All Episodes
Aug. 17, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:15:13
Episode 2569 CWSA 08/17/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Climate Model Absurdity, Casey Means MD, Calley Means MD, Big Food, Big Pharma, Harris Campaign Hiring Requirements, Chicago Teachers, Private Schools, Mark Cuban, Harris $25K Proposal, Harris Fed Housing Plan, Anti-Business California, Harris Food Price Controls, Drunk Talking Voice, EU Free Speech Censorship X, Harris Policy Silence Strategy, Kamala Harris Marxism, US Election System Reality, Harris Economic Agenda, Food Price Caps, Chicago Prepares DNC, Biden Hopes Gaza Deal, Non-Citizen Voting, Tim Walz China Connections, Trump Possible Jail Sentence, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome.
To the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no human can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a kente, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope being the end of the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Oh.
Better than sex with somebody you don't like.
All right, here's all the scientific news and then we'll do the fun politics and how Kamala Harris is destroying the world.
We'll get to all that.
But there are major reports of zigzagging UFOs in the Southern California skies.
So, you know, if you were a UFO, you would come to California, wouldn't you?
Well, lots of people saw them.
There were six flying saucers.
They were darting.
They were zigzagging.
May I offer you my very informed opinion?
If you see some kind of light in the sky or some kind of object and it's zigzagging, that's never an aircraft.
It might be a balloon.
I suppose it could be a drone, but it's not some full-size aircraft, right?
So credibility of this report in terms of alien spaceships, I would say zero.
Some said that it's not too far away from some Air Force or military testing thing.
So it might be one of our military testing things, but it's probably just a balloon in the air or a reflection or a lie or something.
I'll tell you what it's not.
The least likely possibility is an alien visitation from an alien species that can control gravity and physics.
I mean, can't rule it out, but it would be dead last on my list of possible explanations for this situation.
Now, I'm going to make this next story Tie back to the first story, but you won't see it coming right away.
Second story is, engineers have designed, I guess MIT engineers, have designed tiny, tiny batteries, so small that you could put them in tiny, tiny robots, and they're so minuscule that you could put them in like a cell of a human body, and then you could You know, do things like deploy cell-sized autonomous robots for drug delivery within your body.
So imagine robots.
They're fully programmed robots.
They're smaller than the cells of your body.
So that's coming.
All right.
Now watch me cleverly tie it back to the earlier UFO story.
What are the odds?
And by the way, this idea comes from Douglas Adams, the writer.
No relation to me.
What are the odds that if aliens visited this Earth, the aliens would be approximately our size?
It's pretty close to zero, isn't it?
Well, what would prevent the aliens from being the size of these tiny robots that are smaller than a human cell?
Could it be That there are vast alien civilizations living on Earth, but the entire space that they take up is like, I don't know, the size of a baseball.
But you got like a million aliens living there in their little civilization, and maybe they're not even entirely sure that there's other people on Earth.
So, once you realize that the assumed scale, or the physical size of aliens, there's no reason it needs to be your size.
I mean, why can't the aliens be the size of the planet?
So that the planet itself is so small they wouldn't be interested in it, because, you know, they couldn't do anything with it, they're too big.
So, there might be some physics reasons why things can't be too big, But apparently there's no physics reasons why you can't make a robot that's smaller than a cell in your body.
So I'm worried about aliens that are smaller than the cells in your body.
They may already be here.
Your body might be full of aliens.
Could be.
All right.
Scientists have also developed a solar panel material that's a hundred times thinner than a human hair.
And it's so thin they think you can print it on other objects.
Apparently it's super efficient too, they say.
So super efficient to yield over 27% energy efficiency.
That's better than regular solar cells.
And it's only as thick as one human hair.
Well, that tells you what I'm going to do.
I'm going to Put that on my human hairs So I don't have many but the few human hairs I have left.
I'm gonna have it coated with this Solar stuff so I can charge my phone Just by walking outside without my hat.
That's my plan.
That's my plan.
And by the way, you might need these tiny tiny solar cells because There may be an alien civilization.
That's very small but living on my scalp Might need electricity I'm tying all the stories together now.
Well, there's a new book by David Stainforth, and it's called Predicting Our Climate Future, and a big part of the book is him explaining in smart detail why climate models are bullshit.
Now, should you spend your money on this book, which I believe is very smart-sounding and would teach you a lot, Or save a few bucks and just ask Scott, because I told you that the climate models are absurd.
I told you that you can't predict the future, certainly of the climate.
There are two things you can't do.
Predict the future, and especially know if you have all the variables right to even look at predicting the climate.
So the fast version is there is no way to predict the climate.
There are too many variables.
It's too sensitive to any small assumptions, and it's absurd.
Now, if you hear from me, a non-scientist, saying, Logically, this can't be done.
You're not going to believe me.
But here's somebody who knows what they're talking about, has lots of smart facts.
So if you want to learn why you should not trust models that predict the future of the climate, this will tell you.
Tucker had two of the scariest guests I've ever seen on this show.
One of them, Dr. Casey Means, MD, was talking about how Some combination of our food supply and big pharma is making all of us metabolically sick.
And it's a massive, it's maybe the biggest problem, maybe the biggest problem in the world, certainly in the United States.
But just look, here's some of the stats.
Autism rates in kids are 1 in 36 nationally, compared to 1 in 1,500 not so long ago.
In California, it's worse.
Autism rates are 1 in 22.
If you have a kid in California, there's a 1 in 22 chance that the kid will be autistic.
1 in 22.
What?
74% of American adults are overweight or obese.
That sounds about right.
If I walk down the sidewalk, Once you get to about age 30?
Yeah, I'd say 75%.
50% of children are overweight or obese.
Oh my God!
50% of American adults have pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes.
50% of adults have either diabetes or prediabetes.
50%!
30% of teens now have prediabetes.
30% of teens!
Now, pre-diabetes means your sugar is high, but you don't have diabetes.
But you're pushing on the border of it.
Infertility is increasing at 1% per year.
Per year, every year.
And sperm cancer are decreasing by 1% per year since the 1970s.
Young adult cancers are up 79%.
And what is causing all this?
It's our toxic food system and toxic environment.
Now, Some of it may be related to lots of pharmaceutical stuff in your veins.
Maybe individually every bit of it is okay.
I don't know.
But when you put it all in there, maybe it's a little too much for your body.
I don't know.
Same with your environment.
There are lots of things that are a little bit polluted.
But if you were to look at them individually, they wouldn't look so bad.
But what if you have a thousand of them?
They're all a little bit polluted and they're all over all the time.
So the worry is that we're on this fast road to not reproducing and being so sick that we spend 100% of our money just trying to stay alive.
So that's the bad news.
And by the way, this should be the number one issue in the country.
RFK Jr.
says it should be.
I agree with him completely.
The weird thing is that all of our other problems look like they have something like a solution.
But this is the one that I don't see the solution.
Because we're not exactly sure where all the problem is coming from.
I mean, even if you say it's food, or even if you say it's big pharma drugs, you don't know which ones.
And you don't know how to get rid of those things too easily.
So, I mean, I don't know what to do about it.
But I will tell you that I'm going to pile on a little bit.
I want to see if any of you have had this same reaction.
And I'm talking to mostly the men, right?
Because men are more visual.
I think it does apply both ways, but let's just keep it simple.
Question for the men.
I've said this before, but I want to see your opinion.
It used to be in, let's say, 10 or 20 years ago, If I left the house and went to any public space where there were a lot of people around, there would definitely be a lot of attractive women in that place.
Not as a percentage, maybe, but if you had a big area there would be plenty of really attractive women just because they were a percentage of the population.
Now you can go for a long time in a very big public place without seeing anybody that you would want to have sex with.
Has anybody noticed that?
Because I used to walk around thinking, like I couldn't even go to the mall or the supermarket.
I'd be like, okay, I would do her.
I would do her.
Yeah, I'd probably do her.
Okay, I'd let her do me.
You know, and like you never turned off.
I know this is appalling to women.
But men are pretty much always searching.
Even if we're not actively looking for any kind of sexual activity, we're always scanning.
You know, you can't turn off the scanning.
But the scanning is completely turned off now.
I don't have that experience when I go anywhere.
It's just people now.
None of them are triggering me whatsoever.
So is that just age?
Could be.
But it does look like people look different to me.
So reproduction is probably going to take a big hit.
But here's the good news.
All right, ready for the good news?
There's a groundbreaking study on age reversal, and there's some kind of a telomere drug that they're giving to dogs that are having miracle effects.
One of the examples was a 12-year-old German Shepherd.
Now, of course, this is anecdotal, and, you know, it's not a scientific study, so you can't put too much credibility in it.
But it's a fun story.
And the story is that their 12-year-old German Shepherd had terminal cancer.
Just, you know, nothing you could do about it.
But they gave him one of these pills, and the cancer went away, and now he's just like a puppy.
Do you believe that?
You believe that there was a dog that was basically flatlining and they gave it one pill and now it's like a puppy and the cancer went away?
I don't know.
I don't know.
It seems a little bit more that I'm willing to accept as automatically true, but I'm going to put this in my recreational belief category.
I like to believe some things because it makes me feel good.
So until it's proven not to be true, I will recreationally believe that I can give Snickers a pill next year, and she'll be like a puppy.
I think it'll take a few years before it gets to any approval process, but maybe.
Well, the Harris campaign is hiring, and one of the requirements is you must be up to date on your COVID boosters.
So imagine how hard it would be to hire if you had to get people who are up to date on their COVID boosters, There are also Democrats who support Harris, and almost certainly the DEI filter is on as well.
If you said we're going to hire people, but you have to put these three filters on, you gotta get diversity, you gotta get a Democrat who likes Harris, and they gotta be fully boosted and vaccinated.
Now, without saying anything negative about any of those groups, Wouldn't that constrain your options to the point where you're guaranteed incompetence in your campaign?
And the answer is yes.
And again, it has nothing to do with anybody's genes or lifestyle or even their democratic views on life.
None of it.
It's just that when you put those three constraints on a normal thing that normally wouldn't have constraints, hiring people, you're just painting yourself into a little corner there.
So what we should predict is massive incompetence from the campaign.
Now, you might not see it because whoever is the top, top advisors, I think are really good.
And again, independent of whether they're diverse or not, they're very good.
So we can, if we treat them as individuals, not part of a group, there's somebody really smart advising her.
I will say that confidently.
And here's another funny stat that's so funny it makes you cry.
Breitbart News is reporting.
Warner Todd Houston at Breitbart News.
The nearly one in three Chicago school teachers keep their kids out of public schools.
Let me just say that again because I don't have to add much commentary to it.
One in three Public school teachers in Chicago don't send their own children to public school.
Now, do you think that one in three school teachers come from a family where they can easily afford private school?
I mean, I don't know who the spouse is, but I would guess if one-third of teachers are sending their kids to private schools, that might represent 100% of teachers who can afford it.
See, that's not in the statistic.
The statistic just says one out of three.
But once you say, how expensive is private school, and how much does a teacher make in Chicago, you kind of quickly reach the assumption that 100% of the people who can afford to get their kids out of their fucking public schools have already done it.
The people who know the most, the teachers, if they can afford it, they pull their kids right out.
Is there anything else you need to know?
Would you like to answer some questions about the teachers' unions?
Do you see the problem?
It's always been the teachers' unions.
Because if you can't fire a teacher, you can't have good teachers.
If you can't have good teachers, you don't have good schools.
If you don't have good schools, and you can afford it, you're going to send your kid to a good school, if you can afford it.
It's all here.
There's no questions left unanswered by this statistic.
This answers all questions.
And what it says is, there's nobody on the other side of the question.
Think about that.
There are so many things in this world where people, you know, could be on both sides reasonably.
Even the people who know the most, the teachers, are on the same side as you are, which is, Huh, this system looks totally broken.
You better keep your kid out of it.
Wow.
Well, as you know, Kamala Harris has proposed a government $25,000 for first-time homebuyers to help them buy a house.
I saw Mark Cuban is doing some persuading on this, showing it's a good idea.
And when I looked at his analysis, all I could conclude is that Ordinary people should not be allowed to do economic analyses.
Now, Mark Cuban is very smart, but doing an economic analysis is a little bit different than just being smart.
It takes a little bit of experience that even smart people wouldn't know they're missing something.
So I would say that, well, I conclude that Cuban is very smart in lots of different ways.
I don't think he's the one you would look to to analyze this.
Now, I'm not sure I am, but I have been a lending officer at a bank, so that's a pretty relevant experience.
It wasn't mortgage lending, but there are some overlaps.
And here's what I say.
In California, $25,000, well, let me put it this way.
Here's the way I posted it.
Where I live, If I were the loan officer, let's say I'm the mortgage lender, and somebody comes in and they say, here's my, here's my application for the loan.
And I look at it and it doesn't qualify.
And so I turn them down.
So they go back and they get their $25,000 from the government and they come back and they go, look, I got, now I got extra $25,000.
$25,000. How often would $25,000 change my decision as a mortgage lender?
Thank you.
What do you think?
$25,000?
That's a lot of money, right?
How often would it change my decision to say that this lender wasn't qualified before, but now they are qualified?
The answer is never.
The answer is never.
Zero.
There wouldn't be a single extra loan I gave.
If somebody didn't qualify before the $25,000, there's no fucking way that I'm going to think that $25,000 is going to make that a safe loan.
There is no way that $25,000 makes a difference.
Because if you're that close to not being able to pay off the loan, no banker is going to give you the loan if you're that close to the margin of not being able to pay back the loan.
Are you kidding me?
$25,000 is like pissing in the ocean in California.
Now, I will revise this to say that there may be a part of the country where if you could get maybe a condo for $250,000, the $25,000 starts sounding substantial at that point.
But still, if your income was only just enough to pay the mortgage, if only you had that extra $25,000, it doesn't sound safe to me.
Sounds like you're right on the margin, and the slightest disruption in your employment makes you in default.
So that's some perspective from a lender.
If you're just looking at somebody who's not a lender, and they're just crunching some numbers for you and say, Here's somebody who could save some money with this $25,000 thing.
That's the wrong analysis.
The analysis should be from the commercial lender's perspective, because they're the ones who decide if you get the loan.
So, how about this?
How about you tell me if CNN or MSNBC will have a mortgage loan broker on And then you ask the question, hey, how many more loans do you think you'll make if people get $25,000 for their first home buy?
Let's see what they say.
At best, they'll say something generic like, well, you know, more money is better.
But if you ask them how many extra loans they'd make, it'd probably be close to zero.
All right.
Part of that plan apparently is to exert some federal zoning control over the local areas.
In other words, there's some part of what they want to do with low cost housing.
This is different from the $25,000 thing.
So separate but related.
They want to make it easier to build homes, basically.
And one of the things that they would do is exert some kind of federal zoning control over the local places.
I saw a video from some, probably Republican, a woman who was in the business, and she wanted you to know that it's a terrible idea for the federal government to tell states or localities what to do with their zoning, because the federal government Would not know what they needed more specifically locally.
Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Do you buy that the right place for zoning is locally?
You shouldn't.
Because what happens is they all do different jobs.
And they're all just, they're all rogue.
So if you have different zoning requirements in every town, like we do, like if I, I'm walking distance, literally walking distance, from different zoning requirements.
Walking distance.
I mean, literally, if I just walk in that direction, I'll be in the town of Livermore in, you know, 20 minutes or something.
And the rules are different.
Now, you try to hire a contractor, and they have to, like, learn the new rules for your town, even if they've already built 100 homes.
And our town has, like, some of the strictest, dumbest ones.
Let me just give you one example.
Here's one example from my town.
When I built my house, I had to put a wastewater treatment vault on my property.
You've never even heard of that, have you?
How many of you have ever heard of that?
Of putting a wastewater treatment vault on my property?
What did it cost?
About $35,000 fucking dollars.
And what it was was a hole in the ground where all the waste water.
So we'd engineer the gutters and stuff.
So all the rainwater would come off the roof and go into little tunnels and it would all end up in this big hole in the ground at the end of my property.
And then there would be a tree, a certain kind of tree that had to be planted so that the roots of the tree Would be naturally filtering the wastewater before it got into the town's wastewater facilities.
$35,000 and maintenance every year.
Now, a few years later, when I had to do maintenance on it as required by the approvals for my house, I went to look for somebody who was like an approver who could look at it and there was nobody.
There was nobody in the world.
Who was in the business of approving it or examining it.
And yet that was a requirement of building my house.
So I contacted the town and I said, there's nobody in the business of doing the thing you required me to do.
And they said, oh, don't worry about it.
We don't have that requirement anymore.
And I said, what?
They said, yeah, yeah, we dropped that requirement.
That's no longer in the code.
And I said, I just spent $35,000 to do this.
How many other people spent $35,000 to do it?
this. How many other people spent $35,000 to do it?" And they said, I think it was just you.
So, do you think that I like federal building control?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Because I think the Feds are far more likely to come up with a stable set of rules.
Now, of course, they might have to modify it for your climate and, you know, your specific situation.
But I can easily imagine the Fed having, let's say, a half a dozen different models that you could pick from for your building thing in your state.
They would just be easy to understand and wouldn't have bullshit in it.
Like, I mean, it was just monstrously difficult to get approval for my house or the town.
Monstrously difficult.
And if you looked at any of the individual things they were asking for, they were all defensible.
Individually, everything they asked for was defensible.
It's just that collectively, it made it almost impossible.
I was thinking the other day about, you know, every now and then I think about starting a business.
Usually I'm just playing around in my head, but I think, what if somebody started a business and did this?
Hey, what if I do it?
And I realized that there's no situation in which I would ever start a business in California.
Just think about that.
I've started a number of businesses in California.
They didn't all work out like my restaurants, but I would never start a business in California.
So I'm done economically in my state.
I don't know how I would start it in another state exactly, what that would look like.
But if it were a local business that had to be in California, I wouldn't even do it.
It wouldn't matter how good the numbers looked.
Like if I ran this spreadsheet and it was like, wow, this is like, you know, making tons of money here.
I wouldn't do it because it's the wrong state to be in business.
So, so that's got to matter.
Well, the All In Pod podcast, we're not so happy with Kamala Harris's grocery price gouging, price control idea, because everybody who's smart, and let me say that not as hyperbole, everybody who's smart knows that price controls are devastating for civilization.
It's like an end of civilization plan.
It's so bad.
It's not like other things where we go, oh, if you do this, there might be some trouble, you know, the usual political stuff.
You know, everybody says, if you, if you elect Trump, it'll be the end of democracy.
But you know, nobody takes that too seriously, except idiots.
But when I say that price controls could be the, on food, specifically on food, could be the end of civilization, that's not hyperbole.
If you run out of food, everything falls apart.
And price controls would guarantee that you had less food.
Now, that doesn't say there's a 100% chance it's the end of civilization, but in terms of your real risks, it's way up there as one of the biggest risks to civilization.
And I can't even believe that it's being proposed.
I mean, it's actually mind-boggling.
Now, I have not heard a single person in favor of it yet.
So the reason I like to refer to the all in pod people is because they're unusually smart and unusually big talent stacks.
And they've seen a lot of businesses and they've succeeded in a lot of businesses and they invest in a lot of businesses.
So they're the ones who, if you get all four of them saying, this is a bad idea, because remember, they don't all agree politically.
But all four of them would say, from a business perspective, I think.
I think all four of them are on the same page.
This is not a good idea.
It's a terrible idea to have price controls on food.
There's a video going around, I think it was from maybe 2019, of Kamala Harris talking to some crowd, and I don't know the context, I think the context is lacking, but she was talking about how the government could snatch the patents from companies.
Now the context must have been companies with really bad behavior.
So I don't know why she would even talk about snatching their patents, but I saw people forwarding it around and talking about her being a patent snatcher, which I love to say, by the way, you patent snatcher.
That might be, that might be my new insult for everybody.
You little patent snatcher.
I love saying that.
Say it at home.
Go ahead, say it at home.
Say it at home to your dog.
If there's nobody else there, just say it out loud and see how much you enjoy saying patent snatcher.
It sounds like it's going to be naughty, but then it's not.
You little patent snatcher.
Anyway, here's my point about that.
Everybody was talking about how bad it would be if the government tried to snatch your patent.
And they buried the lead.
You know what the lead is?
She was obviously drunk.
If you see the video, I think I forwarded it on my axe account, but you can see it easily.
Just look at it and ask yourself if she's drunk.
You'll see it immediately.
Why in the world is the story that she's going to snatch your patent when the real story should be that she is drunk again?
I mean, obviously drunk.
You don't have to be some kind of expert in drug abuse to know a drunk.
How in the world is that not the top line topic all the time?
I guess no proof.
No proof.
And the tell is, have you ever known a woman who, when she drinks too much, she has an extra high-pitched voice sometimes?
Have you ever seen that?
It's such a tell, where you'll be talking along and maybe you're quite animated, but then your voice will go up to this level that it never goes up to unless you're drunk.
You know somebody like that.
I know you do.
Just listen to it, and when she hits that high note, you'll be like, ah, yeah, that's... Her eyes look drunk and her demeanor looks drunk, but when she hits the high note, you're gonna say to yourself, yeah, you don't talk like that unless you're drinking.
Meanwhile, Brazil, as you know, is trying to censor the X platform.
They came at him again.
And Musk has stated that the Brazilian attempt to censor free speech in this country on X, which would also be in their country because X is there, violates Brazil and US laws.
Now, I hope that's true.
I hope it's true that it violates Brazil and U.S.
law, because otherwise what the hell is X going to do?
They can't just stop.
So what's going to happen?
Let's talk about the rest of the world.
Germany said it's going to cut any new military aid for Ukraine, meaning that I guess they got some money that's already committed that they'll continue to give, but they're not going to approve any new money for Ukraine.
Brazil.
Do you think it has anything to do with the report that Ukraine blew up their pipeline?
Well, it probably didn't help.
It probably didn't help at all.
But if Germany's not going to pay for Ukraine, and we are, is that because Germany has no money left?
Or they don't think it's important?
If Germany doesn't think it's important, why do we?
So, certainly raises a question.
Meanwhile, you know that the EU Commissioner, Thierry Britten, he keeps warning X that if they violate the European Union standards for speech, which would be anything hateful, or I guess disinformation too, in their view, that they would ban X From operating in Europe.
Now, if you're tempted to say, so what?
We don't care about Europe.
Europe collectively is bigger than the United States.
So there's no multinational company that can really survive losing Europe.
It's just too big of a market.
Now, survival is probably too much of a statement, but it would be tough for somebody who's, you know, some huge part of their business is Europe to just lose it suddenly.
So the stakes are really high, but interestingly, the U.S.
House Judiciary Committee is going to back Axe and Musk, and they went after EU.
And basically, the U.S.
House Judiciary Committee, and is this Comer?
It might be Comer.
They basically wrote a stern letter to the EU and said, get the fuck out of here.
They, they use bigger words, more, more official sounding, but basically the U.S.
just told them to leave us alone.
Uh, you know, in very stern words.
Now, do I like that?
Yeah.
Yup.
Thank you, United States.
There, there is my government, or at least, you know, hopefully at least the Republicans, my government defending me against, uh, what I would call an attack by Europe.
To me, it's an attack.
If you come after our free speech, what do you call that?
If you try to block free speech in America, that's an attack.
I'm not going to call it not an attack.
Oh Jenny.
We got a drunk in the comments.
Jenny's pretty drunk.
Jenny, I'm hoping you could sleep it off.
See, this is where the all-caps really helps.
Because Jenny's been drinking in all-caps, yelling at me.
And even if I say you're drunk and using all-caps, it won't make any difference.
Her next message will be an entire paragraph in all-caps.
I'm not going to read it, Jenny.
I'm just going to see your all-caps and say, never mind.
But you just keep drinking and commenting.
Because something good will come of it if you just keep it up.
Just keep it up.
Anyway, my view on the EU is if they want to censor X, we should stop funding NATO.
Because if Europe is going to attack us and try to take our free speech, I don't think Putin would.
So let Putin take as much of Europe as he wants if he doesn't go after us.
If Europe is coming after me, I'm not going to defend them.
I don't want to pay for their defense in Europe just because Putin might absorb Europe and then come after me.
I don't think Putin can absorb Europe because it's going to be Islamic.
So there you go.
So as you know, the less you see of Kamala Harris, the more popular she becomes.
Politico is talking about the Convention coming next week.
But they're talking about how she's slowly rolling out her proposals and not giving much detail about what she wants to do, and that the other Democrats are kind of happy with that.
Because they think that, you know, more general approach works.
Now, I hate how much I agree with the Harris campaign on their strategy.
It really is.
It's bold to not have any details.
And I hate that it's right.
I hate that it's right.
But they're totally, totally in the pocket on this.
Meaning that they understand that the news is just bad for everybody.
Anytime you do an interview, all it does is produce negative talking points.
And so even talking to the friendly press, there's just no, there's no upside.
Now once you see that even the Democrats see that the news doesn't work for them, that there's no upside, the news is just looking for something to criticize, or at least the other side is looking for something to criticize, that instead of running on policy, who would win if the conversation came down to policy, who would win?
Well, the top three or four policies that the country cares about, Trump is way ahead In him being the one to handle those, you know, immigration, economics, war, I think.
So the Democrats know that they can't compete on policy.
So the more they tell you about policy, the worse they'll look.
Because it's just stuff to criticize.
But if they just do general things like, hey, you're a Democrat, right?
Well, I'm a Democrat.
Are you awesome?
You are awesome.
Yeah, you are awesome.
I'm a Democrat, too.
What do you think of me?
You think I'm awesome too?
Why don't you vote for me?
What are my policies?
What's the difference?
You're a Democrat.
I'm a Democrat.
You're awesome.
I'm awesome.
Don't you want some more of that?
So that's what the Harris campaign is running on.
And again, it's actually freaking genius.
It's genius.
Because I don't think anybody else would have seen it, that you could just ignore the press and ignore putting out policy details.
The fact that they saw this, that in a sense was always right there to be seen, but they're acting on it.
Now, you might say to me, and this would be reasonable, that they don't have any choice.
Because if they put it in front of the camera, it's going to be a disaster.
But the fact that they embraced it fully, that they have a candidate who can't talk to the press in any reliable way, and they're just running with it, I can't tell you how impressed I am at the skill and wisdom it would take to pull this off.
I don't like it.
I'm not in favor of it from a perspective of a citizen, but wow, it's just really impressive.
There's a poll, MRC Newsbusters has a poll.
It's exclusive.
And it says, most Democrats don't know about Harris's radicalism.
So not only do they not know about what policies she wants to do if she gets elected, they also don't know about her past statements about radicalism.
And what percentage?
See, when asked about 10 different aspects of Harris's public record on issues from, let's say, the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE, eliminating private health insurance, So these are things she said in the past, which she does not embrace at the moment.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
It's not her current plan.
But it wasn't very long ago that she said these things, and that is important, because that tells you where her mind was very recently.
People don't change that much.
But between 71% and 86% of the Democrats and Independents said they had not heard of Harris's positions or were unsure.
So they've got to the point where something like three quarters of the Democrat voters don't really know much about the candidate.
And these are really important things to know.
You should know how Marxist she's been just a few years ago.
That seems pretty important.
So between the news not being real, oh, and here's the funny part.
And then they asked these voters who didn't know anything about Harris where they get their news.
Here's the embarrassing part.
So, now that we've determined that you don't know anything about the candidate running for president, where do you get your news?
And the top answers were ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Or cable, CNN, and MSNBC.
So, can we conclude that watching the news makes you dumber?
It literally does.
Watching the news literally makes you dumber.
Now, there's not one of those, not one of these topics did I see on the news.
I'm sure they've been on Fox News, but I don't remember seeing them there.
Every one of them I learned on X. So everything I know about Kamala Harris' past was on X and lots of times.
You know, it's all things I've seen multiple, multiple times, every one of them.
But I didn't see it on CNN or MSNBC or ABC or CBS or NBC.
So if you watch those sources, you're in trouble.
And even if you're on X, I still think you're going to be in a silo.
So I imagine the Democrats who are on X are also not seeing it.
But I see it all the time because I'm in a different silo.
Anyway, here's my question.
If there was a child in your universe, let's say your own son or daughter, and that child was young and they hadn't learned much about history, and they wanted to know about the United States, let's say they're 9 or 10 years old, how would you explain our election system?
Would you say, well, we've got this system where people learn about the candidates, they run for office, The news reports everything about them.
Then these citizens use their judgment, and then they decide who they want and what preferences they agree with, and then they vote.
Then whoever gets the most votes, oh no, it's not whoever gets the most votes, it's the Electoral College, but just a detail.
Now, would you describe it that way in 2024?
Because I wouldn't be able to do that.
If a young child who had not yet learned it in history asked me what our system is, I would say, well, on the surface, it's this pretend republic thing with voting.
What it really is, is a massive propaganda operation, in which one propagandist side goes against the other.
The propaganda determines what the voters think, and then that automatically makes them vote a certain way.
So then the 10-year-old would say, so it's about voting.
I'd say, no, no, you didn't listen to me.
The voting doesn't matter at all.
The voting follows from the brainwashing.
If you get the brainwashing right, the voting is just automatic.
So the voting is the least important part of this process.
It's just the final part.
The most important is the brainwashing.
So what we have is a political system in which the people who are most successful at brainwashing Rich people, the media, etc.
They brainwashed the citizens to make them think that their vote counts, but really it was the brainwashing that counted.
The voting was just the final way to know that the brainwashing worked.
That's how I'd explain it.
That's my literal, honest, completely honest opinion of our system.
It's just a brainwashing operation.
Whoever does it the best wins.
Why did Trump win in 2016?
The brainwashing didn't work.
He broke through.
He was an iconic, unique character in history who could penetrate the brainwashing just long enough to get an office.
And then the brainwashing got stronger and drove him out of office, basically.
All right.
Interestingly, the Washington Post is not backing Kamala Harris on her price control idea.
Let's see if I can understand this.
The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns Whole Foods, a major food grocery store.
Kamala Harris wants to put price controls on food, which would be presumably terrible for Whole Foods.
And then for the first time ever, I don't remember seeing it, the Washington Post came out strong against the candidate.
Now, not against the candidate, but against her economic plan.
An opinion piece in the Washington Post called it a misguided idea and a gimmick.
And even over on CNN, they're saying it creates more problems than it solves.
Do you remember when I told you that there would never be an economist on CNN or MSNBC unless they were planning to kill the plan?
No economist has come forward, none, to say that Kamala's ideas are a good idea.
Think about that.
How many economists are Democrats?
50,000?
I don't know, 20,000?
How many professional economists are also Democrats?
It's a lot, right?
See if NBC can find one that says Kamala Harris has a good economic plan.
Just one.
Anyone?
My prediction is, nope.
Unless they find somebody who's clearly batshit crazy, and when you listen to him you go, okay, that barely sounds like an economist to me.
Maybe.
But I don't think so.
I think they're just gonna have the pundits talk about it, because the pundits are not experts.
So they can just say, well, it sounds like a good idea to me.
Well, I don't even think any of the pundits say it's a good idea, just people on the campaign.
So I would say that the price controls on food idea might be the worst idea I've ever heard in the American politics.
Well, the DNC, Democratic National Committee, will be in Chicago starting Monday for four days.
And stores are already closing down and boarding up their windows.
Well, they're not closed, but they're boarding up their windows and they're planning to be closed because they expect so many protests and violence from Democrats, by the way, or at least people who are left-leaning.
It looks like the pro-Palestinian protesters are likely to show up in big numbers.
Now, what's that going to do to America?
I think the more the Democrats are seen by regular Americans as being part of this, you know, Palestinian anti-Israel push, it just, it looks all bad to me.
So it could be that this might be the first DNC convention that did a negative bump to the candidate.
So what you usually expect is the convention gives an automatic bump to every candidate.
Doesn't last, but an automatic bump.
Maybe it'll be different this time.
I'm not going to make that prediction because it's so consistent that you get a bump from the convention, but this one could be different.
If what we watch is every day things catching on fire in the streets of Chicago, and we say to ourselves, but aren't they Democrats?
If your brain says those are Democrats destroying Chicago during the DNC, I don't know that Kamala Harris is going to get a bump.
So this one will be fun.
Fun in a bad way.
I mean, I wouldn't want to be a shop owner in Chicago.
I feel sorry for them.
But we'll see.
This might be a surprise.
Meanwhile, Corey Lewandowski is back on the Trump campaign team.
There is some Some confusion about what his role would be.
Some said he'd be the boss of it, and he'd be the boss of Wiles and La Civita, who are getting a lot of criticism from Republicans.
But apparently his formal title is Senior Advisor, so that would be not so obvious that he's in charge.
So it could be that he's just added to the group.
It doesn't mean he's necessarily in charge of them.
But he's coming in with a lot of clout, so maybe in effect he will be.
I don't know.
Maybe somebody will be leaving soon, but doesn't want to say it yet.
I would say this is still a fog of war, so anything could come out of this.
Biden is saying, and Axios is reporting, that Biden thinks he might get a Gaza deal by the end of next week.
Really?
Really?
This is in the news, somewhat uncritically in the news, that he's expecting there's a good chance of getting some kind of a hostage deal and maybe a ceasefire in Gaza.
You all know that's not going to happen, right?
Do I have to tell you that's not going to happen?
You all know that's not going to happen.
But why is the news treating it like it might?
What is up with that?
Now here's why it's not going to happen.
There's been news that apparently, and who knows how much you can believe from a war zone, but something like more than half of the Hamas fighters have been killed.
But if you've only killed a little more than half, that leaves a lot of Hamas fighters.
Why in the world would Israel agree to any deal about anything until they knew they could get all the rest of them?
Remember, their slogan is total victory.
Is that ambiguous?
There's nothing ambiguous about that.
Israel said we're going to change the situation forever in Gaza, and that we're going for total victory.
If you interpret that as we're going to stop when we're halfway done and let them reconstitute, well, you're crazy!
You're crazy!
Now, here, by the way, just in case you're new to me, I'm not giving you my opinion of right or wrong, or who's at fault, or what should be done.
I'm just observing it.
I'm just looking at it.
And when I look at it, Total Victory is not anywhere near where they are, and they have the ability to drive much closer to Total Victory if they keep grinding.
Why would they stop?
I mean, I don't even see the logic of the story, much less agree with it.
So I'm going to give you my prediction.
No, there will not be any deal in Gaza next week.
I doubt you'll see anything before the election.
I mean, I'd be amazed.
So don't get too excited about that.
Weirdly, retail sales were good in July, although you should be warned that they're more often revised down than up.
So it could be that retail sales were not as great as the original numbers.
They might be revised down.
But they're really solid.
So even if they're revised down, they're, you know, sort of directionally pretty good.
But here's a question I ask.
How much of that is inflation?
If the only thing you know is that the dollars that people spent for stuff was a little bit up, And inflation was, let's say, 1% up on average.
Wouldn't that account for all of your increase in retail sales?
I'm not even sure it's good news.
Because, you know, inflation doesn't usually show up within one month, so much like that.
But maybe, I mean, if it was summer and energy went up and people used a lot of gas, you know, you can imagine a situation where Well, is gas retail sales?
Does gasoline count as retail sales?
Food would, right?
Food and gasoline would both be retail sales.
I'm not sure.
But the question you should ask is, does it get revised?
Is there something about the summer that's special, but they controlled for the summer effect?
So it shouldn't be just the fact that it's summer.
You shouldn't have to worry about that.
But how much of it is just inflation?
You can't really tell.
Washington, the state, was ranked the most dangerous state to live in for 2024, according to a study from WalletHub.
That's where I go to get my studies.
WalletHub.
Who knows how accurate that study is?
You know, I always say that all data is fake.
But Washington State was ranked the most dangerous state.
And the other states that didn't rank well would be Let's see, Oregon, Colorado, California, and what they call other Democrat-controlled states.
That might be a little too political to just say it's Democrat-controlled states, but clearly there are some Democrat-controlled states that are higher in crime.
Now, did I say this or did I post it?
I'm having one of these moments where I can't remember if I already said that this morning or I planned to say it and it was so developed in my mind that I can't remember if I said it or just thought about saying it.
You know one of those situations?
So I'm going to say it again and you can tell me if I said it already live.
I'm in a weird situation living here in what should be a safe neighborhood in California.
Because three of my neighbors in the last 18 months or so have had Well, we think our South American organized burglars inside their house.
Inside their house.
Gangs.
I mean, a gang of burglars.
I don't know if they're part of the bigger gang.
But I've actually went from a situation where I thought it would be rare if my house got robbed So ten years ago, I would have said, I mean, anything could happen, but that would be really rare.
If a team of burglars were actually inside my house, that would be pretty rare.
Do you know what I think now?
Now I think it's guaranteed.
I've actually adjusted my thinking that I live in a house that at some point, and it won't be very long, there will be a band of burglars in my house.
And I've simply accepted that as my new reality.
I do not think of it in terms of the odds of it happening or not happening.
I think of it as a guarantee.
I believe every house in my neighborhood will have a band of burglars in it looking through all your stuff and taking what they want.
At least once.
Now, could I be wrong?
Well, I hope so.
I sure hope I'm wrong.
But every one of those burglars got away with it.
Are you with me?
Three burglars, three homes, nobody got caught.
Why would they stop?
Why would they stop?
There's no reason.
They apparently have some kind of a business model that works great.
And if they did stop, they'd just replace them with another bunch of burglars.
Um, so when I look at, you know, Washington state, where it's the most dangerous place to live, that might be, but I actually am living a reality where in my view, there's a hundred percent chance that someday there will be burglars standing in my house and there will be very dangerous people.
Now, the only thing that I'm hoping for is I won't be in the house.
Well, yes and no.
Yes and no.
I hope I'm not in the House, but they better hope I'm not in the House too.
So, yes and no.
But I'm accepting it will be a fact.
Anyway, Trump has vowed to slash U.S.
energy costs in half by making America energy independent again.
Let's compare this plan to Kamala Harris.
All right, we already talked about her plans that even the Washington Post doesn't like.
What do you think of the idea of slashing U.S.
energy costs by making America energy independent again, which basically is removing barriers?
I think it's completely doable.
When you look at this claim, and remember Trump is the king of hyperbole, so over-claiming is ordinary for him.
Is that an over-claim?
It doesn't feel like it.
It really doesn't feel like an overclock.
I think he could reduce energy costs by 50%.
Supply and demand.
Why does Trump's plan look as aggressive as it is?
Why does it look like it could work and probably would work?
Because it properly understands the free market.
It properly understands the free market.
That's it.
That's the whole story.
And when Kamala Harris comes up with the plan, it improperly It's really just that simple.
If you don't understand how a free market works, you do all the wrong stuff.
If you do understand, like Trump, everything he says makes sense.
Here's a little test for you.
What did Trump do in his first term that didn't make sense on paper?
I can't think of anything.
Now, like any presidency, there are things that might not work, right?
In the real world, good ideas don't always work.
There's always some hidden problem.
But name something that Trump came up with, any kind of plan that he actually implemented in his first term, that didn't make sense on paper.
I don't think there is one.
But you look at Kamala Harris's plan, and Literally, it doesn't look good on paper if you're reading the Washington Post.
Being a paper.
Yeah.
So, this is really different.
When Trump says he's, you know, the Republicans are the party of common sense... Vaccines.
You're saying the vaccines didn't make sense on paper?
Well, if they weren't mandated, they might have.
That might have been a better argument.
Yeah, so the trouble with vaccines, I don't want to get into that conversation, is that we're all smart in hindsight.
If you put yourself in the situation that he was in, it looks pretty different.
In hindsight, we're all geniuses.
Anyway, 24 Attorney Generals, I think they're probably all Republicans, are moving to secure the 2024 election, according to RSBN.
And that they filed a motion to the Supreme Court to stop non-citizens from voting.
Is that really a problem?
How many of you think that the number of non-citizens who vote is going to be a big enough number to make any difference?
Because I think we're conflating it with the issue of Having mailing ballots for non-citizens, which somebody else fills out.
They harvest them and fill them out.
Now that would be big enough.
The number, if it's true, that the non-citizens are getting ballots mailed to them automatically, that would create, you know, hundreds of thousands of ballots that somebody could harvest.
Now that's a big problem.
But how big is the problem of an illegal immigrant who wants to vote, but it's not legal?
I feel like that wouldn't be huge, because if you came to this country, the last thing you want to do is break a law that doesn't matter to you.
Because you know that your one vote isn't going to change anything, right?
Let's say you're an illegal immigrant, and let's say you think you can get away with voting, so you're thinking, I think I'll give it a shot.
Your one vote's not going to make any difference, but it might get you deported, right?
If Trump doesn't say, I'm going to deport first any immigrant who voted, you're first in line.
Why doesn't he say that, by the way?
Trump should say that when we do our mass deportations, first we're going to get the dangerous criminals, to the extent we can identify them.
So we'll do the dangerous people first, and then our second wave will be anybody who voted illegally, because we can't have that disruption in our system.
I think America would say, all right, well, maybe we like or don't like the deportations, but if you're going to do it in that order, that does make sense.
So you might not like the whole thing, but the order of it would make sense.
Get rid of the violent ones first, and then the ones who voted.
Now, I think you could take the risk of them voting down to not important.
You know, wouldn't change any swing state.
But the risk of having ballots that they could have voted and having hundreds of thousands of them in one swing state, that's the whole election right there.
So I don't know if the Attorney Generals are doing something that would have an impact on the availability of the ballots, but that's the whole game, I think.
It's not whether they actually vote.
All right.
The House Oversight Committee.
Oh, this is Comer.
I knew Comer was in the news.
The House Oversight Committee, led by Comer, is investigating all the ties that Walsh has to Communist China.
Daily Wire is reporting that.
Do you think that's fair and legitimate and good?
That the government is investigating Walsh because of his many connections to China?
I have a bit of a mixed feeling about that.
On one hand, it raises every red flag in the world, and certainly you don't want to elect somebody who's number two, who's owned by China.
So yes, it's important.
But it looks a little like looking for a crime.
Are you okay with that?
Are you okay with your government not seeing a crime, but if they dig around enough they might find one?
Are you okay with that?
Because that's not a standard you'd want to apply to you.
I've got a little problem with it.
Now, it seems to me that if there's any kind of an investigation, it should be done by, wouldn't it be the FBI?
If the FBI thought that there was foreign influence on an American politician, isn't that their job?
To look into it?
Now, if the FBI were looking into it, because it's just an obvious thing you'd look into, and they just sort of do their behind-the-scenes investigation to see if there's anything to worry about, I feel like that's more legitimate.
Because to me, that does sound like what their job is.
It's like, oh, we've got a suspicion of the worst thing that could happen, you know, Chinese influence over an American potential president.
And sure, they should look into it.
But I don't know if anybody else should.
I'm a little concerned about anybody else looking into that.
Unless they don't trust the FBI, I suppose.
I don't know.
I'm not terribly comfortable with that.
But Tim Walz has started his TikTok account.
And TikTok, of course, is owned by China.
And how long will it be before we find out that his account on TikTok is seemingly boosted in some magical way that we can't explain?
I expect that.
I got a question for you lawyers who are watching.
I know we got a few lawyers watching.
I want to see if you agree with General Michael Flynn.
Who says he believes that Trump will be sentenced to prison next month, on September 18th.
He says, you know, why wouldn't they?
Or why wouldn't he, the judge?
He says it's just more of the same shit.
So, certainly General Flynn has, you know, seen more of the dark underbelly of the real world than most of us ever will, I hope.
Because he's seen the darkest parts of the government.
So when he says why wouldn't they throw him in jail?
It's basically wouldn't even be outside the scope of things that they're doing.
I mean it wouldn't be that outrageous Given all the other things they've done in context but lawyers Do you lawyers think that he would actually go to jail or Do you think that there would be more legal process and appeals and he would be out of jail even if he's convicted?
So he might be sentenced, but does anybody think he would go to jail?
How about those of you who are lawyers?
So we think they'd try.
What do you think would happen if he actually spent a day in real jail?
What do you think would happen?
It would get really unpredictable, wouldn't it?
But it could be exactly what the bad guys want.
It could be that some of the more notable and influential people would go too far, go too far, in trying to correct that situation.
And then they could arrest not just Trump, but a whole bunch of influential supporters and just take down the whole movement.
So it seems to me like the thing I would worry about the most Is that the real play is to get the citizens more angry than they would otherwise.
And to get them to misbehave in a way that you can put the law against them and people will say, well, you have to get the law involved.
Yeah.
Uh, here's what I would say.
If you're a Democrat and you're in favor of this and you're one of the people who can make it happen, here's what you should consider.
Things would get really unpredictable.
Now, you know that the real trick would be to avoid saying anything that seems to promote violence, so I definitely am not promoting any violence.
And I'm not suggesting any of you do anything in that regard.
But, it's easy to say that the situation would be unpredictable, and it would be so unpredictable that nothing would be ruled out.
Now, I'm not saying that you should do anything of those things that are not ruled out.
I'm saying that in the big old world, there's a lot of people, and they're not all going to be on the same page.
And they're not all necessarily going to be 100% peaceful if they're not getting what they want.
I don't recommend it, because it looks like a trap to me.
But the Democrats have to know that if you get into unpredictable territory, You can't complain if something unpredictable happened.
Cause you know, you're opening up a level of unpredictability that would be unprecedented.
And at some point unpredictability can turn negative really fast.
So I'm not going to make any specific suggestions about what anybody should or should not do in that situation.
Cause that's the trap.
I will just say that would be a level of risk-taking that the Democrats have never taken before.
And that that level of risk-taking would not be wise.
Can I say that?
Is it fair to say that given the uncertainty of what would happen, that that would be a level of risk-taking like we haven't really seen before?
And there's almost nothing I would rule out as something that somebody else might think is a good idea in that case.
You know, I certainly advise against all violence.
No violence!
All right.
That's all I got for today.
It's Saturday, so let's go and enjoy our weekend.
It's going to be awesome.
And I think the weather is going to be amazing.
I think you're going to have an incredible time.
It's already started off so well.
Um, but here's what I think.
I'm going to give you one more prediction.
You know that, uh, pill for the German shepherd that cured its cancer and made it young again?
I mentioned at the start of the show.
I think there's some chance that Joe Biden's going to take that pill.
And by September, he might look like a 30 year old man and want to take it back.
No, I'm just joking, but anything's possible.
Maybe he'll take the dog pill.
I'm going to say bye to X and Rumble and YouTube and talk to the great people on Locals who are my subscribers.
Export Selection