God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Stolen Social Security Numbers, Nord Stream Pipeline, Inflation, Harris Price Capping Policy, Meat Pricing, Trump Tax Policy, Lowering Energy Cost, Trump Tariffs, Unrealized Gains Tax, Trump Attempted Assassination Timing, J6 Pipe Bomb Timing, Creepy Tim Walz, Kim Dot Com Extradition, Electronic Voting Machines, News Industry Clowns, Trump Charisma, AI Image Detection, Glenn Kirschner, Trump Lawfare, Political Lawfare Based Government, 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
Good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, shells just fine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Zip.
It happens now.
Let's go.
Well, let's start with some fun science, and we'll get to all the political intrigue.
Over in China, they've got a A restaurant that pretends to be a train.
So it's like you're inside a train car, but the windows look like they have video screens instead of windows, and they're coordinated, so it looks like you're in a train car that's going through this beautiful countryside.
Now, how much do I want to eat in that train car that looks like it's going through the countryside?
A lot!
I think that would be really cool.
I don't know what else it has.
I don't know if it has vibration or some background noise or something like a train.
But I've long imagined that what travel will look like in the future is a drone with a 360 degree camera There's somebody either legally or illegally flies through every street and places that you would want to go.
So let's say you wanted to go to Santorini or you wanted to go to Paris.
You would just sit in your room where the windows of your room would be big windows, but they would actually just be TV screens.
And they would show the exact video from the drone that had already gone through the city or the destination.
Imagine going to Stonehenge, just sitting in a chair in a room.
And then, you know, you basically are, it's like you're in the drone and you're flying through all the rocks of Stonehenge, assuming any of that's legal.
I would never need to go anywhere again.
I've had some experiences with virtual reality where when I was done I said, you know what?
If this were a real place, in some cases they're not real, I would not need to go there.
I would feel like I'd seen the pyramids.
If you had a full virtual room experience where you're walking around the pyramids and even like going up to the top of one and inside one and all that, would you feel a deep need to actually visit Egypt?
I literally wouldn't.
If you gave me a, you know, a rich enough virtual experience, I wouldn't have any curiosity left.
I'd say, well, I've got a pretty good idea what it's going to look like.
I did that with the Colosseum, the Rome Colosseum.
I did a virtual reality program where you got to stand there and look at it, at least from the outside.
And I said to myself, I feel like I've been there.
I have an actual memory of being there and I've never been there.
It's the weirdest thing.
Anyway, here's a cool thing.
There's now an implantable device that can automatically detect if you have an overdose of opioids.
And then if you do, it administers a dose of naloxone, which is that drug that they give if you overdose on fentanyl and other opioids.
And apparently it's been tested in a pig.
So I don't know how long it would take before it's in humans.
I also don't know if it's a great idea.
Because if you said to a drug addict, hey, if you put this little implantable chip under your skin, Uh, and you accidentally get some fentanyl, you'll probably survive.
Does the addict say, oh, that's good news.
I'll cancel my plan to get off drugs.
Uh, I'll cancel, I'll cancel my plan for rehab because now I don't have a risk of dying.
So it could be one of those things where the, it sounds great on paper, but if you introduced it into the real world, uh, drug addicts don't act like other people.
So you could end up increasing the number of drug addicts, or at least increasing the number who survived.
And, uh, I'm not sure that's exactly what they're shooting for, but more life is better than less life, I suppose.
Meanwhile, Columbia, Columbia university president resigned.
After months of mounting pressure, says Fox News.
So this is Manoush Shafiq, who has resigned after all the repeated calls for leaving, following her response to the anti-Israel protests and violence on campus.
So I feel like there is a power imbalance.
With these protests, the anti-Israel that seemed anti-Semitic to many, and that there's really just a timing lag.
And that in the short term, nobody was expecting all these massive protests kind of popped up quickly.
In the long term, I would expect that the pro-Jewish American, pro-Jewish, pro-Israel group would collect, you know, they would organize, they would figure out how to respond.
And eventually, there's going to be a pretty strong pushback to the protests that seem to be anti-American in many ways.
So, look for that power imbalance to balance itself out over time.
All right, here's a question.
Is this real science or fake science?
So there's a study, according to Sky News, that older people who feel their life has purpose are less likely to get memory loss.
So if you're an older person, let's say you are retirement age, your kids are out of the house, if you have any, and if you can find some other purpose, Your memory loss will be less.
Does that sound like real science to you?
Does anybody have any questions about that science?
Here's my question.
It's not an accusation, it's just a question.
Wouldn't it also be true that the people with the healthiest brains would be the most likely to take on a new challenge at their senior years?
Wouldn't it be likely That if you knew your brain had lost a step, you would be less likely to say, you know what?
I think I'll jump right in and make the world a better place with my degraded brain.
I've got a feeling this might be backward science.
I don't know that, of course.
It's just when I hear something like this, I go, you know, I feel like this could have worked either way.
People with suboptimal brains don't take on as many meaningful projects.
And if, and if you're like me, I'm a certain age, but my brain unfortunately seems about the same as it always was.
So I feel like I, I feel like not working at my current level of brain health would be just the wrong decision.
So, I don't do, I think, this is my, you know, just personal impression of things, but I feel like I do things that are designed to be good for the world and designed to be meaningful, like this, the thing I'm doing right now, because I'm not done.
My brain is still functioning, in many ways it's better than it's ever been, because I have extra experience, and so that's why I take on things.
I take on things because I can.
If I couldn't, I guess I wouldn't.
So I worry that the science is backwards, but don't know.
Don't know for sure.
They may have found a way to control for that.
But that's the question you should ask with that kind of a science.
Well, there's a story that hackers somehow got a hold of and leaked every American social security number.
Oh, everyone.
So, do you remember, those of you who have been with me for a long time, you know that I've been saying for, I don't know, 20 years, that you can want to have privacy.
That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want.
But there's no way you can really get it, because technology and the way people work is so, so, so biased against everybody having a reason to take a little bit of your privacy.
And then the technology will exist to steal the rest of it.
And then the government will say, well, if we can look at them, wouldn't that stop a lot of crime?
If we could just sort of look at them and check out their geofencing and everything else.
So I don't think there's really any chance that we will have a future with something like privacy, the way you used to know it.
I think there's no chance of that.
Now you could, it certainly makes sense to fight it.
But your mental conditioning going into that fight should be that in the long run you lose, because there isn't really any way to keep privacy in the long run.
The technology will just be too good.
So I'm not saying any of this is good, just in case you want to misinterpret me.
I'm saying it's all bad that they're taking your privacy, but nothing you can do about it.
And when I hear that every single social security number has been stolen, I say, is that why I keep getting phone calls that my subscribers, uh, well, it's people who did not subscribe, but it found out that they're being charged by me.
So I'm getting more calls than I ever had.
Well, only a handful, but that's more than I've ever had of people who say, I did not sign up for your subscription service, but you seem to be charging me.
And then I have to give them the bad news that their card has been stolen.
But first I say, could you check with your spouse?
Because sometimes your spouse signs up for a coffee with Scott Adams and doesn't mention it got put on the card.
So that's happened too.
Yeah, I'm not even sure that credit cards will work in the future, because the theft is so massive at this point.
I mean, how many times have your credit cards been stolen in the past year?
How many of you have had a fake charge on at least one of your credit cards in the past year?
For me, it's every year.
I would say somebody steals one of my cards or uses my number for a fake transaction at least once a year.
I mean, our entire system doesn't really work.
It's heading in the wrong direction.
Well, the mayor of Palm Beach wants to shut down Mar-a-Lago.
And the argument would be because I guess security has increased after the assassination attempt on Trump.
So the Secret Service closed the road.
But really, that means that they just check you when you're going in.
If you're a resident, they're going to make sure they check you.
And so the mayor, who some have described as a rhino, I don't know if that's accurate, but is making noise that if the road is closed, then you can't say that That that private club should be opened.
So it looks like... I feel like just everybody who has some way to go after Trump is doing it.
We got another Drumpf all-capser here.
We got a serious drunk coming from Rumble.
All caps.
I love that the drunk people signal their drunkness with all caps.
It's so useful.
I used to be against all caps, but now that I realize it's only being the only people who use the all caps are the the drunks, then it actually is helpful because you can just, oh, all caps.
I'll skip that one.
All right.
So there's a Wall Street Journal story, the big story today, I guess.
Wall Street Journal is breaking this story.
That the Nord Stream Pipeline was not blown up by the United States.
It was not blown up by Ukraine.
The government.
The government.
So here's the story that I don't believe one bit of it.
It might be true, but there's nothing credible about this story whatsoever, right?
So here's the new story.
That the people who blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline were Ukrainians, but they were private Ukrainians operating without the government's approval.
Now, the story goes that they did tell Zelensky they planned to do it, and that when the CIA got wind of it, the CIA said, no, no, don't do that, and told Zelensky, no, no, no, don't blow up that pipeline.
And then Zelensky said, no, no, you guys don't blow up that pipeline.
So that means that the CIA was innocent because they said, don't do it.
That means Zelensky was eventually innocent because he told the plotters to not do it.
But then those plotters, oh, those, those dirty plotters, they did it anyway.
So they, they rented their own little yacht.
And they got their little team together with professional private divers and they went down there and they blew up that pipeline.
How many people believe that's true?
Does anybody believe that's true?
To me it seems so ridiculously obviously not true that I just laugh at it.
I mean, I don't think any of that's true.
Could it be true?
Sure, I suppose.
You know, one of the ways that you can tell truth from fake news is if fake news is perfect.
If you're going to make up a fake story, you make sure it all hangs together, it all makes sense.
The real world is so weird that you can't even believe it's true.
If something is coming from real-world observation, it always has, well, often, if it's anything complicated, it has the quality of, really?
Somebody would act that way?
You know, somebody actually made that mistake?
Somebody's that incompetent?
That's what real stories sound like.
So there is a little bit of real story-ness about this, and that is so messy, and there's so much badness in it.
But it's a little bit too on-the-nose, you know what I mean?
What is it that our CIA would want the world or Russia to believe?
What would be the most on-the-nose thing that the CIA would want you to believe?
That it wasn't the CIA, first of all, but miraculously and unbelievably, it wasn't Ukraine's government!
Hey, look at that!
It wasn't us, and it wasn't even the Ukraine government.
Isn't that convenient?
And what about the timing of learning this?
Huh.
It's right when everybody observing this is pretty sure that both sides are getting closer to negotiating an end to it.
You know it would be hard to make the negotiations work if you were planning to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict?
What would make it really hard is if Putin believed That you'd blown up his pipeline, because he might say to you, yes, I will be willing to negotiate and end to this war, but you're going to have to pay for the pipeline.
Would that be an unreasonable request?
If he said, yes, we will wind down the war.
The only thing I ask is you got to pay for the pipeline and it's $10 billion.
I don't know.
This looks a little too perfect.
Because if it wasn't the government of Ukraine that did it, and it wasn't the CIA, who are you going to bill?
Are you going to bill the six people on the boat?
They don't have $10 billion.
So to me, it looks like a preparation for negotiation.
I would imagine That the Democrats would love to wind down the Ukraine war and take that as a win, if they could spin it that way, as a win before the election.
So every part of this looks a little too coincidental.
So I'm not buying any of it.
That's my take.
Rasmussen has an updated poll on Trump and Harris.
And still has Trump up 49 to 45.
And if you throw in the third party people, it doesn't change much.
At least in terms of the percentage lead.
And of course, we're at a point where we don't know what to believe about polls.
But it is true that the Rasmussen poll didn't change much by recent events.
Other polls are showing, wow, big change.
Kamala Harris is killing it.
Everybody loves her.
The joy?
You can feel the joy.
So, someday we might know what's true, but at this point the polls in general are not believable.
I have more confidence in the Rasmussen poll, because traditionally they do well compared to other pollsters.
But also, they don't really have a reason to lie about this.
They're not so pro-Democrat that you'd expect them to lie.
So the ones you don't expect to lie have a different result than the one you expect to lie?
I don't know, is that a coincidence?
Well, inflation is weirdly low, which is just good enough to confuse the stupid people.
Because the stupid people will say, my goodness, inflation is now down to a reasonable number, under 2% or something, 2%.
Now, if that were real, that'd be great.
But what Republicans will say is, well, if you compare current prices to 2019, they're up 30, 50%.
Insurance is through the roof, and eggs and gas are way higher.
So it's probably good news that inflation Isn't still going and it's really good news, but it doesn't make anything affordable because things already went up now.
Why did they go up?
So don't you have questions about?
What exactly is driving all of it?
I can tell you that in California, the reason insurance went through the roof is because there was fire risk.
Uh, that was crazy.
So the, the state wasn't managing the fire risk, but also the state, uh, insurance commission said you can't raise rates for awhile.
They've changed that.
But, uh, and then the insurance companies just said, we're out, we're done.
If it can't raise rates enough to make money, why be in business?
So, Yeah, and some big fires that just whack the insurance companies.
So we have enough information that Democrats can claim that inflation is low, while Republicans claim that it's through the roof, and that the baseline went up so much that an ordinary person can't afford to live anymore.
Both are true.
Both are true.
So Harris is going to have some kind of meeting Friday, I guess, tomorrow, and talk about her Financial economic proposals, that'll be interesting.
But she wants to end price gouging, she says.
End price gouging, and especially for meat processing conglomerates.
Now the question I would ask is, is there one economist in the entire world, Democrat or Republican, could even be a communist, I don't care, Is there one economist anywhere who thinks that the government should cap prices for anything?
I believe the answer is there's no such thing as any economist anywhere, left or right, who thinks this is a good idea.
So here's what you should look for.
Look for MSNBC and CNN to have no economists on their show.
Instead they'll have pundits.
Do you know why there will be no economists?
Because no economist thinks that capping prices is a good idea.
None.
Zero.
You can't find any.
Now, I might be wrong about that, but if you see an economist come on and say, you know what?
In a capitalist system, if you want to have a good supply of things, you cap the price.
Nobody will say that.
So, watch how fake the news becomes, because you might see an economist come on Fox News to say, well, that's a terrible idea, everybody knows it.
But CNN and MSNBC almost have to have no economists on the news for the next few months.
None.
You watch.
Even the economists whose names you've heard of and are often on the news, they will be so shut out.
They will have nothing to do with this.
And if you were just a Democrat voter, and you were not an economist, and you didn't know whether price caps were good or bad, which would be reasonable.
I mean, I think you'd have to have some pretty deep experience to know it's always a bad idea.
Some people would think, well, maybe in this case it is a good idea.
No, it's not.
It's always a bad idea, 100% of the time.
It's one of the few things you can depend on in economics, is that if you put artificial controls on things, you'll get less of it.
Guaranteed.
So, meat processing conglomerates.
I don't know what the story is there, I guess there were a bunch of mergers, and so the government is claiming that the mergers allowed them to make obscene profits.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that the reason meat prices are high is because the meat processing conglomerates consolidated and then there's less competition?
I'll bet that's not what's going on.
I'm no expert, but here's what I would guess.
My guess is that the consolidations are because they couldn't make money.
In other words, there was too much competition, and the prices were too low to handle their overhead.
So my guess is, if you looked at the return on investment of whatever meat processing conglomerates exist, I'll bet you'd find the ROI would be right in the middle of business in general, meaning that there would be no indication of price gouging.
Because it's not price gouging if the company is making just an ordinary profit.
Price gouging would mean they're 100% more profit than they've ever made before, and they could easily lower the cost and still make lots of money.
Where's that evidence?
Do you think Kamala Harris will say, here's the meat processing conglomerates we're talking about.
Before they consolidated, their ROI was a quite reasonable 10% a year.
After consolidation, and several of them consolidated, now this one big company has an ROI of 53%, way more than the average companies.
So that's abusive.
Do you think she'll make that argument?
I guarantee you she will not.
You will never hear about the profit ROI.
Forget about profit number.
If she just gives you a number like, and they made a billion dollars this year, or whatever the number is, that's fake.
You've got to know the return on the assets that they employed.
That would tell you if they're making money more than you would expect a company to make.
So look for no good information on economics coming out of any of this.
Meanwhile, Trump, his economic proposals include extending his 2017 tax cuts.
Now, somebody explained to me the other day, because I went to the website where you can put in your personal income and age and state, and it will tell you how much you'll save in taxes.
Or lose in taxes, depending if this tax law expires.
So I said to myself, oh my god, if these Trump tax cuts expire, how much more am I gonna spend?
So I go to the site, I put in my information, and it tells me that if the tax cuts expire, I will save money.
Quite a bit.
And I looked at it, and I think I told you, oh, the website doesn't work, because it says if the taxes go down, no, it says if the taxes go up, that somehow I'm going to spend less on taxes.
And I thought, it must be broken.
And that's what I said.
And then somebody said, no, Scott, because part of the tax law was that it took away state deductions.
And I'm in California.
So we have, you know, wildly crazy taxes for California.
So I used to be able to write them off.
So that used to be a deduction, but I lost my state deduction in return for a lower tax rate, but it didn't compensate.
So it turns out that the Trump proposed Taxes will raise my taxes.
So I'm not in favor of that.
I'm in favor of raising your taxes, not mine.
Like everybody else, I just say it out loud.
Yeah, I would love to raise your taxes and lower mine.
Is that wrong?
No, it's not wrong because you want the same thing.
You want my taxes to go up and yours to go down.
Let's be honest.
We all want everybody else's taxes to go up, except maybe poor people.
We don't want their taxes to go up.
But among the people who are able to pay their bills already, we kind of want the other people's taxes to go up.
So I can't support Trump's economic plan because it raises my expenses.
There may be other parts of it.
I might support I mean obviously I think the how you treat the border has to be part of your economic plan Because the border stuff is really an expense.
It's just a different kind of one So I'm not going to go all in on Trump's economic proposals You can make your own decisions if you do your calculations, and it looks like it will lower your taxes Then I would say you have a complete moral Cover to say you like that better.
It raises my taxes, I think.
I'm not positive, but it looks like it might.
If it raises my taxes, I'm against it.
And I think you understand that, right?
Somebody's going to win, somebody's going to lose, but nobody wants their own taxes to go higher.
All right, and And Trump wants to do more increased drilling.
Um, even though I think we're at record levels, but you could do a lot more.
I think lowering energy costs, I think that's the magic lever.
And I think Trump has a much better story that he would increase production and lower, lower energy costs.
So I think he's got the better story.
Then there's this whole question of tariffs.
So I guess the Biden administration, which was always anti tariff, Decided not to remove Most of or all of Trump's tariffs the China.
Is that true?
I need a fact check on that but I think that the Democrats were all anti tariff until they inherited the government and then they said We better keep these tariffs because that's a lot of money coming in now some people say but Scott You fool.
Don't you know that tariffs are?
Don't help at all, because all they do is pass along the expense to consumers in this country.
To which I say, I'm not sure you understand how this works.
So here is my big question.
If we're getting raw materials from China, and we don't have those raw materials here, I would not expect to see a tariff.
Because why would you just increase the cost?
Basically, it would just be a tax on Americans, because we would need the raw materials for building whatever we need to build, and it would be just like a tax.
So why would you do that?
Well, probably don't.
Here's a case where it would make sense to put a tariff on.
Let's say China decides it wants to take over one of our industries, and I'll just make one up.
Let's say China wants to take over the refrigerator manufacturing industry.
Now, I'm making that up because they already took it over, I think.
Or South Korea did, or somebody did.
I don't know.
Do we make any refrigerators?
Does the United States even make a refrigerator?
Probably not.
But imagine a situation where America said, our refrigeration manufacturing is vitally important.
We can't have some other country making all our refrigerators.
So in that case, the tariff would make sense.
Because the tariff is to discourage people from buying the Chinese refrigerator when they could buy an American one, and everybody is a little bit better off that way.
Now, if China had artificially lowered the price of their refrigerators so that a Chinese refrigerator costs half as much and was just as good, well, it would put American refrigerator makers out of business, but not because of competition.
It would be because the Chinese government had subsidized their refrigerators to make them so cheap that it would put us out of business.
So a tariff makes sense when you're protecting an industry from being attacked, not by another competitor.
This is the important part.
The tariff is not to protect you from a good competitor.
The tariff is to protect you from a government that is backing a competitor so much so that they can wipe out your entire industry.
So in those cases, you want a tariff.
Now, would it raise the prices, in some cases, of Americans paying for things?
Yes, it would.
But it would also drive the right behavior, which should compensate enough to make that a good trade-off.
The right behavior is that we keep our refrigerator industry.
Now, when I talk about refrigerators, it's ridiculous, because I think we've already lost that industry.
But imagine if it's electric cars.
Do you think we cannot be the electric car maker?
We need that industry.
What if it's solar panels and batteries for your house?
No, we need that.
We really, really need that.
So there's some things that have such basic domestic value.
That you have to do whatever it takes to keep the competitors in.
And a tariff is a good way to do that.
So, just remember this simple rule about tariffs.
If it's something we need and we can't get it somewhere else, that's a bad tariff.
That's just a tax.
If it's another government targeting an industry for destruction, you need to do whatever it takes to stop it.
And if it's a tariff, even with a little pain, That is the correct answer.
So tariffs are not so easy.
It's not tariffs are good or tariffs are bad.
Argentina elected an economist.
The Argentinians had a problem with housing supply.
How do you think it went?
All right, let's let's predict this.
So Argentina elects an economist.
And I told you economists don't believe in price gaps.
None of them.
None of them.
So they elect an economist.
Did he put price caps on?
Nope.
He did the opposite.
He removed price caps, rent control.
And what happened?
He's an economist.
He removed government caps on prices for housing.
Immediately it caused a building boom and a resupply of rental housing.
Do you know why?
Because it always does.
It works every time.
This is not one of those things you're guessing about.
If you elect an economist, you get this.
I'd love to see if there's any economist in something like a capitalist country that ever got a worse result.
I'll bet not.
I'll bet they all get a reasonably good economic result.
And I would argue that Trump Is far closer to being an economist, as in being compatible with an economist in terms of all of his views, than Kamala Harris.
So if you can't get an economist, you want somebody whose views are completely compatible with economists.
And I think Trump is 100% compatible with general economic belief, and Kamala Harris is, I think, 100% incompatible with every economist.
Now, I'm making the largest claim, so there may be some weird exceptions, but I think that's true.
I think there's no such thing as any economist who believes in price gaps, for example.
Or keeping the border open, the way we have it.
Also, the Democrats are looking at a tax on unrealized gains.
Now, without getting too wonky about that, Let me tell you that 100% of economists think that's a terrible idea.
So, what it would do to me is... It would be really bad for me.
Most of my current money is from my investments.
Almost all the money that I made just sort of daily, you know, my daily royalties from my career, I either spent, gave away, Or invested in some kind of business that usually didn't go well.
So my entire wealth for the rest of my life is from investment gains.
Because early in my career, I made, you know, a nice little pocket of money, and I just put it all in an index fund.
And then I just sat on it for 30 years.
So that's my money.
But the small amount that I put in, relatively small amount that I put into the stock market, is now a nice healthy amount.
If they tax me on the difference between what I put in and what it's worth now, even though I haven't sold any of it, I'm going to get killed.
I mean, it would actually change my entire lifestyle, depending on the percentage, I guess.
So it's pretty draconian.
And, you know, although I'd be fine, I mean, I could, I'm not gonna starve, but you can imagine somebody who is in a similar situation where most of their net wealth is an unrealized gain, and it's what they're relying on for their entire retirement.
It is just so wrong and unfair, and I don't think any economist is in favor of it.
Now, I might be wrong on this one.
I'm definitely not wrong on the Price caps not being supported by any economist on the left or the right.
I don't know about this one, but I can't believe there'd be anybody in favor of it.
It'd be hard to imagine.
But of course, you watch the news, right?
So the news has fully vetted this?
What, no?
No, this most important question You haven't seen the news tell you whether it's a good or bad idea to tax unrealized gains?
How about the one on tariffs?
Do you remember the tariffs who explained to you what I just explained?
That there are some cases where a tariff is really a national defense necessity?
Do you remember the news covering that in detail for you?
Probably not.
No, I do believe the news has covered all of these things, but they just sort of do a light touch and move on.
Yeah, they don't treat it like it's the most important thing, and I don't know what's much more important than the economy.
All right, here's an assassination attempt update.
The rabbit hole of the Trump attempted assassination just keeps getting bigger.
I'm not going to give you details, but I would recommend to you a podcast in which Benny Johnson was talking to Mike Benz.
Mike Benz does this incredible job of connecting dots and explaining the architecture of our government and all of its parts and how everything fits together and what looks like a coincidence and what doesn't.
And it's really a masterclass.
Every time I see him on a podcast, I think, wow, I just learned something I never knew before.
So if you're not following Mike Benz, B-E-N-Z, you're flying blind.
You're just flying blind.
You really wouldn't know what's going on anywhere.
Because almost everything that's in the news is a fake version.
Everything that's real is the layer below that.
And then even if you saw what's happening in the layer below it, it would still be, it wouldn't look like anything to you.
You have to go to the level below that Where you know who the players are.
Once you know the history, and you know the players, then the layer above that makes sense, and that's something like reality.
The layer above that, the fake layer, is the fake news.
That's what we hear.
We don't really have access to anything, unless you run into a Mike Benz who can tell you who the players are, what the history is, and how all those parts connect.
If you don't see that, you actually know nothing.
And that's a real hard thing to wrap your head around, that your understanding of the world is at zero.
But it is.
It's actually at zero.
You're not even close if you don't know who's who and the history of all that stuff, especially the intelligence part of it.
But here are some things that Mike Benz points out.
I recommend, again, you see the larger conversation with Benny Johnson.
So the attempt on Trump came soon after the Supreme Court ruling that made it less likely Trump would go to jail.
Huh.
That's sort of a coincidence, isn't it?
That as soon as the risk of going to jail was substantially lessened, it's not zero, but substantially lessened, then suddenly there was an attempt on his actual life.
But that could be a coincidence.
Interestingly, That attempt came just, was it a week or two before the RNC convention where they would have to actually pick their candidate?
Because what would have happened if the assassination attempt had been successful?
Well, it'd be too late to run a whole new primary, wouldn't it?
So maybe somebody would get picked by the delegates and the insiders and the money people and maybe it would be Nikki Haley.
Maybe it would be Nikki Haley.
I mean, she was one of the last ones in the race, right?
Yeah.
Now, is that a coincidence?
So the actual assassination attempt was sandwiched between two coincidences that looked like really big ones.
One, they knew he wouldn't go to jail, or it was less likely.
Two, It was exactly the right timing where they could have slotted somebody else in without any kind of a process.
You know, much the way they did with Harrison.
Now is that, is that, or Harris, is that a coincidence?
That that attempt came exactly in that weird little window where if you were some shadowy organization that wanted to take him out, it would have been the perfect timing.
Could be a coincidence.
You have to watch out, because once you form a narrative in your head, you will notice that everything fits your narrative.
So, could confirmation bias explain those two coincidences?
Yes.
Yes, it could.
It could.
Are there any more?
Well, we found out that this kid learned how to make pipe bombs, which turns out to be a favored technique of our undercover people teaching people to become better terrorists.
And that feels like a big coincidence, huh?
He also knew how to make pipe bombs.
That's sort of suggestive that some American intelligence entity May have taught him.
But it's also possible he just learned it on the internet or, you know, he was just clever and he figured it out.
Could it be confirmation bias?
It could be.
It could be.
But that would be three coincidences.
And then there's also this question of we, I guess there's a new video of the placement of the pipe bomb on January 6th.
Now this is separate from the assassination attempt.
So January 6, we know there was a pipe bomb planted outside some DNC entity.
Kamala Harris seemed to have walked past it without any Secret Service problems.
It wasn't especially hidden.
It was a pipe bomb.
There's now video that makes it look like a cop might have placed it.
I don't know if that's true.
So the whole story about the pipe bomb is being told in a confusing way, where I looked into it and I was like, I'm not even sure what you're saying.
And there's some new videos and I looked at them and I said, I don't know what these are showing.
And the description of what's happening isn't really telling me what's happening.
So the pipe bomb thing is getting confusing.
But it did happen at the same time that the people who are sometimes considered insiders on the January 6th thing, decided to make their push on the Capitol.
So was the pipe bomb part of a conspiracy to make it look like the protesters were more dangerous than they were?
I don't know.
So that whole story is just really confusing.
But all these coincidences start to Layered together and their Venn diagrams are overlapping and you know, why why is this the only assassin in the world?
Who doesn't have social media?
You know, he didn't leave a note you know, you just keep going and you know the The Secret Service were unusually bad that day.
They were replaced by Elements of the Department of Homeland Homeland Homeland?
Department of Homeland?
What's the S for?
So, there's just a whole lot of coincidences there.
So, I don't know what to think about that, but certainly it's dirty looking.
Well, Tim Walz is getting the creepy guy treatment from the number of notable people.
I won't name names, but you've probably noticed that on the critics' side, The non-Democrat side.
A lot of people are having the same visceral reaction to him that I am.
Now my visceral reaction is not based on any super knowledge I have of wrongdoing or anything illegal.
I have no, no personal information about anything like that.
I just look at him and he's got that John Brennan face.
You know, John Brennan used to be head of the CIA.
And whenever he would come on to talk about Trump and, you know, Russia collusion, which was totally made up by people like John Brennan.
And when he came on and he talked about the Hunter laptop, you know, another bullshit case, you would just look at his face and you'd say, you look like somebody who's lying all the time.
He's just got this biggest liar face.
John Brennan does now.
Maybe it's just natural.
It doesn't mean I'm peering into his soul.
I'm just saying he has a face that you would want to cast in a movie of somebody who was a bad guy.
And I see the same thing in Tim Walz.
That he looks like somebody you would cast in a movie of somebody who pretended to be a good guy until you found out he wasn't.
It's just a vibe that I just can't shake.
Now there are Let's say a number of coincidences around his life that I won't get into, but everything about this guy just screams.
There's something we need to know that we don't know.
Anyway.
Um, here's another Mike Benz thing.
I also saw on the Benny Johnson podcast.
No, I think it was on another podcast.
It wasn't on that one, but, uh, he called the, uh, The issue where the Harris campaign was modifying Google headlines to make it look like it was more positive for the Harris campaign.
So they were sponsored ads, but if you did a Google search, you wouldn't notice that maybe the first ones were paid ads, even though they're indicated just with a little indicator.
But you'd see a whole bunch of positive things that looks like the news loves Kamala Harris, or that the news is saying things that are very positive for Kamala Harris, at least.
So they got busted for that, and there were lots of examples of them doing it, and they admit it.
But it's not illegal.
It's not illegal.
It's Weasley, but not illegal.
Google claims that there was some kind of problem in their system that allowed Harris to get away with it, and that they're acting like, although it's not illegal, they're acting like it wouldn't have happened under their process that they wish had been working, I guess.
I don't know if you can believe that, but here's what Ben said that I thought was hilarious.
We know that the news in general is fake, and we know that Google can game what news you see.
So if you start with fake news, but then how you see it and the way it's presented is also gamed, that's like two levels or two layers of fakeness.
One is the news itself, And two is deciding which of the fake news or real news you see.
That would be Google.
Now, the Harris campaign managed to add a level of fake on top of the two existing levels of fake.
So it was fake news.
Google decides what you see and what you don't, which is another form of brainwashing, essentially.
And then the Harris campaign modified the real news into fake news.
So it was actually three layers of fakeness, which Ben's called a fake news tiramisu, because tiramisu is a layered dessert.
Three layers of fakeness!
That's where we're at.
Well, there's a report that kim.com might get extradited to the United States from New Zealand.
I've always wondered what was happening with that case.
But if you don't follow Kim.com, as I do, you would not know that he is a very vocal and, I would say, productive critic of the American government.
And, you know, I think more so of the Democrats, but I'm not positive about that.
So to me, it just sounds like they're trying to get their hands on a critic who knows too much.
He would be in the category of people who seem to know what's happening behind the curtain.
Now, I don't know if he's always right, but he's a dangerous critic to the United States.
And, uh, surprise!
Now, the United States has worked out a way to extradite him.
Now, it seems to me that he got really quiet on social media.
I used to see him every day, and I haven't seen him for a while now.
I don't know if that's because the algorithm changed, or something in his life changed, or it's his legal problem, but this is a big red flag.
No, I'm not.
I'm not supporting anything Kim Dotcom did in the legal sense.
I'm not aware of what the charges are.
But when you see somebody who's such a productive, he actually makes a difference in his opinion publicly.
And then you see the United States has a reason to pick him up.
I'm just not comfortable with it.
It could be it's just ordinary Department of Justice stuff.
He did some things that are illegal.
We're going through a normal process.
Maybe, you know, maybe there's some things he needs to answer for.
I don't know.
I just don't live in a world where I can be comfortable that somebody who is also a really productive critic of the government coincidentally is getting picked up.
The coincidence is just keep racking up.
All right, now we get to my most provocative part of today's presentation.
You know how we're all mocking Harris for not doing press interviews?
And the press is mocking her, and the press is pushing her, and all the smart people are saying, oh, she's going to have to do this, and she's avoiding it, and blah, blah, blah.
Well, here's what I think.
What is the point of talking to the press?
There's no reason to talk to the press.
If you're a well-known entity, meaning the public has a basic idea of who you are and what you're up to, that would be true of both Trump and Harris.
We've been watching them both for a while.
Talking to the press, how does that benefit either of them?
If they want to get a story out that's in their favor, they can do an event, and then the press covers the event.
But they don't get to ask any questions.
If either candidate agrees to an interview, what's going to happen?
Well, you know in advance whether the interviewer is a friendly or an unfriendly, right?
If it's a friendly, it's useless, because it's basically just the campaign stump speech as translated through a friendly interviewer.
So we don't need to see a friendly talk to a politician.
It's just basically free campaign spending.
But what if they're not friendly, and they're very clearly aligned with the other side?
What use is that?
You say to yourself, but Scott, that is useful, because then they're going to ask the questions that are like the real probing, deep questions.
Is that what you observe?
Well, let me ask this.
Have you ever seen any press, pro or anti, anybody who's at the high level of the Democrats, either for Biden or Trump or Harris, have you ever heard them say, um, what are you going to do about the deficit that's going to kill us?
Now they let Trump say stuff like, oh, I'm going to grow my way out of it and then change the subject.
That's not an answer.
You can't grow your way out of it.
Or maybe we'll look at cutting some expenses, but I can't be more specific.
No, you can't cut spending enough to get out of the deficit.
It's not even possible.
So where is the hard-hitting interview that's asking either the left or the right any fucking question that's useful?
All right, let me give you another one.
There's now some video.
Eric, I think it's...
Eric Abinanti is posting this on X. So a video of Kamala Harris, not too long ago, saying that in California they needed to go to paper ballots because it's the only way you could be sure you had a secure election.
Let me say that again.
Kamala Harris, not many years ago, in California, has said in public, as clearly as possible, that paper ballots are the only way you can be sure the election is clean.
Just think about that.
Now, let me ask this question.
Who has ever had a major presidential candidate for an interview and said, can you explain why the government even uses electronic voting machines?
Doesn't seem to be faster.
Doesn't feel more credible to the public.
Both Democrats and Republicans at various times have said it's got to be paper because we don't trust these other machines.
It can't be cheaper.
So if it's not cheaper, faster, or more reliable, can you, Vice President Harris, or can you, candidate Trump, explain to me why we have them?
Because the public doesn't have any idea why we have electronic voting machines.
Because as we observe, we don't see evidence that it's faster, more reliable, or cheaper.
So just tell us why.
Now those are what I call good questions.
Have you ever heard a reporter ask those questions?
Have you ever heard a reporter ask smart questions about tariffs?
Here's the reporter talking about tariffs.
Well, some people say tariffs will just raise prices on people.
What do you say, Mr. Trump?
Well, I collected $20 billion in tariffs.
Nobody's ever collected that much.
I got so much in tariffs.
Nobody's ever seen that much money.
Let's change the subject.
Nobody asked Trump about tariffs in a way that when you're done, you, the viewer, would have any idea if it was a good idea or a bad idea.
Trump just, you know, throws his persuasion in there and changes the subject, because you can't, you know, spend all day on one question.
So, we don't have a press on the left or the right That seems either willing or able to ask any question that a citizen would actually be interested in.
Do you know what they ask?
If you give a really good interview to one of the campaigns, here's what they're going to ask.
What do you think about J.D.
Vance fucking a couch?
That'll be what you get.
So given that the entire news industry has shown themselves to be completely useless clowns, with a few exceptions, right?
A few exceptions.
I mean, you know, I always think of the time that Breitbart's Joel Pollack challenged Biden when he was when he was a candidate.
Maybe he'd already been elected, I can't remember, but challenged him on the find people hoax.
But of course, since it wasn't a sit down, he couldn't really get into, you know, Joel couldn't really get into the details and Biden just lied and said his lie and then changed the subject and went on.
So we do, we do know that there are some people who are willing to ask the question that the public is interested in.
Uh, it's just there's no, I mean, do you think Joel's going to get a sit down with Harris?
Not a chance.
If, if it's George Stepanopoulos, is he going to ask the right question about why did you run on a hoax?
No, not a chance.
There's not a chance.
So here's what I think we need.
And by the way, uh, Ann Coulter added on to the, In a sense, sort of a related point.
She said that political debates are stupid if you, I'm paraphrasing, the political debates are stupid if the questions are asked by partisans.
And it doesn't really matter if the partisan is on the right or the left.
Why do you have partisans at all?
And her point is, shouldn't the candidates ask each other questions?
And I thought, you know what, that's actually better.
I would love to see the candidates say, you each have six questions.
You can't, you know, you can't do more than that, but you're each going to come with six questions and you will ask your six questions, but then you'll be able to respond and then respond to the response.
You know, some kind of technique to make sense.
So the question comes from somebody who's not a partisan, but well, they are ultimate partisan because they're running against them, but it would be the far more penetrating question.
Now, I'm going to try to top that.
I think that's also not ideal, because the questions that a candidate would bring would be so biased that the question would be kind of the answer itself.
Here's what I'd love to see.
I would love to see some kind of an entity or website that can capture the public's questions and somehow rank them.
Because the public has questions that the press just doesn't ask.
So I want to know Joel's question, right?
I want to know, why are you running on a debunked hoax?
And I want to spend some time on it.
I want you to give your answer and then I want somebody to say, but, you know, that's not true.
I want a real discussion based on real questions.
I want somebody to ask, why do we have voting machines?
Can you just explain it?
And again, I'm open to the fact that there's some obvious reason to have them that I'm not aware of.
That could easily be the case.
But don't we need to know?
Doesn't the public need to have a little bit of education on this question?
So yes, we need some way for citizens to be asking the questions.
And now I'm going to triple down on my suggestion for Trump.
You may have seen a video that went around where he was interacting with some voters somewhere in some kind of commercial business.
And he was signing hats and signing baseballs and patting people on the back and just making conversation with people.
And it was amazing.
It was amazing from the perspective of just watching his persona and watching his charisma.
Now, I'd like to take that to another level.
Where instead of talking to his supporters all the time, which doesn't give you any new information, I'd love to see, and this is the third time I think I've said it, I'd love to see Trump go to lunch.
With four or five Democrats who are definitely not on his team, and have them ask the hardest questions.
Let's see how he does.
I have no interest in seeing him answer a question for the press.
Not really.
I'm mildly interested in watching the candidates answer questions they ask each other, but I think the questions would be so gamed that it would turn useless pretty quickly.
But I would never Never be tired of watching a real citizen ask the potential President of the United States, what the fuck is this all about?
And then just look him in the eye and say, that doesn't even sound real to me.
That's the best you got?
Now, I think that nobody would really act that way to somebody who has been the president.
You know, Trump's presence would be kind of suppressing the worst behavior, but probably in a good way.
Meaning that I think people would still, because we're Americans, right?
Americans are willing to push.
Your typical Americans are going to still push it, but they might do it politely, but they just wouldn't let go.
They just wouldn't let go?
Hey, we're going to be here for lunch, so you better tell me what you're going to do about the national debt.
Well, I'm going to do it with growth.
Really?
Because I don't think growth would get you there.
How much of the debt do you think you're going to pay off with growth?
And if you got a 10% GDP, it would drive inflation crazy.
So how do you get there?
You can't get there from here.
Now you might need an economist sitting at, you might need like a fact checker sitting at lunch, so maybe I'll add a fact checker to it.
Somebody who could add a little nuance, you know, so that if Trump tries to answer the question, but it's an answer that the citizen wouldn't know is not a real answer, that the fact checker would say, excuse me, I understand the question, I understand the answer, but the answer doesn't seem quite addressing the question, and here's why.
I would love that.
All day long.
All day long, I could watch that.
And it would be useful.
It would change the votes.
I think people would say, oh, that's me at that lunch.
I have exactly those questions.
And I wish that was me.
But, oh, the person who is there asked my question.
So you would totally pull yourself into the lunch.
You would be one of the people at the table.
And that, to me, would be a whole new model of news.
So debates are stupid, and press interviews are stupid, the way things are organized.
I will call your attention again to the ex-account KamalaHQLies, all one word, which basically goes after every lie that Kamala Harris's campaign tells, and then debunks them.
Um, but I haven't seen there yet the full ranked list of her worst lies.
That would be really useful.
I'd love the top 20.
Maybe there are a hundred, but there are at least a top 20 because we need to be able to, you know, forward that around whenever that claim that Trump's the liar comes up again.
I think Harris stopped saying that as much.
They may be.
They may be modifying their approach because they've been caught lying so many times.
But yeah, let's see a list of Harris lies.
All right, what else is going on here?
New York Attorney General Letitia James.
She's warning companies about misinformation in the coming elections, and especially the problem with the AI.
So she sent a letter to Google, OpenAI, X and Meta to warn them about the rise of AI disinformation.
Now, I think we're in a weird period of history in which people can still be fooled by AI images.
Now, I think that's not going to last forever, right?
Because once every single person knows that every single photograph or even video could be fake, won't we learn to ignore it?
Or will we learn that You know, the real ones have some kind of a, I don't know, watermark or something on them somehow.
Is there a way that we'll be able to tell the source?
Oh, maybe that's all you need.
You just need to know the source.
Because if you trust the source, then you'll think it's not AI.
If you don't know the source, probably AI.
Maybe that's all they need to do.
You know what?
Rather than identifying AI, Wouldn't it make more sense for the social media companies to simply identify the source?
And if there's no known source, make sure people know that.
There's no identified source for this.
Which would tell me that there's not some video of this in the wild, that rather it must be AI.
Unless it's the only person who has this video.
So I think if you simply forced people to say the source of wherever the art came from, you'd be in good shape.
Now, could that be done automatically?
Or would you need people to do that?
It might be automatic.
Because on Google, for example, you could search for an image, right?
If you had an image, you could search to find out if it matches an existing image.
So wouldn't Google know Anyway, we'll see where that goes.
is being run on a social platform, wouldn't it know that that doesn't exist from any reliable source and therefore almost certainly fake?
Anyway, we'll see where that goes.
I saw that Glenn Kirshner, who the hell is he?
But he's somebody important.
And he's saying with these big wide eyes that make him look crazy and, well, just crazy.
He looks crazy.
I don't know if he is.
But he said, if Trump loses the election, he, quote, will spend the rest of his miserable life in court being prosecuted and ultimately serving prison terms one after the other.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that if Trump doesn't win, that the lawfare will just continue until he's in jail or lawfared into submission?
It might.
But here's the thing I worry about.
What would stop that?
Because none of it looks real to me, in terms of a regular person would not be prosecuted for this sort of stuff.
I feel like the Republicans need some kind of mutually assured destruction.
And the mutually assured destruction should be in the same domain, you know, meaning lawfare.
And I think what they need to do is say, all right, if you lawfare Trump, here are the three leaders in the Democrat Party that are going to have nonstop legal cases against them.
Um, through, and ideally it should all be legal, right?
I'm not talking about doing anything illegal in response, but the same way it's legal for them to do infinite lawfare that would not be done for another candidate or another person, another citizen.
Um, why can't Republicans do the same thing?
But hold it as a threat, not necessarily as something that's executed on moment one.
But rather they should say, if you're going to lawfare Trump out of office, or if you're going to lawfare him after office, we're going to put a billion dollars into destroying the lives of whoever is behind it.
Because you can't do that and get away with it.
I don't think we can have a society where one can get a billionaire to fund their infinite lawsuits against one candidate they don't want to run for office.
I can't live in that country.
I need that billionaire to be law-fired out of office or out of the public life.
So there needs to be some massive, really well-funded, like a billion dollars that says, we're not going to operate if everything's going fine.
We're not an attack dog.
We're simply NATO.
We're not an offensive operation.
We're like a legal NATO.
If you lawfare one of our team, we're going to put a billion fucking dollars into burying you.
But if it's just lawfare, I mean, if somebody actually broke the law, then the legal system needs to handle that.
But if it's clearly lawfare, we're going to put a billion dollars into ruining you specifically for being behind it.
Anything short of that and we lose everything.
Because this whole lawfare thing is so out of control.
It seems to be the dominant way the government is being run, by lawyers.
Right?
And we don't trust the legal system because, you know, you just pick your venue and you know what the answer is going to be.
So, I'd say one billion dollars of legal, NATO-like defensive force for Republicans would be necessary for the health of the Republic.
But don't use it offensively.
That would be my recommendation.
Well, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, of which almost all plastic surgeons belong, they broke with the consensus and they're rejecting what is called gender-affirming care for minors.
In other words, doing surgery to change their physical bodies to match their preferred identity.
No, I've, you know, I've largely stayed out of this topic because it's getting enough attention and I just don't have anything special to add.
I mean, the only thing I have to add is don't do stuff to kids.
If you have more to talk about, I'm probably not interested.
Don't do permanent changes to children.
And I'm done.
If you have something to say about that, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not listening.
If you don't like it, blah, blah, blah, I don't care.
Adults, do what you want to do.
You know, follow your bliss.
Children, they can't make decisions.
You kind of got to wait.
Now, I will acknowledge that there must be people who transitioned as children and are really, really happy about it.
That must exist.
And they would be disadvantaged.
But I think that seems like a reasonable trade-off for the people who would be transitioned and maybe would have thought differently of it if they had been adults when they made the decision.
Anyway, so adults do what you want.
There's a story about how Ukraine turned a hydrogen powered car into a bomb that was really powerful.
So it's not a hydrogen bomb, so to speak.
It's not like a nuclear hydrogen sort of bomb.
But I know hydrogen is not a nuclear bomb.
I get it.
But it was just a Toyota.
So they took a Toyota and they rigged it to blow up some major Russian facility.
And it looks like they may have driven it by remote control.
So what happens when you have self-driving cars and you can put enough explosives in the self-driving car That you can blow up anything in any metropolitan area anytime you want.
Because if you put explosives in something the size of a vehicle, it's better if it's a truck, you know, SUV or something.
But if you have that much explosives and it's a self-driving car, you could just tell it to drive up to the Ministry of Defense and just blow up.
That's a pretty big risk.
That's a pretty big risk.
I mean, I don't know if it's a bigger risk than a person driving it, but it's got to be easier to, it's got to be easier to do a remote control attack than to find somebody who's willing to sit in the car when it blows up.
Even though there are plenty of those people, it's got to be easier to do it without them.
Save them for something else.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, Those are my comments for today.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to say bye to YouTube and Rumble and X, and I'm going to talk to my beloved subscribers on Locals, and I'll see the rest of you tomorrow.
Make sure you buy my book, God's Debris, The Complete Works.
It's the ultimate summer reading.
And by the way, I've got more coming I'm going to tell you about soon.
