
That's what they do.
So do you think that maybe somebody in the CIA would be perfectly happy with some entity bribing the Philippines to bring in software that maybe they could have some impact on?
Now, I'm not alleging any of these are the case.
I'm not alleging that the CIA has any control or influence over the Smartmatic company, but it would be quite a dereliction of duty if they don't.
If I were the boss of the CIA and I called my spooks in, I'd say, all right guys and gals, what are you doing to influence the government in the Philippines?
And if they said, well, nothing, well, I'd find better spooks.
But if they said to me, hey, we've got an end with this voting machine software company.
And, uh, if we, if we let them buy this business, which would require some bribery, but, uh, if we let them buy the business, then we'll have the software of our choice running the machines in the Philippines.
And then I'm the boss of the CIA.
And I say, Oh, very good.
Very good.
I'm going to give you a promotion.
Now, I'm not saying that the CIA has anything to do with anything.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this software.
I'm just saying that if you know the players, and you know the incentives, the question you'd want to ask is, did Smartmatics just want to buy some extra business, or did they have somebody who might be a silent partner, who might really want them to buy that business?
And so here's what I would look for.
Could it be that one entity of the government just sees the crime and then is going after it, and that's why there's an indictment?
Because there's some entities that are just fighting crime.
But if there's another entity, let's say a shadowy entity within the United States who's happy that the software company would have some, let's say, let's say some influence on the elections of another country, What you should expect is that these cases would go nowhere, meaning that the CIA would intervene and say, you know, we kind of need these guys to stay out of jail.
So find a way that they don't go to jail.
So here's what I'd look for.
Look for anything that looks like a suspicious reason that this case doesn't go forward.
That would be the prediction.
So if you think that this is darker and deeper than it looks on the surface, well, let's see if the case proceeds like a normal case.
Now the other possibility would be if the CIA was trying to influence the company by failing, they might have thrown the executive under the bus.
As in, how did anybody know, how did anybody in America know that this company was bribing a Philippines company?
How would you know that?
Unless it was a whistleblower.
Well, you might know it if the CIA was watching them and they decided they didn't like that executive because he wasn't playing along with them anymore.
So, I don't think this is the kind of story that you can really know anything about it.
It seems to me that whatever there is about this story, though it's true of every story that's big and complicated, there's something we don't know about this story and probably never will.
Not that my speculations are accurate.
I'm just putting it out there so you can see what the whole world looks like and what to expect.
So keep an eye on this and see if they suspiciously and magically don't go to jail for anything that looks like a clear crime.
That's what I'd be looking for.
All right, there's a website called the Ballot Assure website, and they're listing a number of things that this group, the Cyber Ninjas, a group of analysts who did an analysis of the voting systems in one county in Michigan.
And they uncovered a number of problems, which I assume in context that what's happening here is the problems that they found in one county they believe are generalized.
So the findings are from one county, but I guess they have reason to believe that the same mistakes would apply to other places that use the same equipment, I guess.
Here are some of the things they found.
These are vulnerabilities in that one county, just in Michigan, that may be general.
Hard-coded passwords.
The discovery of hard-coded passwords that have been unchanged in the system since 2010.
The password is embedded directly in multiple points in the source code, making it easily exploitable by anyone with access to the code.
Okay, well, that sounds less than ideal.
High-level access vulnerability.
Let's see, accounts with high-level privileges are inadequately protected.
So it looks like they could be compromised.
Widespread use of global passwords.
That sounds as bad as it... Oh, the same password in multiple systems in different states.
So they allege that the same passwords are on these machines everywhere, including Georgia, Arizona, New Mexico, and Michigan.
Meaning that if you could get into one of them, you could get into all of them.
Weak password management practices and lack of salting in the hashing.
Well, I don't know about you, but I like a lot of salt in my hash.
But this is a technical term.
It just means salting is adding a unique random value to each password before hashing it.
And the absence of it allows for reverse lookups of hashed passwords, significantly weakening security.
So let me ask you this.
Does any of this sound like our election systems are at the highest level of cybersecurity?
Doesn't really sound like that, does it?
So if you were to say, where does this rank?
Let's say compared to big corporate systems that are sensitive or infrastructure systems.
Well, I'm thinking that a big corporate important infrastructure system would have really good cybersecurity.
And they still get hacked.
Still get hacked.
Basically, every system is hackable, it seems.
So, you know how the FBI thinks that China has already gotten into our infrastructure systems?
If China can get into all of our major infrastructure systems, and by the way, I think the FBI would only say that if they knew that the United States has already gotten into everybody else's infrastructure, right?
Because if nobody in the United States knew how to hack into somebody's highly protected cybersecurity in another country, We probably wouldn't assume that they're already doing it to us and not being detected.
One has to assume that we're already doing it, or else we wouldn't assume anybody's doing it to us because they don't leave, doesn't leave evidence.
So, you look at these allegations of low security in the elections, And you say to yourself, if the highest security things are routinely hacked, that would be what the FBI says, what would happen to the lowest security things?
Because this description sounds more like something in the lower, at least 50%, I would say the lower half of security, maybe the lower 10%.
I mean, this is pretty bad.
Does it look like it's designed to fail?
Do you think this looks like it's designed to give you a credible and reliable unhacked result?
Or does it look like it's designed so you can never tell what the actual vote was?
Hmm.
Let me give you a little more background on that.
I saw an interesting post by Fisher King, who's a good follow on X. Fisher King, one word.
Fisher is spelled F-I-S-C-H-E-R.
King.
One word.
Anyway, he says a realistic scenario for the election is that Kamala wins over 90 million votes, and then parenthetically he says harvested, mailed in, made up, And we're then told ad nauseam that we just had the, quote, fairest, most free election in American history.
And a lot of people on the right will insist we go along with this.
I remember Andrew Sullivan demanding that Michael Anton agree to his proposition, to this proposition in 2020, and getting angry when Anton wouldn't.
Does that sound likely?
That Harris will get an unbelievably high number of votes?
And we won't think there's possibly a chance that that could have happened naturally.
And we'll all just go, oh well, I think that's very possible.
Yep.
And that brings me to my conclusion.
The creators of our election system did not choose a design that could be regarded by an objective observer as secure.
There's no objective observer of our elections who could say that these are secure, because we don't know where the mail-in ballots are coming.
We don't have everybody watching every stage.
We don't know what happens when the software and the machine is doing its thing.
We don't know how many ways there are to cheat.
We don't know how many hackers can get in.
We don't know how many passwords are compromised.
We don't know how many insiders are in on it.
We don't know how many people are hiding things, deleting things.
We have no way to know.
Now, given that we have 100% certainty of knowing how to create an election process that is faster, cheaper, and more secure, and the country would say, yeah, that's credible, I believe that, which would be paper ballots with more than one person watching them getting counted.
Simple, right?
Now, you might say, no, no, Scott, too many people in the country.
No, there isn't.
We don't have too many people in the country.
If we need more people to count votes, we can get volunteers.
We can get as many vote counters as you need.
That's not a problem.
So the fact that we have a system that's designed with not just a problem, but massive systemic problems to the point where nobody would ever know for sure if an election was fair, that's a decision.
Right?
And I'll say this, this is a very important point.
If you design something and it doesn't work the way you wanted it to, in the short run, that design doesn't mean anything.
Because you tried something, it didn't work.
And then ideally, you would pull it back and try again with a new design until you got something that worked.
Now, if you saw that process happen, you'd say, oh, these are people who are trying to design a system That is secure and the public trusts it.
But if you've been doing this for decades, and the public has been complaining for decades, and nothing's really different, you have to assume that the current design is intentional.
Because it wouldn't be that hard to change it back to paper ballots.
So if it's intentional, and the design really removes any hope that you would know if an election is real or rigged, What are you supposed to make of that?
What kind of conclusion would a reasonable person make?
My conclusion is that given this much time, and the number of complaints we've had, and the number of obvious vulnerabilities, that if you leave the system like this for decades, it's because you want it that way.
So whoever is running the country doesn't want you to know what the vote is.
That's for sure.
Well, Pelosi did an interview and talked a little bit more about removing Biden.
And she did sound like she was taking credit for pushing him out.
And she said the most important thing was, quote, not letting Trump back in office.
Now, imagine that one of the most important politicians in the United States was going to tell you their top interest.
And the top interest was not letting Trump back in office.
What does that sound like to you?
To me, if there was something that Trump was going to do specifically that would destroy the country, you'd have to see a little of it happening in his first four years, and then you could say, oh, did you see what he did in those four years?
He's going to do that again.
Well, that could be a thing that you'd be afraid of.
Or they might say, he's proposing to do X or Y, such as when they say, we think he might do this or that.
Well, that would be an argument.
Might be silly, but it'd be an argument.
But you know what's not an argument?
That her most important priority over everything was not letting Trump back in office.
Shouldn't she be talking about the country?
Why is her objective Trump?
To me, that sounds personal.
To me, that sounds like she's trying to keep her buddies out of jail.
To me, that sounds like it has nothing to do with the good of the country.
Who words it that way?
The highest priority, my highest priority, is keeping Trump out of office forever.
That is just not the way you talk if you're trying to do what's good for the country.
You wouldn't choose those words.
This sounds very much like somebody who's afraid of going to jail.
That's how I read it.
Well, Tim Walz, the VP choice for Kamala Harris.
We're continuing to get all the opposition research, and part of it is that in 2023, he signed a measure to give free college to illegal immigrants in the state.
That would be free state college.
And also to give them, so it'd be free tuition, and they'd be able to get driver's licenses, I guess too.
So, I don't think that's terribly popular.
But I understand, you know, in a left-leaning way, why you do such a thing.
Because, you know, if they're going to be here and you're not going to ship them home, it's probably better if they're educated, you know, so they can get a job and get a skill.
So it's not crazy, but it's going to be unpopular with voters, I think, in other countries, in other states.
There's another attack on Tim Walz saying that he's lying when he says he was a head coach.
Because other people are saying he wasn't a head coach, but apparently he's called himself a head coach a number of times.
So here's a question I ask about that.
If somebody said that they were a tennis coach, I would say tennis coach.
That's somebody who coaches you how to play tennis.
Got it.
If somebody is a baseball hitting coach, I'd say baseball hitting coach.
Okay, that would be somebody who coaches somebody at a hit in baseball.
Got it, got it.
But he said he was a head coach.
All right, next story.
The FTX company, that fake crypto company of Sam Bankman Freed, apparently the court is ordering them to pay almost $13 billion back to customers, which could be 100% recovery on customer claims.
Now, I didn't think that was a thing.
I'm kind of impressed.
That there could be a 100% recovery of all the people who were victimized by this fake company.
But apparently they do have that many billions of dollars.
So the company was sitting on billions of dollars and now the customers are going to get it back.
So that's a happy ending, sort of, except for Sam Bankman-Fried.
So I was watching a video of Harris answering a question And I noticed, have you noticed that 75% of Democrat messaging during election is their face?
So Democrat messaging is mostly about making a disgusted face while talking about what Republicans do.
Because they don't have policies.
So I think they're selling disgusted face.
So instead of saying, well, you know, I'd like to make these changes to taxes or the government and my opponent has a different policy and here's why his won't work and mine will.
I'd love to hear that.
Here's what I don't want to see is a face.
He's going to do Trump things in bad person, orange bowl.
And it's just, literally, the whole message is the face they're making.
Because the words that are coming out of their mouth have all these generic, you know, things like, he's going to steal your democracy, and his character, and blah blah.
My face!
And I thought to myself, that is such female messaging.
That's female messaging.
Now, she's a woman, so not a big surprise, but it seems to be the primary method of the Democrats is face-making.
And I always say this on MSNBC especially, their hosts are mostly about the face they're making when they're saying ridiculous things.
So watch for the face persuasion.
What are we talking about, Trump?
And when I talk about my side, here's my face when I talk about my view.
Look at my happy face.
I am so happy about this old white guy.
Oh man.
Can I tell you what we really needed?
I know it's a surprise, but we really needed an old white guy.
Yeah.
I love it.
Look at my face.
Look at my face.
How happy I am.
I don't think Republicans do that.
Do they?
You know, Republicans like to be, you know, annoyed and pissed off and, you know, and disgusted by things as well, but they don't make the face.
And I think it's the difference between male and female messaging.
Women want you to feel what they feel.
Men want you to think about what you're thinking about.
And, you know, obviously that's a giant generality in their Plenty of people who are on either side in pictures, and everybody's unique, and I say that just in case there are any NPCs here who want to say, but I know somebody who is not like that.
That's usually what happens at this point.
Anyway, over in England, 3,300 people have been arrested so far for things that they said on social media that somebody deemed hate speech.
And here's my question.
Does that mean I could be arrested if I travel to England for business or pleasure?
Because that's my current reading of it.
Here's why I say it.
If there's a law that you can't do something in a country, but you do it in another country where it's not illegal, you're fine.
But if you go to that country where you can be put in jail for that behavior, even in the past, even in the past, Could they not look at my social media and could they not say, you know what?
I think on this one post you did four years ago, it looks like you had a little bit of hate speech there, so we're going to put you in jail.
Are you telling me they can't do that to me?
To me, it looks like I could never go to England.
My current read is that I can't go there.
Am I wrong?
And by the way, if I'm right, why isn't that the big story?
There should be an advisory.
Should not the United States government give a travel advisory that if you go to Great Britain you could be put in jail for free speech and that you should think twice about traveling to Great Britain?
Am I wrong?
There should be a travel advisory.
Right?
Because I can't believe that I could be an American and travel over to Great Britain Let's say I attend a protest and I'm like tweeting things that they think are hate speech while I'm standing in England.
Are they going to say, oh, you're not British, so you can say anything you want?
I don't believe that they would make that distinction.
I believe they'd say, if you're standing in England and you're doing these things, we're going to put you in jail.
But I also believe that they would put me in jail if I'd ever done it before I was in England.
That's how I read it.
So I need the United States to do a travel advisory or a travel clarification telling me that Great Britain assures us we will not be put in jail if we visit there.
Without that insurance, assurance, you should cancel every fucking trip.
You should never go there.
As long as that's a thing.
And I'm just sort of amazed that we're not talking about the travel risk.
Because we would talk about it in every other context.
You know, when China had a pandemic, we said, hey, maybe don't travel there.
Right?
When terrorism kicks up in some country, we say don't travel there.
It's the most basic, it's just a basic thing the government does.
Why aren't they doing it in this case?
This is really dangerous.
You could be put in jail for things you've already done that were totally legal.
It's just that when you go to England, they say it's illegal here, so you're going to jail.
I don't know.
We need some answers.
Mike Benz, I saw, was commenting on some reports that I don't know how much credibility to put on any data that came from the pandemic.
So here's my basic thing.
You've got some data that says that the vaccines did this or that.
I don't believe it.
You got some data that says the pandemic did this or that.
I don't believe it.
Because none of the data is credible.
Because everybody has an interest.
It's all motivated data.
And people are bad at collecting data, and bad at analyzing it, and bad at making sure they have the right data, and bad at collecting it in the right way.
So, my experience as a person who used to collect data and do analyses for a living for 16 years in my corporate jobs.
Data is never real.
You just settle for whatever is available and you sell it the best you can.
It's settling and selling is what you do with data.
What you don't do is collect accurate data and then report it.
Nobody ever has in the history of humanity.
It's just not a thing.
Now, that's really hard to accept if you've never been in those jobs.
If you've never been in the job where it's your job to collect accurate data and then report it, you wouldn't know that it's not real.
Ever.
Really ever.
For all practical purposes, you can just assume it's never happened.
But there's certainly data you can sell, and you can settle for it being good enough, and you can convince other people it's good enough.
That's real.
But the data itself is never credible.
In our world, unfortunately, our world doesn't have credible data.
And I don't know if there's any way to fix that.
It's always been that way.
But here's the given all of my setup that no data can be trusted.
There's an allegation that the thing that killed so many people in American hospitals was a combination of remdesivir and ventilation.
You've heard people say the ventilators killed people.
But now there's also Allegations that the Remdesivir might have been the real killer, and if you added the ventilation to the Remdesivir, you had basically a double whammo and you were going to get killed.
Now, I guess I would explain a few things.
Now, according to Mike Benz, Remdesivir was developed by one of Donald Rumsfeld's companies.
So that would put Remdesivir sort of in that, you know, deep state connected world that makes it a little suspicious.
I don't know how much of any of that's true, but it would explain a lot.
If it turned out that Remdesivir and ventilation was really the cause of the high COVID deaths, it would explain a lot.
But I do think that other countries had A lot of deaths and they were treating them differently.
So this is like every other pandemic information.
Don't believe it.
I don't rule it out.
I don't rule it out, but it's not credible to me at this stage.
It could be.
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
I'm just saying it doesn't yet reach my level of something I automatically believe.
Could be more complicated.
All right, so the monkeypox, as I mentioned, the Africa CDC is going to declare it an emergency next week.
And the viral infection rate of spreading is alarming.
Again, I would be so much happier if I'd never heard that.
All right, let's talk about Iran.
Unless Iran has attacked Israel in a major way, Since I started the show, they're so far holding back.
Now, the Iranian decision is really kind of hard.
They're in quite a pickle.
Because if they do a forceful attack, which seems like it would be called for in the normal tit-tat of these situations, if they do something forceful, Israel's just going to have a free pass to take out the leadership of Iran.
Which I think would be their next move.
And I think Iran probably knows that.
Or at the very least, it would be a free pass to do some serious damage to Hezbollah, at least.
And then some people are saying, I'm not so sure the current leadership of Israel wants to avoid war.
Which is my opinion.
I think that, you know, everybody wants less war if they can get it.
But if you're in Israel, you have to do the calculation that a little war now might avoid a bigger war later.
So for Israel, the no war ever is going to be a bad idea.
Because then you'd be taken advantage of.
You've got to be willing and everybody has to know you're willing to do a little bit of war.
And if you make it easy for them to do more than a little bit, By some attack that other countries would say, oh, that's bad.
Okay, I guess Israel's got to hit you back.
I think Israel's going to hit back harder than anybody's ever seen anybody hit back, because war is in their advantage right now.
To me, Israel, from, let's say, a government perspective, not necessarily from the citizen perspective, because they might just want peace, peace, peace, but from a government strategic Playing chess is kind of a way to look at it.
Maybe the very best thing for Israel would be a hard attack from Iran.
Because then they can do what they feel like they need to do sooner or later, which is take out the risk.
So if they're just itching for an excuse to go hard at Iran, why would Iran just give them that excuse?
Yeah, it seems like Iran would do better doing what they've been doing forever, which is slowly building up and, you know, doing a lot of pinpricks and, you know, just bothering them forever.
But if Iran wants to go for like a kill shot to maybe, you know, wound Israel deeply, Israel is going to just, who knows, but they're not going to stop.
So, to me, it appears Iran has no winning play.
They can look weak by not attacking, or they can attack and get creamed.
I don't think there's a third choice, is there?
Has anybody suggested there's a third choice?
Well, the third choice is to just sort of keep threatening, but never really do anything of substance.
So if I had to guess, I'm going to guess that Iran does something small or they keep kicking the can down the road saying, any minute now, guys, you better clear your airspace any minute, but just don't do anything.
Don't do anything of scale anyway.
Anyway, just the news website is reporting and others are reporting as well.
There's something super sketchy about that alleged terrorist guy who got into the country.
And was planning to kill some important people, including Trump, if he could.
The story is now that the FBI interviewed him, fingerprinted him, and then gave him special permission to enter the country back in April.
Now, what does any of that mean?
What does special permission mean?
I think what it means is that he was on a list of people who should not be allowed in the country.
Either because of the country, or we just didn't know enough about him, or some combination of that.
But what does it mean to give him special permission to enter the country?
So the context I would need to know is this.
Is it a routine process by which people who trip the no-fly zone kind of list?
If there's somebody who's on a list from a sketchy country, maybe they all get looked at.
Most of them get approved.
As in, well, you came from a sketchy country, but we don't see anything specifically bad about you in particular, so we're going to give you special privilege to stay here.
So, without knowing how ordinary that is, I have questions.
But I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was non-ordinary.
It sounds non-ordinary, but it might not be.
So I'd wait for a little extra information on this one.
Well, there's a report that NASA was hired or is contracted with Boeing to build them some rockety stuff.
There's a new study saying that Boeing's quality control is terrible, basically.
And there's a report that says The lack of trained and qualified workforce increases the risk.
So, they're saying that Boeing has an under-trained and under-qualified workforce for building these NASA parts.
Now, what do you think I'm going to say?
Do you know me well enough to suspect That I might have something to say about the untrained and unqualified workforce.
What could be the cause of that?
Huh.
Now this is where the people on the left are saying, oh, you, you, you racist.
Oh, you bigot.
I know where you're going to go with this, Scott.
You're going to say this is caused by DEI.
Nope.
Nope.
I'm not.
Do you know why I'm not going to say that?
Well, I have no information to suggest that's the problem.
But it's the first question.
Would you agree?
I don't have any information that would say that's the reason for the problem.
None.
But my first question would be, how's your DEI going?
Now, is that a bigoted thing to ask?
No.
because the DEI system by its design should cause mass incompetence eventually for every company that goes hard at DEI.
Why?
Is it because some people have bad genes?
No, fuck you.
Is it because some people have a culture that you have to worry about?
No, fuck you.
That's not even part of the conversation.
Stop bringing that into the conversation.
It has nothing to do with your race, nothing to do with your gender, nothing to do with anything except are you qualified for the job and did you get it for the right reason?
Now, if DEI is the system and if the pool of qualified people is not big enough, what happens in every company, every time when they have to satisfy DEI but they can't get enough people that they're happy with, they hire them anyway.
Because that's the way the manager keeps his job or her job.
Of course, there's no other way that goes.
There's not one company, big company, anywhere ever, Who just said, gosh, we can't find enough qualified people for diversity, so we'll just keep our bad situation.
Nope.
They will continue to lower the standard until they've met their DEI goal, and they'll hope that it all works out.
In many cases, it might.
So let me say it again.
There's no information that DEI has anything to do with the low quality of the workforce training at Boeing.
It is, however, the number one question to ask, and it is, however, completely predicted by DEI as a system, and not by anybody's genes, and not by anybody's chromosomes, and not by anybody's gender, and not by anybody's culture.
You could take all of that out of the conversation, and you still end up with incompetent workplace over time, because it's designed that way.
Design is destiny.
All right, there's a study that says you're not indecisive, you might be unbiased.
So people who are biased are the fastest at making decisions.
You know, who do you want to vote for?
The Democrat or the Republican?
Republican!
Well, you might be a little biased there.
That makes sense.
But is the bias wrong?
Well, it depends who you ask, right?
So bias doesn't mean you're wrong.
But apparently, people who have a hard time making a decision, it's because they don't have a strong bias.
Now, I'm not so sure I trust any of this interpretation or science, but it's sort of an interesting angle, that when you see somebody who can't decide, do you say to yourself, oh, there's an unbiased person.
But here's how I would decide, whether what you're seeing is somebody who can't make a decision, or somebody who's unusually unbiased.
Take them to the Cheesecake Factory.
Do I need to finish that?
Have you ever eaten with somebody at the Cheesecake Factory who is not good at decision-making?
And they open the menu, and it's like war and peace.
And not only is the menu the biggest menu I've ever seen in my life, but it's all pretty good.
The Cheesecake Factory does a really good job of making their food delicious.
Yeah, so you've got you've got like an encyclopedia of menu choices, and they're all pretty good.
Do you know what I do?
Oh, that looks good.
And I'm done.
Now, is that because I'm unbiased?
Well, a little bit, because, you know, there's lots of foods I don't eat, so I can skip them.
But mostly it's because I don't like sitting there and not eating.
So the reason that I pick quickly is that my odds of being disappointed by what I get are pretty low, because like I said, Cheesecake Factory is really good at producing food that tastes great.
You know, I can't speak for the health benefits or lack thereof, but their food tastes great.
Pretty much everything.
So, am I decisive?
No, I'm a person who hates sitting there not eating.
I'm hungry.
I'm not biased.
So, if somebody can't make a decision between Harris and Trump, take them to the cheesecake factory and find out if the lack of bias is a problem, or maybe they're just not so great at making decisions in complicated situations.
The FDA approved a new drug called Xerne with an auto-injector to help people with a suspected opioid overdose.
So that would work on either natural or synthetic opioids.
It works about 90% of the time.
So 90% of the time, if it looks like somebody is dying from an overdose, you can stick this thing into them and Apparently, even if it's not the problem, it's not going to kill him.
I think.
I don't think it would be legal if somebody gave it to you and it killed you for other reasons.
So I suspect it's fairly safe.
I mean, I don't know the details, but it's got to be fairly safe for somebody who doesn't have an overdose problem, because otherwise it couldn't be approved, I assume.
So that's interesting.
Who's the company that made this?
Purdue Pharma.
Wait.
Have I heard that name before?
Purdue Pharma.
Sounds familiar.
Have they ever done anything in this field before?
Interesting question.
That doesn't sound real, does it?
That's real, by the way.
It's Purdue Pharma.
So I guess it was a topic they knew about.
But who knows?
Maybe the weirdest thing in the world just happened.
Maybe Purdue Pharma just came up with the solution for the fentanyl crisis.
And that would be awesome.
That would be awesome.
Maybe.
We live in such a weird world that maybe Purdue Pharma solved this problem, which some would say they were part of the cause.
But if it's the same Purdue, I don't know how many Purdue Pharma's there are.
Our own soil is under attack, you say.
All right.
War is failure.
Totally agree.
Yeah, war is failure.
But there are times when you don't have a path to success.
If a dictator is rolling up on your shores and wants to conquer your country because it's good for the dictator, maybe there's no winning play here.
You've got to go to war.
Wait till Iran has a nuclear bomb.
Well, see, that's why I think Netanyahu may be just itching for a fight.
Because if they do something now and they do it big, it could make a difference to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But they'd have to, it'd have to be a pretty aggressive strike.
I mean, I don't know if taking out the leadership would be enough.
You'd probably have to take out all their nuclear facilities and I don't know.
But here's the thing I wonder.
Do you believe that Israel is always aware where the Iranian Supreme Leader is at?
Don't you think they always know?
Don't you think that Iran has found somebody who would be in the vast network of people who would know where the Supreme Leader is?
Because, right, he's got to cook, he's going to have drivers, he's going to have cleaners, right?
There should be this giant universe of people Who do know where the Supreme Leader is that could be bribed for a million dollars?
If your entire life looks like you're going to be cleaning the toilet in the Supreme Leader's many mansions, and somebody says, how about I give you a million dollars and a visa to the United States, would you keep us informed where the Supreme Leader is?
It seems like it would be the easiest thing in the world.
For Israel to eventually, you know, maybe not on day one, but eventually find somebody who's willing to take a bribe to keep them informed where the Supreme Leader is.
And I would think that the taking out the head of Hamas, and before that, the United States taking that Solomon A., if I said that right, should send the strong signal That the leadership of Iran is not off the table.
And I think if after October 7th, if they follow that up with some other brutal attack on Israel, whether it comes from the air or anywhere else, I feel like Israel would finally, and for the first time, have a free pass to take out the leadership of Iran.
Because I think everybody who was objective and looked at it would say, you know what?
This is never going to end unless one of them just wins.
So let's get it over with.
Let's just have one of them win.
Maybe we can have shipping again.
At a low cost.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to say a few words to the private people on Locals, my beloved subscribers.