God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Dr. Robert Epstein, Kamala Harris Axios Poll, Joyful Harris, Tulsi Gabbard Terrorist Watchlist, President Biden, President Trump, Election Credibility, Jailing Political Critics, Rasmusson Polling, Military Discrimination, Generic Democrat Campaign Strategy, Whistleblower Retaliations, Border DNA Collection, Tim Walz Stolen Valor, JD Vance, Dana Bash, Harris Smart Campaign Strategies, Climate Change Tipping Point, Climate Models, George Webb, Crooks Overseas Bank Accounts, Election Rigging Whistleblower Reward, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Well, I remind you, if you're feeling lonely, the simultaneous sip and the Locals community will fix you right up, because I spend at least an hour in a day with all my favorite friends on Locals.
All right, here's a little update.
I think I told you that somebody reads my DMs in the morning.
And not all of them, just a few.
And I can actually watch it happen in real time.
So I can open my DMs and watch all the new message indicators be there.
And as I sit there, I can watch just some of them disappear.
Just two of them.
It's always the same two.
The first time it happened, it took about 15 seconds from the time the indicator showed up to the time it went away by itself, with me not touching anything.
And so I thought, hmm, I wonder if there's a bot.
But this morning I got up, you know, got awful early as I always do, and the new message indicator stayed.
And I thought, oh, maybe there's not somebody reading my messages, or maybe the bot has been turned off.
And then, eventually, they disappeared.
Which means it's a human.
Which means that I get up before the person who reads my messages gets up.
Literally, the only reason that they were still alive.
Now, there's nobody who has my password.
Trust me, nobody has my password.
Not my ex, not anybody else.
It's a unique password.
Nobody has it.
So, I'm going to change my password after we're done with this today.
And I'll eliminate the option that somebody has my password.
The reason I'm sure that they don't is that there's two-factor authentication, meaning that if it doesn't come to my personal phone, I can't get in.
You know, it sends me a code to my phone.
And I've done that recently, so there's no way somebody could have gotten in without it.
So it's either a state actor or an insider or the weirdest bug in the world.
But it looks like I just watch it as somebody's reading my messages.
And I think that's actually the truth.
I think all of my messages are being read at this point.
All right, here's some good science news.
It's fun.
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology came up with this new way to make a mechanical eye.
Now, it's not for people, but apparently it would be a huge improvement in robot vision.
Now, that might not seem like a big thing, But it would be huge for driving and navigating and understanding the world.
So your robot might soon have eyes that are way better than what you what you think a camera could do.
Here's another weird one.
You know how you think that your genes are in your body, and you know where your genes are, and science knows where your genes are, and those genes are sort of fixed when you get born, and then they determine much of your life?
Well, it turns out that there's some free-floating genes outside your genome.
What?
A study by Columbia researchers shows that bacteria break that rule and can create free-floating and ephemeral genes.
Raising the possibility that similar genes exist outside of our own genome.
Meaning that there might be something like genes that you pass on, but there might be some kind of genes just sort of floating around out there.
Well, that's weird.
Aliens?
Never know.
All right, and we'll get to the politics in a moment.
But the Guardian is reporting that there's a new kind of insulin Uh, that, uh, sits there and it adjusts, um, it adjusts you only when you need it.
So the current way is if you need, if you need to adjust your insulin sugar levels, whatever, however you would describe this, you would give yourself a shot that corrects what you need at that moment.
But the new stuff, the new stuff looks like it can do the correcting on its own.
At least for about a week, and then you have to re-up it.
But that'd be kind of amazing.
Imagine if the drug made its own correct decisions about your insulin levels as you went.
That would be such a game-changer for a gazillion people.
Anyway, let's do a propaganda alert.
Propaganda alert!
So Kaneko the Great is reporting on how Dr. Epstein, you've heard of him, he studied Google and how Google can change the election outcomes by how they surface different searches.
And according to Dr. Epstein, the Google political bias, which we would imagine is both intentional and pervasive, flipped the 2020 presidential election, the 2022 governor's race in Arizona and Georgia, And the Senate majority from Republican to Democrat.
So apparently this is, it's based on data, and Dr. Epstein, um, I don't think I've seen him debunked.
Which is interesting.
It seems like everything gets debunked, doesn't it?
Even if the debunk is not real.
You know, somebody takes a run at debunking everything.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody try to debunk Dr. Epstein's claim that you can measure how much Google influences an election.
I'm very biased toward believing this is a real thing, but I'd love to hear any counterpoint.
And I would advise you this is just a good, a good mental hygiene.
You know, if you see something that agrees with what you think is true, you should really wait to see if there's a counter argument.
And we've, we've been listening to these accusations or allegations from Dr. Epstein for a few years now, and I've never run into anybody.
So if you've seen anything, if you've seen anybody who's got a counter argument, um, can you exit to me?
All right, so if nothing else changed, Google would just determine who your president is.
So do you think you have a republic?
Do you think that when the founders designed the country, if they had known that Google can decide who your president is, would they have designed it the same way?
Or might they have some restrictions on social media if they knew what social media was when they founded the country?
Well, I don't think that the men who were pooping in holes in the ground and created the Constitution, I don't think they saw Google coming.
So if any of this is true, we don't have anything like democracy or really anything like that.
All we have is a brainwashed state, which is how I see it.
Axios is reporting that the voters prefer Harris on the economy.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the polls suddenly went from everybody likes Trump versus Biden, do you think that they just reversed because it's Kamala Harris?
I just laugh when I see this stuff.
Now, if you were a casual consumer of news, you would believe this, because it's coming from Axios.
It says, for the first time this election cycle, voters trust the Democratic candidate more than former President Trump on the economy, according to new polling released by the Financial Times and the University of Michigan.
I don't think so.
All right.
I don't think so.
So I would put that in the category of absurdly obvious propaganda.
You know, unless it's just they did their math wrong, or they polled wrong, or there's an enormous margin of error because it's a small sample.
I don't even have to look into it.
I think it's so obviously not true that, you know, we'll find out.
We'll find out.
If I'm wrong, I'll let you know.
Is that a deal?
To me, this is laughably stupidly obvious propaganda.
If it turns out that, you know, a whole bunch of other polls agree that people suddenly magically flipped to Kamala Harris on the economy, which makes no sense at all.
It's the same policies, you know, except for tax on tips, which she copied from Trump.
I'll tell you.
I mean, if it turns out I'm wrong, I will go eat some crow right in front of you, and I'll be happy to do it.
NBC News says the Biden administration.
What?
There's a Biden administration?
NBC News seems to think that we have some kind of a government that's functioning.
What?
Well, I didn't know about that, but that's good news.
We have a government.
Hey, everybody.
Hey, we got a government that's doing stuff.
Look at that.
Look at us.
You other countries, aren't you a little jealous?
Yeah, you thought we didn't have a government.
Well, we do.
We do.
They're doing something.
They're unveiling a new multi-agency regulatory initiative to target corporations that are wasting consumer time and money by needlessly burning them with red tape in order to maximize profits.
And I say to myself, whoa, on the surface, that sounds mighty good.
Do you know how hard it is to cancel a subscription to anything?
It's obviously made intentionally hard.
So if the government made some law that said you have to make it easy to get your money back and you have to make it easy to cancel, I think I'd like that.
I think I would.
And unambiguously, I would just like that.
So if the Biden administration can do that, that's great.
But let me give you just a little caution.
Before you get too happy about the Biden administration removing red tape, let me say again how they're going to remove the red tape.
Because, you know, you don't like all that bureaucracy and red tape and extra complication when you don't need it, right?
Well, here's what they're going to do.
They're going to unveil a multi-agency regulatory initiative.
Oh.
Okay, never mind.
It's not going to work.
As soon as you put multi-agent regulatory initiative, that just sounds like something that will never happen.
Oh, we got to get all these agencies to agree on all these different things.
It's not going to happen in six months.
If you think this can get done while the Biden administration is still in office, I doubt it.
I've never seen anything get done in six months.
Well, the Associated Press has a headline, at least on Axis, that says, uh, Harris is pushing joy.
Trump paints a darker picture.
Will mismatched moods matter?
Mismatched moods?
What?
What do you mean?
This is total propaganda.
It's the propagandists that are telling us that Trump is dark, and it's the propagandists that are telling us that cackling is joy.
I don't think the public is registering any of this.
And the Associated Press, widely believed to be a pure propaganda entity when it comes to politics, they just sort of uncritically say that Harris is pushing joy.
I think they're pushing joy read.
Is it joy as in happiness?
Or is it just Joy Reid, like, crazy batshit stuff?
So, here's what I think.
I think that the idea that Trump is dark came from their dark persuaders in 2016.
They're just, you know, re-upping that.
And the whole idea that Harris is cackling is joy.
I love this.
You know, from the perspective of somebody who likes watching persuasion and see what works and what doesn't, watching the Democrats morph idiot cackling into joy, they're making it work.
I'm kind of impressed.
Honestly, I'm not joking.
That's actually impressive.
Now, the candidate is still terrible, but they have managed To successfully come up with another explanation for the cackling like an idiot.
I mean, I didn't see that coming.
Like, whoever did that is actually, I think, very qualified to do this.
So there's somebody in that Harris team now.
I've heard some people say maybe it's Obama's, you know, smartest people helping her.
Could be.
Because it's feeling It's feeling kind of Obama-like.
You know, Obama was hope.
So joy is just the new version of hope.
Let's bring some joy to this country.
Anyway, Tulsi Gabbard is going to take legal action against the Biden-Harris administration for putting her on a terrorist watch list?
What?
So the allegation is that Tulsi Gabbard, simply for being a critic of the administration, and nothing else, this is the allegation, nothing else.
No other, no other danger, nothing.
They put her on a domestic terrorist watch list.
So when she flies, I guess she would be followed around and there'd be extra scrutiny.
Now, as she says, My own government, my president, my commander-in-chief, this is where it gets dark, so to speak, is targeting me as a potential domestic terrorist.
The closest word that comes to mind is a complete sense of betrayal.
This next part hits me pretty hard.
Just put yourself in a position.
Quote, after serving over 21 years and continuing to serve in our nation's military, My own government has labeled and is targeting me directly now as a domestic terrorist.
Wow.
That really hits me.
You know, when you're just watching politics and you're just saying, oh, I call you a name, you call me a name, you tell some lies, my team told some lies, none of it really, you don't really feel it so much.
I feel this.
Like, that word betrayal?
21 years?
Still in the service.
She's still in the military. I mean, is this even true?
True.
Do we have confirmation that she's been targeted on the potential domestic terrorist list?
Because if it is as alleged, and I think there's still a fog of war situation, so maybe there's something more to the story we don't know, but I don't think there's something to the story that would suggest she's done anything that would put her on the terrorist watch list.
I'm pretty sure that's not real.
You know, I feel confident in that.
So it does look like the government targeted her for being a critic.
Now, there is history of people being targeted for being critics, obviously, but somebody in the military?
This is, this is deep.
That's really deep.
Well, I wish her the best, and I hope she can get some justice out of that.
If I were her, I would resign the military immediately.
I wouldn't serve in the military if my Commander-in-Chief were trying to target me.
Now, of course, she's got a long history, she's got maybe lots of different reasons to continue being in the military, but if my Commander-in-Chief targeted me, I'd leave immediately.
I mean, I would just be so gone.
Wow.
Well, speaking of suing the government, Colin Rugg and some others are reporting that apparently Trump is planning to sue the Department of Justice for $100 million for the raid on his Mar-a-Lago property.
Fox News is reporting that, I guess.
Trump's lawyers are saying that the raid was done with, quote, clear intent to engage in political persecution.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but by suing that would mean that the communications would all be available to us publicly.
Meaning we would actually see what the Department of Justice was saying in a variety of ways About the raid.
Now, I don't think anything's going to happen before the election, because everything takes too long.
But, wow!
Here's what I expect.
You want to make a prediction?
I'm going to make a prediction.
The critical communication between somebody and somebody else was accidentally deleted.
You want to make a bet on it?
I say that critical communications will be accidentally deleted by the government.
Oops!
We were doing a system changeover and we lost all of that communication.
Oops!
I guess Russia hacked into us.
They must have erased all of our email.
You watch.
They will literally just delete it and say it was an accident.
How many times have you seen our government, Democrats, delete something and say, what?
What?
Oh, just an accident.
It's all deleted.
We can't find it.
We looked really hard, but it looks like maybe somebody came in and the dog ate it.
That's what I expect.
Well, Joe Biden came out of whatever hospital bed he's usually in to lie to some network.
I think it was CBS.
And I forgot how much I hated that asshole.
Oh my God.
So let me just say as clearly as possible.
Biden is probably our worst president, in my opinion, but he's a bad human being.
He's a really bad fucking person.
And let me just give you an idea of what he said.
And by the way, I would like to compliment Kamala Harris.
Now, if you compare Kamala Harris's approach so far, you know, she's of course making some hard claims against the Republicans, but I would say within the bounds of normal political behavior.
You know, it seems outrageous, but outrageous within the bounds.
Trump is also outrageous, in my opinion.
Within the bounds, so they're sort of similar in that way.
Biden is not.
Biden is either deeply disturbed or just an evil human being.
I think he's just a bad person, like a really, really bad person, like deeply bad, like you've never seen before bad.
And I'll just give you my take on it.
He actually said this, quote, every time, every other time the Ku Klux Klan has been involved, They wore hoods, so they're not identified.
Under his presidency, talking about Trump, they came out of those woods with no hoods, knowing they had an ally.
I almost can't even finish this.
Thank you.
So he gets debunked, he gets debunked on the fine people hoax.
Instead of apologizing to the country like a good person would, oh, I'm sorry, I ran my entire campaign on the fine people hoax, and then when it was debunked by Snopes and everybody else, he goes away for a while, and then he comes back, and instead of just saying, okay, I ran a campaign on a hoax, and maybe I even knew it, that would have been the truth.
Instead, he changes it to he can read the minds of the Ku Klux Klan, which they were not the Klan, although there might have been some overlap.
He reads their minds and he decides that they took off their hoods because they thought Trump would be an ally.
He says, that's how I read it.
They knew they had an ally in the White House and he stepped up for them.
So he's changing his calling them fine people.
So that he doesn't get fact-checked, he says he stepped up for them.
Did he?
How?
What would be the example of how he stepped up?
Condemning them totally?
In public?
Is that the stepping up?
You evil fucking asshole.
You piece of fucking shit.
And now I'm not talking politically.
This is not a political comment.
He is a broken, useless, rotting piece of shit.
I've never seen anything as bad as this in American politics.
This is the worst fucking thing I've ever seen in American politics.
And so, you know, I've seen things where people got killed.
This is worse.
This is the worst human thing.
I'm not even talking politically.
As a human fucking being, this is completely unacceptable.
Completely unacceptable.
And, you know, I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that all of our politicians are lying.
All of our politicians are exaggerating.
They're all, you know, painting the other side irrationally and, you know, untrue.
That's all sort of normal and we can deal with it.
This is different.
This is really deep and dark and bad.
And it's not even political.
It's just you're a fucking bad person.
What a piece of shit.
And then he continues with Trump is, quote, a genuine danger to American security.
Really?
Why don't you fucking ask somebody to kill him again?
Because that's what it looks like to me.
To me, this looks like you're calling for violence and it looks like you're setting up the country for it and you're warning him so that when you take the action that it looks like you're planning to take, then you will say, well, see, I told you he was in favor of the fucking Ku Klux Klan.
You lying piece of shit.
Lying piece of shit.
Congressman Jamie Raskin is telling us that even if Trump wins.
They plan to use the Congress to disqualify him under the 14th Amendment by lying and saying that January 6th was an insurrection and that he was an insurrectionist.
They plan to take him out of office with bullshit if they don't get somebody to kill him first.
So we've got an election system that is designed not to be credible, meaning that if you wanted it to be credible we know exactly how.
Paper ballots, show IDs, vote on the same day, have people watch when you're counting them.
In some cases, you might have to count them twice if somebody has a question.
We know how to do a credible election.
The fact that we don't is very clear evidence that whoever makes these decisions doesn't want the public to understand how the vote was collected.
What else could that be?
If we're acting like adults for one second, what else could that be?
It's exactly what it looks like.
So we've got the biased Google, we've got the biased media, we've got a system that doesn't even look like it was pretending to be real, We've got the Congress saying that they won't even accept the outcome of the election.
They'll use some weird lawfare to get rid of him with the 14th Amendment.
And we've got Biden actively saying that he's a danger to America, which increases the odds that somebody will take a violent act.
Dividing the country like nobody's business.
That's a pretty deep evil.
Now we see the weaponized Department of Justice.
We see the weaponization against Tulsi Gabbard.
We see somebody reading my DMs on X every day.
Do you think that's a Trump supporter?
Let me ask you.
I mean, somebody reads my DMs before I watch them.
I actually watch them do it.
I watch the new indicator go off while I'm looking at it on my private messages on the DMs.
Now, do you think some Trump supporter did that?
Of course not.
They would have no reason to.
So it's somebody on the other side or another country.
I don't know.
On Morning Joe, Uh, one of them said, uh, it's, I don't know who said this, but quote, there's no mystery.
Donald Trump is never going to graciously concede defeat in this election.
He is already laying the groundwork for what's going to happen after November.
I think this is going to be an extraordinarily dangerous period.
So that's what they're saying about Trump.
So they're running an election with a system that they know is not credible to at least half the country.
And then they're worried that when they run the system that is not credible to half the country, and they get in the result that doesn't look credible, that the voters will rebel.
Of course they will.
Of course they will.
You've created a system that guarantees it.
Are they trying to create this or are they trying to avoid it?
If you're trying to avoid it, you would fix the holes in the election system.
If you want to create it, you leave the holes, and then you warn everybody, I think they're going to complain when we cheat.
So they're creating a situation that they can cheat, and then they can put you in jail when you complain about it.
That's what they're setting up.
They're gonna cheat, presumably.
I mean, I don't know that, because I'm not a mind reader, but all of the signals are, they're creating a situation where they can and will cheat, and then they'll put you in jail if you complain about it.
Just like January 6th, basically.
All right, Rasmussen polling company is having a fun time mocking the other polling companies, because it's been quite a few days now that, for reasons that are unexplained and quite mysterious, Only Rasmussen is updating us on the race between Harris and Trump.
Now, Rasmussen said things haven't changed that much, and that Trump still has a commanding lead in the polls.
The other polling companies say that's not the case, and they haven't updated their polls in a week or so.
Huh.
You'd think they'd be jumping to update those polls, don't you?
Because what could be more persuasive than an updated poll saying that Harris has gained the lead?
But yet they seem to be relying on slightly outdated polls.
Hmm.
What could be the reason that they would be so tardy with the new polls?
Well, I don't know, but Rasmussen's having a lot of fun mocking the competitors, and eventually they're going to have to present a poll.
We've seen some that look so sketchy when you look at the tabs, you know, the subcategories.
At least one recently looked absurdly obviously fake.
So maybe people are doing a lot of thinking how they can do a poll that looks real and isn't.
That's probably what's going on.
That's my guess.
I don't trust anybody this week.
Harris is claiming, now I did say that Harris Is not the terrible, terrible person that Joe Biden is, but she's pretty bad.
I will just say that it seems to be within the unfortunately normal political realm and Biden's well outside of it at this point.
And so she's saying that, uh, Trump will, if Trump gets back in office, he'll target the LGBTQ community.
Like he did the first term.
And I said, what?
Why don't I know about this?
I'm very pro-LGBTQ community.
So if I'm pro-LGBTQ and Trump targeted them in his first term, why didn't I hear about it?
Is there some news I missed?
Well, luckily you have Kamala Harris here to fill you in on the details of how he did it.
He banned trans in the military.
Wait, is that targeting trans?
You know who else is banned in the military?
People with no arms and legs.
Is he targeting them?
By banning them in the military?
How about people who are 100 years old?
Can they join the military?
Or are they being targeted?
Targeted and banned?
No.
Now, of course, because I'm not a fucking idiot, I'm not comparing trans to 100-year-old people.
I'm not comparing trans to anybody.
They are their very own person.
The only point of the examples is that the military is the one place we explicitly allow discrimination.
Discrimination in the military is part of it by necessity.
We discriminate against people who are too dumb, too short, too fat, too unhealthy, too old, And a lot of gender stuff, too.
There are still things that women can't do, right?
In the military.
So, if you're going to tell me that you want to run a military, you want to be the commander-in-chief, and you want to get rid of discrimination in the military, I'm going to have to be brutally honest here.
That's something a woman would say.
This is why women should not be in charge of national security.
Now, I'll clarify that.
Can there ever be any woman who would be good with national security?
Of course.
Tulsi.
If Tulsi were the commander-in-chief, Tulsi Gabbard, I would say, well, there's a woman who can definitely be in charge of security for the country.
So, on an individual basis, everybody's, you know, everybody's an individual.
But, generally speaking, women don't have the same feeling and reflex and Millions of years of evolution to know how to defend anything.
And again, there are exceptions.
Tulsi Gabbard would be an obvious exception.
Anybody who served in the military, male or female, I would say would be right on the top of my list of somebody who could do that job.
But Kamala Harris hasn't been in the military.
And I think this is just stupid.
The thing about trans is whether it would be more expensive Or would create more downtime for the people in the military.
Now, that's just data.
If we have data that says that trans costs more or creates more health problems while you're in the service, that's good enough.
Good enough for me.
And I'm pro-trans, pro-LGBTQ.
I mean, for adults, of course.
So, I think this is really revealing Of how unable Kamala Harris is to be a Commander-in-Chief.
The military has to discriminate, otherwise you're not safe.
I want big, capable people.
Alright, male or female.
So Kamala Harris says that Trump took away the protections for LGBTQ under the Affordable Care Act.
Does anybody know what that refers to?
I mean, I know what the Affordable Care Act is, it's Obamacare, but what is that?
Why is there no detail?
What exactly did she take away?
Does anybody have any insight into that at all?
Is that just made up?
I think it's just made up.
Actually, let me correct that.
There's probably something to the story, but why haven't I never even heard of it?
And if she's tried to sell it, shouldn't she add a detail?
Here's what it should look like.
He took away the protections for the LGBTQ under the Affordable Care Act, and then it should have said, they used to be able to do this, and now they can't.
What did he take away?
But if you're, you know, a Democrat, you hear that, you're like, oh, he took away stuff.
Well, how about what?
Can you give me an example of what he took away?
And then she says that Trump took away LGBTQ worker protection for employees.
He did?
When did that happen?
Does anybody remember him taking away any protection for LGBTQ?
I'm pretty sure I would have been opposed to that.
Pretty sure I would have heard about it.
What is he, what is she talking about?
Now, there might be something to it.
I'm just saying that if you're going to try to sell this as a reason to vote for her, you kind of need to add a little bit of detail.
What exactly did he take away?
Anyway, so there's a political strategist, Lindy Lee, who posted on X, and she said this, Republicans mocked Harris for her laugh, but it was her secret weapon.
Then racists mocked her name.
But they were just exposing themselves.
Then they mocked her words, but her words became a meme.
Then they mocked her joy, but joy was her greatest strength.
The GOP has nothing on Kamala.
So, I'm kind of impressed.
They actually turned her idiot cackle into a superpower, as opposed to saying that she's drunk and bad at talking in public.
Pretty good.
If I'm going to judge it for truth, of course it's ridiculous.
If I judge it for persuasive power, for her own base, pretty good.
I think they sold this joy thing completely.
You see all the cat ladies jumping for joy and singing and dancing.
They do seem happy.
And every time they see, you know, Harris and Walsh with their dumb laughs on their faces, they think, well, there's some more joy coming.
Anyway, so the DNC, I guess that's next week in Chicago.
And a week before the DNC, this is according to Politico Playbook, a week before the DNC, the party has yet to define its priorities for Harris if she should win.
And then one of the writers says, Rachel Bade says, much of the blurriness is intentional.
And I saw Joel Pollack, Breitbart, saying that Kamala is running as a generic Democrat.
And I thought to myself, oh, that's it?
You know, you keep saying, where are her policies?
Where are her policies?
Why doesn't she have any written policies on her website?
The reason is she's running as a generic Democrat.
If you run as a specific person, you've got all kinds of flaws.
But if you've ever seen any polling where they say, all right, Donald Trump versus Biden, okay, he beats Biden because Biden has dementia.
Trump versus Kamala Harris, at least for a while, we'll see what the new polls say.
You look like you would beat her because she's sort of a weak player, didn't even get much in the primaries.
But If you say that Trump is running against a generic Democrat, if you were to poll that, the generic Democrat would do well.
Do you know why?
Because every generic Democrat, the actual voters, they would be pretty generic Democrats, would say, oh, I'm a generic Democrat?
I like that.
Better than Trump.
So running her as not a person, but as a generic Democrat, pretty smart.
Again, it's not honest, but we're talking about politics.
That's not even the standard people are really holding anybody to.
But as a persuasion?
Yeah.
The less they say about what she would do, and the less you hear from her, the more she is the generic candidate.
And the generic candidate beats everybody.
It's so smart that I'm having trouble Like telling myself it's intentional, because it's almost too smart.
But I think it's Obama smart.
You know, I think there are people within the Obama universe who are smart enough to know that running a generic Democrat is their best way to win.
So it's actually impressive, honestly.
Catherine Herridge has a scoop on some Department of Homeland Security whistleblowers, three of them.
Who claimed that they're being targeted after they pointed out that the border people are not taking DNA samples of the criminal types that they catch at the border.
Now, apparently there's some requirement that the DNA is gathered from anybody who's a criminal.
I assume that's so later if they do something or come back in the country, you can catch them more easily.
I don't know.
I don't know what the point is.
But the Department of Homeland Security is not doing it.
Have you noticed that every action from the Department of Homeland Security seems to be designed for one and only one purpose?
To let as many people into the country without supervision as possible.
Now, I'm exaggerating, because I think the app that they use and the information that they collect when they come in through a legal doorway, even though they're not citizens, I do think that we collect a lot of information on them, and maybe that keeps us safer.
So, I don't know too much about the details of this story, but there is a claim that they were retaliated against.
I'll tell you, this is a bad world to be a whistleblower.
Whistleblowers get hammered every time.
If you're gonna be a whistleblower, you gotta be willing to throw your career away for sure.
Well, let's do an update on the Tim Walz's Stolen Valor story.
I remind you that having now served in the military, I do not have a personal feel for this topic.
I can simply observe it and see that other people have a personal feel for it.
But Mike Cernovich, I think, has done a very smart and effective job of, you know, making sure everybody's heard this issue and all of its glamour.
And I think he was always right about it's too late to change sort of the general Democrat.
But if you can find a specific group of Democrats that might be willing to act differently because of a specific topic, then you might be able to move a few people.
And that might be the difference.
So that's what looks like is happening.
But the best part of that was J.D.
Vance went on CNN.
And I love J.D.
Vance on CNN.
The same way I like Vivek on CNN.
You have to be a certain level of smart to treat them the way they need to be treated.
And both of them can do it.
So here's what J.D.
Vance does.
So he goes on CNN and Dana Bash Is trying to explain that Walls did not do anything wrong.
So she says that he resigned from the National Guard months before anyone knew that deployment was likely.
So that would be a pretty good defense if that's true.
If it's true that he resigned before anybody, including him, knew that deployment was likely, that would be a good argument that You know, it's not a stolen valor.
How did J.D.
Vance handle this new information from CNN's Dana Bash that Walsh resigned months before anybody knew there was going to be any deployment?
Here's how he responded.
He noted CNN's own reporting from the night before that from Walsh's superior officer that said the superior officer knew and that Walsh definitely knew about the deployment.
Now, you don't get much better than that.
So did Dana Bash say?
Oh, that's a good point.
Our own reporting showed that this wasn't true.
The thing that I just said.
And thank you for pointing out that our own reporting, reliably, because we had the actual superior officer on camera for an extended period, and we asked him many questions, and he was very consistent in his answers.
Yes.
Thank you, JD Vance, for pointing out that I had incorrectly Categorized CNN's own reporting on this issue.
Did she do that?
No, I think she changed the topic.
Changed the topic.
JD Vance for the win.
All right, what about, have you noticed that Harris keeps copying Trump stuff?
But, you know, like the no tax on tips and suddenly she's for stronger border control, etc.
So people, people are saying, wait a minute, you're going toward the middle, but you're really going toward Trump.
I think it's more than that.
So look at some of the things we've seen lately.
There was Walz and the campaign calling Republicans weird, specifically Vance and Trump.
So there's a weird attack.
Then Walz did the mind your own business attack.
Then they did the, Stronger borders, you know, they want stronger borders no tax on tips and then They just the campaign to Trump the Harris campaign just posted on X that Trump hadn't campaigned in the swing states for a week and they said low energy Do you see how good this is Persuasion wise you don't have to like it but persuasion wise here's what they're doing
When they called, uh, when they called the Republicans weird, that was that thing where they call the Republicans the thing they are or the thing they're doing.
The biggest complaint about the Democrats is not that they just do a bad job, but it doesn't even make sense.
It's just like, it's just weird, right?
Now I'm not making the weird argument.
I'm just saying the Republicans look at what's happening and they go, that's, you're just being weird.
So they turn it around, they grab the gun and flip it around and say, you're weird.
And then they sort of capture the initiative on who's weird.
Pretty good.
That's strong play.
Likewise, when Wallace did the mind your own damn business and leave us alone, that's a pure Republican message.
Get the government out of our business.
And he did it before, you know, he did it sort of early.
So he gained the initiative on the government, the Republican government's going to try to control your body.
Now he had an argument, you know, the abortion would be the argument for the government getting in your business.
But if you take that argument out of it, it's a big one, but it's the only one that is that flavor.
Otherwise, it's the Republicans trying to get the government out of your pockets.
But it's good persuasion because they took the argument.
And then the borders and the tax on tips, again, they just took Trump's argument.
So it neuters his argument if they're saying the same thing he is.
And then the low energy thing was sort of the tell.
That was the one that pulled it all together for me.
I was like, wait a minute.
Trump actually does have low energy this week.
That's really good.
They actually turned the energy thing on him.
Who saw that coming?
Now that that's a home run because the the Harris energy is through the roof at the moment.
Trump has laid low.
And he hasn't made, you know, mostly just complaining.
And, you know, he would say he's not laying low, he's doing podcasts and stuff like that, but he's not doing a rally in a swing state, I guess, for a few days.
So, regardless of the truth of the claim, that's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that as a persuasion approach, instead of doing what Biden did, which was destroy the country and call us all Nazis, Which, because he's just a stupid piece of shit.
What Harris is doing is smart.
Whoever's advising her is kind of killing it.
They're doing the most you can with what you're working with, because you're not working with much.
But wow, for what they're working with, the advisors are killing it.
So look for more of that.
Let's see if there's more of Democrats trying to steal the message and get ahead of it so they can be the ones who are championing the message, so that whenever Democrats say, hey, that was our message, it just sounds like me too.
It sounds like, well, maybe you should have been a little stronger and faster with that if it's your message.
All right.
Here's the other thing that the Harris-Waltz ads do.
Have you noticed how generic a lot of their complaints are?
Because they can't go for They can't go for policy because Trump generally wins on policy with the public.
So here are the things they've gone for.
Trump will steal your democracy.
Trump and Vance are weird.
Trump wants to control your body.
And now the newest one for their new ads are Trump and Vance are in it for themselves.
Do you know what's missing from those attacks?
Who has better policies?
And who's a more capable leader?
Don't you think those should be somehow into the conversation of who's going to be your capable leader?
How about your policies and your capability?
Nope!
No policies and capability stuff.
We're just going to do conceptual things.
And what do the conceptual things buy you?
A generic Democrat.
If Kamala Harris were leading with policies, and those policies were, let's say, even a little bit, you know, tweaked to be newish, it would look like policies.
Policy against policy, and then Trump wins.
Because people like his policies better.
Which is why, of course, Kamala Harris is copying some of them on the border and no tax on tips.
So they have to do this totally generic thing.
He's going to steal your democracy.
They're weird.
He wants to control your body.
They're in it for themselves.
Every bit of that just leaves your brain as soon as it enters.
But it's not trying to be persuasive on these topics, per se.
It's just trying to be generic, which is pretty smart.
All right, the New York Times is reporting that climate change might be reaching a tipping point.
Now, I don't have a Subscription to the New York Times?
But I don't need one.
Let's see.
It's an article that says that we might be reaching a tipping point or heading toward it for climate.
What would be in that article that I didn't read?
Well, I believe it would be climate experts saying that they have a model that predicts that we're heading toward a tipping point.
What part of that would I believe?
None.
None of that.
So Michael Ian Black sent me that on a DM this morning, because I'd sent him some stuff showing that some of the predictions hadn't worked out.
So there's a prediction on polar bears that's wrong, because apparently it was hunting polar bears that was killing them.
So when they stopped haunting them, they just came back.
Did you know that?
That the polar bears have doubled since they were at their low, and mostly they just stopped shooting them.
So it turns out it wasn't the weather so much as the shooting them.
So when you cut down on the shooting them, more polar bears.
How about that?
And then there was a Great Barrier Reef that was supposed to be destroyed, and it was almost destroyed, and there was no coming back.
Eh, it came back.
Or it's on the way coming back.
Which shouldn't be happening, according to climate change.
That's the opposite of what should be happening.
So I sent Michael those things, and I said, probably some things you don't see.
He sent me the New York Times article about the tipping points, and here's why they talk about tipping points.
Again, I don't have to read the article to know this.
Why do they talk about tipping points?
It's because the predictions didn't work.
Am I wrong?
Now again, I didn't read it, so if I'm stupidly guessing what's in the article, I say that you don't do tipping point persuasion until prediction persuasion fails.
Now the predictions are fine in the beginning, but after 20 years or so, people are going to say, how'd that prediction work out?
And then you look and you see that it didn't.
So if the predictions haven't worked for 20 years, And by the way, there would be people who claim that they have, but based on the things I see, they haven't.
You have to abandon the prediction model of persuasion because it didn't work.
So you have to move to something that could never be proved.
Do you know what could never be proved?
That we're heading toward a tipping point.
There's no way to prove that.
You would just use new models, the same models that didn't predict, are going to predict a new thing.
That you just can't measure.
So next year, I'll say, well, where's that tipping point?
And they'll say, well, not yet.
I mean, it's coming.
And then the year after I'll say, tipping point?
Not in two years.
I'm just saying, you know, in 20 years, definitely tipping point.
And 20 years go by and no tipping point.
What do you think they'll say?
Oh, we were wrong about that tipping point.
No, they will update their models and they'll say, Yeah, we're a little off on that, but the new models, much better, new models, say the tipping point five to ten years, and then we'll sit there like idiots again, say, oh, here comes that tipping point.
No, tipping point is something that nobody can predict, because there are way too many variables, and to imagine that they can is stupid, but at the same time, could there be a tipping point?
Yeah, maybe.
But I don't think there's anything that humans are going to do that would make it tip or not tip.
I do think that the world changes temperature all the time.
It's never the same.
Like it's always going up for a long time or down for a long time.
That we know for sure.
So with or without the human element in it accelerating it, they would say, is there a tipping point?
Now, if you thought a tipping point was coming, why should you do?
I would take the Vivek risk management approach, which is make sure we have as much energy as possible, and the strongest economy, and the most educated population, so that we can deal with every challenge.
Because the tipping point is going to destroy everything all at once.
You know, it might make a part of the ocean not fishable.
It might make someplace harder to farm while it's making someplace else better to farm.
So there would be massive adjustments, but I doubt everything's just going to fall apart.
So anyway, um, I mentioned to, uh, Michael that, uh, you know, I had explained to him how the,
Prediction the prediction models are all fake now the the fast explanation for that is if you had ever had one prediction model and Then you followed it for 20 years and it was pretty close to the actual temperature I'd be saying to myself Wow It looks like they have a model that works 20 years in a row and it's kind of right right in that range where the actual temperature is not exact But I would be impressed by that
But suppose you had 100 models, and 10 of them look pretty good after 20 years.
What would I say of that?
We've got 10 good models?
No.
I would say this is a scam.
If you have 100 models, 10 of them are going to be close.
Probably.
I'm just picking numbers, but some of them are going to be close.
So the 90 that weren't close, what do they do?
They go back for funding.
And they say, if we just tweak our model a little bit, we've learned something from those other models, we'll have an accurate model too.
But we've got our own flavor of it, it'll be good if we have this extra model.
So they get funding.
So they tweak their model, and now it has no history.
Because it's tweaked.
So you don't know how it's worked, it's brand new.
Now you've got 100 again.
So 90 that got replaced or updated, 10 that were on target.
Then you watch a few more years, And within the original 10, 7 of them stopped working, but a few of the new ones that got tweaked, right on target.
So now they throw out the ones that aren't working, keep the ones that are, and go forward.
Is that a prediction model?
No!
No, that's a scam!
That's just hiding the fact that the prediction models don't work.
If you have enough prediction models and you can trade them out and tweak them every year, which they do, and keep and replace them, you're never predicting anything.
You're only predicting that if you have a lot of models, some of them are going to be close.
That's it!
That's it.
So I said that to Michael and he, uh, he responded with a, uh, let's just say, uh, what I took as an insult to my character.
And so, uh, I decided he was toxic and told him I never wanted to speak with him again and, uh, blocked him.
Because I'm really sick of fucking Democrats listening to an argument about a thing and then saying, well, you're a Nazi.
Or you're a narcissist.
I think that's where that was going.
Or your ego is too big.
Or you've been hypnotized.
How about talk about the whole fucking argument for once?
How about that?
And I'm so done with toxic motherfuckers.
And to me, it looks like a lot of the Democrats are just toxic personalities.
And you know, I'm not saying that's limited to one side, but most of the people that I see are just toxic.
And it's so obvious that there's just something wrong with the personality, not the argument.
The argument isn't even there.
It's just toxicity.
So every time I deal with people, it seems to not work out.
Anyway, there's a report from George Webb, investigative journalist, and I haven't seen this anywhere else.
So I don't have a sense of the credibility to assign this.
I'll just tell you that it's out there.
So it's on X. You can look for it.
George Webb, two B's in Webb.
And what he says is that the, uh, the guy who tried to kill Trump, this guy Crooks, um, that he has encrypted overseas bank accounts totaling $4.5 million.
Do you believe that?
That we know that the shooter has encrypted bank accounts that could only mean that there's some outside influence?
Here's my problem.
It's too on the nose.
You know what I mean?
Because we're all saying to ourselves, hey, does he have outside help?
If he had outside help, There would be probably crypto payments, you know, in today's world.
So, there they are.
There's the crypto payments.
Now, did George Webb really find these, but law enforcement did not?
And is there nobody else who could find these?
So, I'm not going to sell this as true.
I'm going to sell this as a story that's out there to be evaluated.
But I would wait for You know, a lot more confirmation.
So I don't have a sense of this one.
I don't even have a guess.
Well, I do have a guess.
My guess is that it's not true.
And the guess would be based on just the simple rule that it's too on the nose.
If other people confirm it, then again, I'll apologize to George Webb in public, and I'll say, good scoop.
And I will recommend that you follow him.
But for now, it doesn't meet my personal test of, I need a little more than this.
A little more.
All right.
Peachy Keenan, a writer on X, says, someone offer a $1 million reward for Swing State Ballad Fraud Insider to come tell us exactly how it all goes down on election night.
So, in other words, basically a witness or whistleblower reward for somebody who tells us how they cheated.
Now, I would like to upgrade that.
If such a reward is going to be offered, it's really, really important that it happens before the election.
In other words, it would be good If, let's say, after the election, if somebody said, hey, we'll give you a million dollars if you can prove that there was some bad behavior.
But you know what would be way better than that?
You say it before anybody has time to cheat.
You say, we're going to pay your accomplices a million dollars to turn you in.
Now what do you do?
How would you like to work with a couple of accomplices To cheat on an election, and then you find out that the person you're sitting next to, your accomplice, can either accept $10,000 for the cheating they're doing.
I'm just making up numbers now.
So they can either take $10,000 plus, you know, the satisfaction of winning, I suppose, or the person next to them can make one phone call and make a million dollars.
All they have to do is turn in their friend.
And maybe they don't know that person that well anyway.
Maybe they just think the world would be better if they got paid a million dollars and our elections were more secure.
So I think you need to make that a big deal before the election, because you want everybody who might be inclined to cheat, and might be inclined to have somebody working with them to cheat, I want them not to trust their co-conspirators.
You want to create complete chaos among the cheaters before the election.
If, in fact, there is any cheating.
Now, you should also offer the reward if you find that somebody's planning to cheat.
So it shouldn't just be that they did cheat.
I would like to know that, for example, there's already a warehouse full of ballots that are fake.
I'd give a million dollars for that.
That sounds like something worth a million dollars.
And I would think that the Trump campaign should be able to afford a million dollar or a few million dollar bounty, because in terms of the publicity you would get for that and the bang for the buck, that would be the best million dollars the campaign ever spent.
Just put in a reward.
Anyway.
Still talking about Iran getting ready to attack, unless they've attacked in the last hour.
The U.S.
Secretary of Defense has told the USS Abraham Lincoln to accelerate its travel to the Middle East.
So we're building up our resources over there.
So we'll see what happens.
I continue to say that Iran is kind of trapped on this.
They can't do nothing.
But if they do anything that's even a little bit effective, they just give Israel a free pass to do God knows what.
So there's no winning play here for Iran.
So will they do something that looks like a play but isn't a play?
So I think they're going to have to do something that looks like it's big.
Uh, looks like it's big but isn't.
I don't know if you can find that space.
Over in Ukraine, I guess Putin is saying that the latest attacks by Ukraine on the Russian territory are just a trying to improve negotiating position.
That's what I said.
So apparently Putin agrees with me that it's not Ukraine trying to win the war, they're just trying to grab some Russian territory so they have something to trade back.
So if they can grab some Russian territory that's lightly defended, That's going to be a whole lot easier than getting Crimea that would be heavily defended.
So that's happening.
Then the other thing that's happening is, as you know, Ukraine has a massive manpower and womanpower shortage for the fighters.
So if Russia just keeps doing what it's doing with its larger population, it can just grind down the Ukrainians until they literally don't have any fighting age men or even women left to put on a uniform.
So what would happen then?
Well, isn't it weird that this is the exact time that robot fighting dogs have been invented?
So there's actually talk about introducing one of those robot fighting dogs fairly soon to assist the Ukrainians.
I think Ukraine, if it goes for more than a year, you know, I do think there's a good chance that Trump gets elected and winds it up in six months.
That's possible.
But let's say it goes for another year.
In another year, the manpower shortage will be critical.
And I think we're just going to be building robots and just saying, okay, how about one person with 10 robots?
And the robots are somewhat autonomous and they just send a, send a herd of, of, uh, robot dogs against the enemy at the same time.
AI-driven drones fly over, and it's basically one guy.
So one guy goes out there with his, you know, his electronics and says, all right, robot dogs, here's the GPS coordinate.
Shoot everything that moves within this coordinate.
Boom!
Robot dogs, you know, start their attack.
All right, robot dogs under effect.
Now, drone swarm.
Follow the robot dogs and create a death from the sky when the robot dogs are approaching so that they have to look in two different directions Swarm boom one button All the swarm needs is the GPS Data, you just got to tell it where and then even if they get jammed They can switch into AI and the AI will just look down and say I recognize this place and
My GPS is gone, but I'll just look down.
Okay.
That road is highway, whatever.
I'll just follow that.
There we are.
I think you're at the point where one soldier can send a swarm.
That's probably a year away.
And that ladies and gentlemen is the end of my prepared comments.
And, um, I think today's going to be amazing.
So we're all going to be entertained for sure.
Oh, and I guess tonight is Elon Musk is talking to Trump on a Spaces event, or is it video?
Is it video?
It's probably video.
I think it's video.
And it will be on X. It will be at, I believe, 8 p.m.
Eastern Time, if I have that right.
And I don't think I'm going to You'll be watching it live stream.
I might be watching it privately, but that will be interesting.
Now, there is some conversation about whether Trump is or has already come back to the X platform.
I don't think that's real or confirmed, but if I were Trump, here's how I would do it.
I would wait for Elon to ask me during the event.
If Trump has the legal and financial ability to do it, which I don't think he does.
So I think the reason that Trump is staying off is that he has fiduciary and financial and contractual obligations to truth social.
And if he went to X, you know, suddenly truth wouldn't have a reason to exist.
So he might also offer to sell it to Elon.
Imagine a conversation this way.
Mr. Trump, thanks for joining me on X. My first question is, when are you coming back to X?
Then imagine this.
I'm just making this up.
This is just fantasy.
Then imagine Trump saying, well, you know, I've created True Social and it's worth billions of dollars.
And, you know, it's got a very large audience, very dedicated and contractually and Financially, I have to stay there.
It's what's good for the investors, it's what's good for the users over there, and I have a commitment to them.
But, if you wanted to buy it, we could wrap that up pretty quickly.
So, wouldn't that be an interesting conversation?
And then imagine Elon saying, how much?
And then imagine Trump saying, well, I have a price.
Imagine if he came with a price.
Say, all right, it's $6 billion.
And then Elon would say, for how many users?
And then Trump would tell him and he'd say, that's way too expensive for that many users.
How about $3 billion?
And Trump would say, well, I have to talk to some people, but we might be able to make that work.
None of that's going to happen.
None of that's going to happen.
But you have two individuals who are not like any other people.
So you also can't predict what will happen.
I think there's at least a 40% chance it will be a nothing, meaning that Trump will say what Trump always says.
Musk will ask good questions, you know, he'll ask good questions, but maybe Trump's just in campaign mode and he's just generically Trump, and that wouldn't be the biggest story in the world.
It'd be interesting, but it wouldn't be the biggest story.
But you've got two people who can't help but make news.
You've got two people who have no barriers, no limits, nothing financially stopping them from doing anything.
What could happen?
It could be the most interesting thing.
Now, the other thing to look for is, I guess, Musk had said that he had offered to Trump that if Trump created a government efficiency committee, or working task force or something, that he would be part of it, just to figure out how to make the government, you know, a smaller, tighter, more efficient thing like he did with X. So, it's definitely going to be interesting.
But anything can happen, so make sure you don't miss it.
All right, that's it for my regular show.
I'm going to go privately over to locals.
Some people on locals say that they lose the sound on locals when I go private.
