All Episodes
Aug. 18, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:15:43
Episode 2570 CWSA 08/18/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Human Brain Cell AI, Marin County Autism Decline, Starbucks, Brazil X Closed, Population Collapse, DNC Protesters, TX All-Black Clothing Ban, 2024 Election Certification, Kamala Harris Price Control Plan, Economist Fact-Checking Harris Plan, Trump TikTok Livestream, James Carville, President Trump, Disrespecting Kamala Harris, Grocery Store Margins, Kamala Drinking Allegations, Tim Walz CCP Allegations, Trump Mocks Harris Appearance, SpaceX vs Boeing, UK Extreme Misogyny Terrorism, 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 you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take it up a notch to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice or a stein, a canteen, 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 dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip, and today it's coming with a little extra oxytocin.
Go.
I feel like a wine taster, you know, where they do the things like, hmm, I believe there's a note of elderberry, a little bit of chalk.
And a little bit of soil from the West Bank of the Ohio River.
But when I do the coffee, it's like a little dopamine, serotonin.
I think there's a little note of oxytocin in there.
Let's talk about all the things.
There's a study, so it must be true, That watching five hours a day of TV can increase your risk of dementia by nearly 50%, according to a study reported in the Daily Mail.
Huh.
What do you think I'm going to say about that study?
Backwards science.
Backwards science.
Yes, it is entirely possible that watching TV rots your brain.
It is slightly more likely That the people who are not inclined to exercise watch TV more.
Could it be that the people who don't have much going on are not very, not very motivated?
Don't do all the things that you do to keep yourself healthy?
Like leave the house and go outdoors and exercise and that sort of thing?
Or do they sit in front of the TV and eat Froot Loops?
I don't know.
But it seems to me that maybe the correlation is that if you're not inclined to exercise, Which of course is very highly correlated with dementia.
You might fill that time with watching TV.
I don't know that it's the TV giving you the dementia.
I think it's the doing everything that gives you dementia is compatible with watching a lot of TV.
So just be careful with that one.
All I know is that MSNBC viewers are the hardest hit.
So, whatever that means.
I'm making that up.
I'm making that up.
But I'm pretty sure that MSNBC watchers have the most mental health problems.
How much would you bet on that?
If there were a betting market, and you could find out for sure, and somebody says, all right, you're going to have to place a bet.
We're going to compare the viewers of Fox News with MSNBC viewers, and you have to guess which viewers have the highest level of documented mental health issues.
Would anybody bet that it was the Fox News viewers?
I'll bet nobody.
I'll bet literally nobody would bet that the Fox News viewers have higher mental health problems.
Nope.
Nope.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Well, here's the most important story.
There was a Russian tourist in Thailand who apparently tried to have sex with a cow.
Uh, the cow did not appreciate it.
And, uh, it pinned down the completely naked Russian man and, uh, started to gore him with his, with his, uh, horns.
Now you might say to me, Scott, why are you even telling us this story?
About the Russian man in Thailand trying to have sex with a cow.
Well, there are a few things that jump out at me.
Number one, I've never been to Thailand, but what I hear from people who have been to Thailand is, you don't have to settle for a cow.
I'm not going to say more about that, but I don't think you need to settle for a cow.
Got other options.
It's Thailand.
But why was it that the cow rejected the advances of the Russian tourist?
Well, I only have one thing to say about that.
I believe the cow was not in the mood.
Next story.
There's a Swiss firm that now has an AI you can rent time on.
It's made of human brain cells.
That's right.
Somebody made a bio-computer that you can rent time on.
And why would you do that?
Well, the claim is it's up to 100,000 times more efficient than traditional AI models.
100,000 times more efficient than a silicon-based computer.
And they train their little brain organella thing using dopamine and electrical signals for reinforcement.
Well, that's exactly how I trade my brain.
I'm like a computer now.
That's right.
I do things to get more dopamine.
I'm just like a computer that's a hundred thousand times more efficient than a traditional AI model.
I think when they say efficient, they mean electricity wise.
I'm not sure about that.
But anyway, these little organoids, these human brain cells that they turned into a computer, They can live up to 100 days.
Here's my question.
If you put together a bunch of human brain cells and then train them with dopamine, does it have consciousness?
Can you create consciousness by putting brain cells together and then training them to act in a way that's organized?
How about free will?
Will the computer have free will?
I'm just teasing you now.
Free will isn't real, but a lot of you think it is.
Free will isn't a real thing.
It's completely imaginary.
What we have is the imagination of free will.
That's real.
We definitely imagine it.
Here's some good news, or you might interpret it as really, really bad news.
So this will be, are you an optimist or a pessimist?
So you decide if this is, wow, this is good news, or is it really, really bad?
Okay?
There's a county in the United States that is the first ever county to have a decrease in childhood autism rates.
Yes.
All right.
So there's one county.
It turns out it's a wealthy county north of me, Marin County.
And back in the year 2000, they started to do something that looks like it actually worked, and it decreased the rate of autism.
That's all good news, isn't it?
Aren't you happy about the good news?
There's a county that figured out how to reduce the rate of autism in their county.
Well, how good is that?
I mean, that's great!
Until you find out how they did it.
They reduced their schedule of childhood vaccinations.
So... That would be really, really, really bad news.
Isn't it?
Is it really good news that they figured out what the problem is?
Maybe.
Remember, this is not a scientific study.
This is observational, anecdotal.
And I remind you, all data is fake.
All data is fake.
Is this data fake?
Could be.
Could be.
So, I know I wouldn't trust the data, but it's a really big red flag I would definitely look more into this.
So I don't know the details of what they did, but they apparently just simply didn't go along with the recommended vaccination schedules.
And reportedly now, years later, they have a big difference in autism rates compared to the rest of the country.
Is that real?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not going to say it's real.
I'm just going to say, I'd look into that a little bit deeper.
You know, when you look at all the information we have about the food supply killing us, all the information we have now about, maybe, at least there's some anecdotal information that the vaccination schedules may not be as safe as you thought.
What do you think of the RFK Jr.
race for presidency now?
How do you feel about it now?
You know, honest, honestly, if I thought he had an honest shot at winning, I don't know.
He seems to be the only person who, RFK Jr.
is the only person who identified what I consider the biggest problem in the country.
That our environment, by its design, for whatever reason, is killing us.
And making it hard to just even enjoy just a regular day of life.
Now, RFK Jr., I think, is 100% right about everything he says on this domain.
Now, when I say that, I'm not agreeing with everything that people say he said.
That's different.
I'm saying what he currently says looks completely right.
What he may have said in the past, or what people say he's said in the past, I'm not supporting any of that.
I'm only saying his current presidential run, he's saying we need to test better.
Yes.
That's different from saying it's definitely going to kill you and we've proven it, blah, blah, blah.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying, yeah, I'd like to know more about this.
And that our food supply is, is killing us, I think is obvious at this point.
So I haven't seen Trump or Kamala Harris even mentioned that stuff.
Trump's eating junk food and Kamala's Maybe drinking?
I don't know.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
But I don't know how you can keep ignoring what apparently is the biggest problem in the country, in my opinion.
So we'll see where that goes.
Anyway, the Morton Salt Company is going to move their operation out of Illinois because Illinois is so bad for business, they say.
Apparently they're going to move into an operation that also makes lithium batteries.
So it's going to be a combination of factory.
It's going to make more than salt, but also lithium batteries.
It's a case of a salt and battery.
Salt and battery.
No, I just made that up.
They have nothing to do with a lithium battery company.
But if they did, wouldn't it be funny that there would be assaulting batteries?
Yeah.
Um, I think I need some more condom, uh, not condom, condiment related dad jokes.
Do you have time for one more condiment related dad joke?
You know why the Morton Saul company had to leave Illinois?
Because they were being peppered with regulations and they couldn't catch up.
All right, I'm sorry.
It's Sunday.
Give me a little bit of break.
Give me a break.
It's the best I could do.
All right.
The All In Pod was talking about the change in Starbucks recently.
They changed their CEO.
And I was listening to Chamath on the All In Pod say that Starbucks has a bigger long-term problem.
He says Starbucks is a sugar company.
Thank you.
See, this is why you should watch the All In pod, and maybe it's the reason that they say they're the number one podcast in the country.
It's this.
You know, not this specifically, but it's for people who have the ability to see things a little bit more clearly than the rest of us.
I mean, frankly, they're just smarter than average people, which is really the beauty of it is they're smarter and more experienced than average people.
You just put them together and they can do stuff that average people can't do.
Just smarter.
This is exactly right.
Why do I agree with it?
Because I said it too.
Anything that agrees with me sounds extra smart.
Here's what I say about Starbucks.
It's a liquid candy store.
Have you heard me say that?
So I go to Starbucks every day and I'm a big fan.
So let me be clear, big fan of Starbucks.
And the one I go to specifically is just tremendous.
Great employees, service, everything's good.
But there are only a few things that I can tolerate, because I don't want to put massive sugar into my body.
So I have black coffee.
That feels safe enough.
And I have the, I'm not even going to tell you.
Cause I know what happens when I, if I tell you what I eat, then you'll say, no, that's poison too.
So then I can't eat it.
And then I go starve to death.
So let's just say it's a challenge to find the few things that are not packed with sugar.
And what I think is a Starbucks isn't just a liquid candy store, but they've disguised the liquid candy store so that women in particular can go in and get liquid candy.
And it looks like they're getting a beverage from Starbucks.
Like you don't really think of it as candy, because it came from a coffee place.
So you think, oh, it's some maybe coffee drink.
Well, actually, this one doesn't have any coffee in it.
Well, it's some kind of healthy drink.
Well, maybe it's just a bunch of sugar.
So yes, Starbucks is a liquid candy store, and I don't know how that works in the long run.
I wouldn't buy stock in the company, even though I think it's an amazing company.
All right.
The X platform and Elon Musk says he had to close down the local Brazil operation of X because Brazil was threatening them and trying to force them to censor stuff and X said no way.
So they closed their local operation in Brazil.
Now what I don't understand from the story, because it wasn't in the few bits I read about it, is does that mean that people in Brazil don't get to use X?
Or does it only mean that the local operation shut down so there's no physical presence of X, but if you want to get the app, nothing would stop you from doing it?
So I'll need a, I'll need a yes, no on that.
I don't, do you need a VPN?
Would you suddenly need a VPN if you were in Brazil and you wanted to use X?
I don't know exactly the details of that, but it's bad enough that X had to close down their physical operation in Brazil.
And I guess they could have stayed open if they'd made a secret agreement to keep censoring, which apparently the other social networks must have done.
If there's any other social network that's operating in Brazil, it means they made a secret agreement to censor their content.
I tell you, X is the only thing that looks credible in 2024.
Nothing else looks like it's trying, honestly.
Well, as you know, China is having a population problem, meaning they're losing population, but they're losing it at an accelerating rate.
So the population decline is not just declining, it's accelerating in its rate of declining.
And I saw one characterization that China would lose in population the equivalent of an entire small European country every year.
Holy!
I don't know how small that European country is.
Some of them are kind of small.
But that's a lot.
Well, what about this low birth rate?
Peter Thiel was on Joe Rogan's show, and one of the reasons he gave—he may have given more reasons, but this is my starter part—he said that when people see other people having kids, they're more likely to do it themselves.
Now, that is perfectly compatibly Accurate, scientific, psychological, social observation, and a good one.
If everybody's doing it, the odds of you doing it are way higher than if you had to be the one person doing it that you knew.
By far, yeah.
There's definitely a social contagion to really everything, and this would be no exception.
But, does that capture the big reason why people are not having enough babies?
Well, here's my take.
I think the reason that modern humans are not having children at replacement level in a lot of the industrialized countries is everything.
The reason it's hard to identify what it is that's stopping people from having kids is because it's everything.
It's everything.
Let me just give you a starter list.
You could add to this list.
Just a starter.
It's finances.
Right?
That's top of the list.
You know, money is very predictive.
If you got paid a million dollars for having a baby, oh, you'd have a baby, right?
If you don't have a baby, and you weren't planning to, but the government said, we'll give you a million dollars, and then we'll also pay for all the expenses of the child, so you just get to keep the million.
Well, everybody would have babies, of course.
So money is the most predictive, by far, right?
Who was it who said this the other day?
It was a good reframe, that when everything was rural, babies were a financial asset to work on the farm.
It was like a free employee, or a low-cost employee.
But when people moved to the city, children became an expense.
So if you have more city living, you should have fewer kids, because people are just saying, no thanks, that's just an expense.
But it's not just finances.
It's social media and the effect of social media.
It's the effect of your smartphones and the fact that we all look less attractive to each other because we're on our phones and we're not paying attention to each other.
And by the way, let me say this as clearly as I can.
You take a beautiful woman and you just have her sitting in front of me.
I'm going to say, wow, that's a beautiful woman there.
I might want to know that beautiful woman a little bit better.
All you have to do is hand her a phone, and she's instantly unattractive to me.
If she's on it.
Does anybody have that same feeling?
There's no such thing as an attractive woman on a phone.
I've never said that before.
Has anybody ever said it?
There's no such thing as an attractive woman on a phone.
Because if she's on the phone and you're next to her, she's picked the phone over you.
Who's attractive who picks the phone over you?
Nobody.
Now, am I saying that I have good phone etiquette and I don't do that?
No, no.
I'm not putting myself above anybody here.
I want you to hear this part clearly.
I am not judging.
Because I do it too.
The smartphone is the problem, not the people.
I'm not saying in this example the hypothetical attractive woman is broken.
I'm just saying that she has a smartphone like everybody else.
So we're just way less attractive to each other.
What about divorce laws?
Divorce laws make marriage a little bit crazy.
I mean, I actually saw a A woman who is a professional, let's say, relationship expert on social media, who says unequivocally that marriage doesn't make sense for men anymore, if it ever did.
Isn't that, that is incredible.
It's an expert on relationships who says unambiguously, marriage doesn't make sense for men anymore.
Well, how about that is the reason people are having fewer kids?
How about porn being a competitor?
How about our food is poison and making us fat and unhealthy, and when you're fat and unhealthy and unattractive, you want to get together less?
How about a massive mental health crisis in the country?
I used to look at things, this thing called women, and I said to myself, I'm a little bit attracted to that woman.
Do you know what I say now?
Probably has mental health problems.
Might be a Democrat.
That's right.
Might be a Democrat.
Totally eliminated from the possibility.
Not if they don't care about politics.
If it's a Democrat who doesn't follow politics, that's different.
But we know that we're so divided that the Democrats will not tolerate a Republican and vice versa.
So half of the people just were disappeared from the possibility of reproduction with each other by politics.
Who did that?
Democrats, mostly.
Mostly Democrats.
How about equal rights?
Now, I'm not opposed to equal rights, in case it sounded like that.
I'm just saying that if women have jobs, Then they have other things to give them satisfaction, other perfectly acceptable paths for life.
If you didn't have the other path, you're more likely to do the baby-making thing.
Again, I'm not saying it should reverse.
I'm just saying that the reason that we're having fewer kids are just so many.
It's just everything.
How about social expectations?
How about the need to establish a career early?
How about the fear of climate change?
No point having a kid if they're just going to be fried up in the environment.
How about the national debt crisis that doesn't look survivable?
I hope it is, but I don't know how.
And I could go on, but this dovetails perfectly into my next story, which is the Democrat National Committee will be in Chicago starting tomorrow.
And according to the Daily Caller, there will be a mobile medical unit that will give free vasectomies and abortions to attendees at the Democrat National Convention.
Now, any other questions?
When I tell you that the reason we're not having as many babies is everything.
It's everything.
It's all the way down to this little stupid mobile van telling people that attend the Democrat National Congress that they should be buttoning up their penis and maybe closing their woo-woo and maybe don't have so many babies.
It's everything.
You can't find anything that's pro-baby.
Everything is anti-baby right now.
Is it caused in some way by one big thing?
I don't know.
It doesn't look like it.
It looks like it's the logical outcome of a thousand things that are anti-baby happening at the same time.
So that's my take.
We're expecting, at least the New York Post says, we're expecting 100,000 anti-Israel protesters at the DNC in Chicago.
Now, is that the way you would call it?
Would you call them anti-Israel protesters?
Does that exactly... I'm not sure that... That doesn't feel exactly on point to me.
That feels a little propaganda-ish.
Here's what I would—if you were going to try to refer to the protesters in the least propaganda way, what would you do?
How would you express that?
I think I'd say they're opposed to U.S.
policy about the Middle East.
Right?
They're opposed to U.S.
policy.
Now you could also say, but Scott, you're being naive.
You know, the real thing is they don't like Israel or they're anti-Semitic.
Yeah, maybe there are people.
Maybe there are a lot of them in that group that are anti-Semitic.
That could be exactly what explains some number of them.
But I would think the one unifying message is that they don't like U.S.
policy toward Israel and etc.
I don't know.
So if you're alert for propaganda from the other side, let's say you're a Republican and you're looking at the Democrat propaganda machine, don't be blind to the fact that it's happening in both directions.
I wouldn't call them so much anti-Israel as I would call them anti-American policy about Israel.
Does that sound biased?
If I say it that way, am I sounding biased?
So let me tell you my bias.
I love the Jewish people.
Israel is a great, strong ally of the United States.
I like that.
But I'm not pro-Israel.
I don't support Israel for anything, because they don't support me.
If it were reciprocal, then I'd probably be all in.
And I've said this before, it just bears repeating, because if you talk about Israel, you should probably just say where you stand, so what you say about it makes sense within the context of your general opinion.
Because if you don't say who you are, What you say doesn't make as much sense.
So I'm explaining who I am, so that when I talk about it, it makes sense.
In my opinion, the ADL came after me.
The ADL is an American entity.
Israel does not control them.
But they could disavow them.
That's what I ask.
So if Israel disavows the ADL, I would say, wow, Israel, you're on my team.
And then I would be on their team.
But as it is, I don't support Israel.
I just observe.
I observe and report.
All right.
There's a Texas middle school, according to the New York Post, that bans all black clothing on the kids because it's associated with depression.
What do you say?
Do you think it makes sense for this school to ban one type of clothing just because of the color?
The answer is, this is brilliant.
This might be the smartest school in Texas.
Yes, yes.
If you don't understand that visual imagery and color and sound and all these things are programming people, not just children, but that all of these things program people, you shouldn't be teaching any kids.
If you don't understand that if all the kids start wearing black to school, that that's going to change how they think and act, you should not be involved in a school.
So here's somebody who did something pretty bold, actually, because it broke the mold of what people are doing, and just said, no, the black clothing, you can't do it anymore.
I'm totally on board with that.
Totally on board.
Yeah, I mean, there are lots of other clothing requirements for children, right?
The girls can't show too much skin.
That makes sense.
Everybody's okay with that, right?
I'm guessing they don't allow sagging, you know, wearing your pants below your butt.
Probably.
So this is no different than that.
And I think that this is wise and it's, uh, I think they're the smartest school in Texas.
I mean, that, that would be the signal I'm getting from them.
Meanwhile, on the betting markets, I think that's what Paulie market is.
Um, it's a tie.
Kamala Harris and Trump are a dead tie.
At the moment.
I think Harris was slightly ahead for a little while, but it's a tie.
Now, here's a question I ask you.
How did every American voter know that no matter who Trump was running against, it would be a tie close to Election Day?
How did we all know that?
What's up with that?
I've been saying it since forever.
You know, the people in the news have been saying it forever.
You knew it.
Why do we all know that?
And what are the odds?
Does this happen in other countries?
Is it just natural that if you have two main parties that they tend to be a tie?
They have completely different, you know, approaches to things.
What are the odds that the country itself is like right down the middle?
None of this sounds... It doesn't sound natural, does it?
I don't know what I'm looking at, so I don't have a hypothesis for why this happens.
Could it be some natural inclination toward balance?
Could it be that Americans like the President to be in one party and the Congress to be in the other so that things aren't too wild either direction?
Is it part of that?
So I don't know.
I don't know what dynamic causes this, but we all knew it would be true.
How did we know that?
Just pattern recognition?
I'm actually genuinely curious about this.
It's kind of a weird mystery.
But here's what I think.
I think if Harris wins, Republicans are going to think the election was rigged, and Republicans will have a hard time certifying it, because they're going to be convinced beyond any doubt that it was rigged, even if it isn't.
They would be convinced that it is.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree that if Harris wins, it's going to look suspicious to Republicans, and nobody in charge is going to be able to say, yeah, that's fine.
So the Republicans, I don't think, would be able to certify a win by Harris.
What happens if Trump wins?
Well, the Democrats, Jamie Raskin especially, has already signaled that they're going to try to hold Trump ineligible because they'll say he's an insurrectionist.
So they would use some kind of legal court action to make him not certifiable.
So we're on a path that neither candidate could win and also be certified.
Because nobody on the other side is going to think the win is real, no matter which way it goes.
So what do you do?
So I'm going to triple down on my prediction.
People keep asking me who's going to win, and my answer is neither.
The answer to who's going to win the election is neither.
Now, what happens after that, when the neither happens?
Well, I don't know.
Maybe the House picked somebody.
But do you think if the House picked Trump, because I think there's some number of state advantage or something, do you think the Democrats are going to say, oh, well, OK, that's our process.
Yeah, the Constitution says if we can't decide, it just bumps over to the House.
The House decided we're good with that.
Let's go on.
Welcome, President Trump.
Good to see you again.
Nope.
Nope.
So I don't know what's going to happen.
I don't, I don't predict, you know, the end of America or anything like that.
I don't predict civil war.
I think it's just going to be messy and it could take months to sort it out.
And when we get a president, whoever it is, they won't be credible.
Meaning the half of the country will say, you are not my president, no matter who it is.
That's just where we are.
All right, you remember my prediction when Kamala Harris first started talking about her economic ideas, especially the price controls, and I said to you that there are no economists who will say this is a good idea.
What we're used to is people on the left say everything you do is great, lefties, and the people on the right say everything you do is great, righties.
But I said this would be the first time you've ever seen an exception.
Because the price control idea is so bad that there would be no working economist who would be anything but embarrassed if they tried to support it.
So sure enough, now I did go further and I said MSNBC would never have an economist.
I haven't seen one yet, but CNN did.
CNN brought on one of Obama's ex-economists, and one of Obama's ex-economists ripped Harris' plans to shreds.
With no uncertainty.
It wasn't like, well, it might work, might not.
Just terrible, terrible, destroy the whole country kind of idea.
That's Obama's economist.
You know, he's got more than one.
The Washington Post, the most biased in the bag entity for Democrats, basically said, no, this is a bad idea.
Unambiguously.
Bad idea.
And then my favorite thing is that people are saying that the public needs to know that Kamala Harris's father was literally a Marxist economist.
A Marxist economist.
So he was an economist and a Marxist, and I think he taught at Berkeley.
So he's very smart, in addition to being a Marxist and an economist.
Do you know what's wrong with this story?
What's wrong with this story?
There's no such thing as a Marxist economist.
You can't be both.
Do you know why you can't be both?
Because if you're really an economist you wouldn't be a Marxist.
If you were really a Marxist you couldn't Agree with anything an economist ever said?
No, there's no fucking such thing as a Marxist economist.
Stop gaslighting me with Marxist economists.
There's no fucking thing called a Marxist economist.
Because there's no economist who would say any of that's a good idea.
The only way you could have a Marxist economist is somebody said, I'm a Marxist and I have to admit every one of my ideas is terrible and destroy the country.
Well, that would be a Marxist economist, but I don't think that person exists.
No, there's no Marxist economists!
If it's the first time you've ever heard this, and you're saying, wait a minute, that kind of makes sense.
How could you be a Marxist and an economist?
There are no Marxist economists.
None.
There can't be.
It's logically impossible.
You'll never be one.
All right.
But I saw somebody complaining about how all the fact-checkers are really fake.
Yes, the fact-checkers are mostly fake, but this is the first time there might be an exception, because the professional economists are fact-checking Harris, and they're doing it honestly.
I think this is a first.
And it probably had to be economists, because economists can't really say things that are obviously not economically sound.
So they kind of had to support their own profession and their own careers and not be stupid.
So they fact-checked it.
But you know what I say, although the news is fake, and we all know that now, right?
You would agree with me, the news is fake.
Kind of an obvious observation.
Oh, Jimmy Ellen.
Jenny, you're back and drunk.
Drunk Jenny's back, all caps.
So the news is fake, but the news is not as fake as the fact-checkers, and the fact-checkers are not as fake as the underlying data.
Just keep that in mind.
The news is fake, but not as fake as the ones who fact-check the news.
We're not as fake as the actual data that we're all looking at.
It's all fake.
It's all fake all the way down.
Until you get that, everything looks confusing until you understand it.
All right.
So Trump, according to the George account on X, continues to be one of my favorites in the independent news-related people.
I recommend it highly.
Trump's TikTok live stream he did from Wilkes, Wilkes-Barre, if I'm pronouncing it correctly, Pennsylvania, he did a rally.
And apparently the live stream on TikTok was just huge.
So you don't need to hear the numbers, but it was like amazingly huge.
And then when he did some clips from it, he posted those also on TikTok, and they get like 36 million views, a large majority between the younger voting ages.
So as George points out, it's the first time Trump has directly reached young people without the mainstream media bias.
I think that might be true.
Because young people aren't so much looking at X. And, you know, if they're mostly on TikTok and Snapchat, they're not really ever seeing Trump, except filtered through somebody else's opinion.
So this might actually be the first time that Trump has had direct contact with young Democrat voters.
And the indication is there might be some appreciation of him.
Maybe.
Trump said there's never been a more dangerous time, he said this at the rally, never been a more dangerous time for Jews in America since the Holocaust.
True or false?
There's never been a more dangerous time for Jews in America since the Holocaust.
Now, my common sense wants to fight that, and say, that's hyperbole, that's clearly not true.
Because I'm thinking that it must have been more discrimination against Jews in the 50s than there is now.
But what's different is we might be approaching some kind of weird tipping point.
So if you were to compare literally today to the 1950s, probably the 50s were more dangerous, I think.
But if you compare where the 50s were heading, they headed toward less danger, I think.
But where are we heading now?
Maybe toward more.
Because, you know, the 100,000 people who show up to protest the DNC, that's a lot of people.
I don't remember in the 50s 100,000 people marching against Jewish Americans.
So, you know, Trump uses a lot of hyperbole, and you gotta, you gotta, you know, at least have your eyes open to that.
But he might be actually literally right.
Because you don't know what happens next.
If nothing worse happened, then I would take issue with whether it's the worst since the Holocaust, because it was pretty bad before.
But if it's a turning point, and it's frighteningly looking like it, that's a fair statement.
It might be the most dangerous time.
And that's pretty scary.
James Carville continues to be funny and weirdly brilliant.
He says that the election is shaping up to be classy versus trashy.
Classy versus trashy.
So classy would be the Democrats and Kamala Harris and the Walls, and trashy would be You know, Hillbilly J.D.
Vance and Trump with his personal insults and stuff like that.
Every time I mention Carville, somebody on the locals platform puts in a meme showing Carville compared to Gollum.
It never doesn't make me laugh.
Anyway, I'm going to side with Carville on this.
Not that I'm calling Trump trashy, but I'm going to side with him this way.
I think that, as we've many times noted, the Democrat Party is dominated by youngish women, and a lot of them single.
Now, youngish women, in my biased opinion, are often very concerned with accessories.
You're really going to hate this.
Accessories.
For example, If a young woman falls in love with a man who's like really got it going, like they're compatible on every level, except the man drives an embarrassing automobile, how's it gonna work out?
It's not.
Because the automobile is an accessory.
Meaning that, you know, it's your boyfriend's car, it's not your car, but you might have to be in it.
Somebody might see you getting out of it.
And so being associated with something trashy, such as your boyfriend's terrible car, does make a difference.
It literally matters.
If you associate unpleasant things with women, They'll say, I would like less of that, and I'd like more of the things that are visually pleasant and associated with me, because I don't want to be associated with unpleasant things.
So the accessory effect, I think, is stronger with women.
Does that make sense from an evolutionary biological perspective?
Yes.
Because women, as men do as well, try to look like they're worthy of mating with.
And for women, looking attractive in all the ways you can look attractive would be part of attracting a mate.
So it does make sense that women would be biased toward associating with things that are classy and not associating with anything that anybody else would call trashy.
Makes sense.
But what about men?
I think men have a different biological evolutionary balance.
Men Don't mind winning ugly.
Men don't mind winning ugly.
Because you know what we value?
Winning.
It's the winning.
Yeah.
If I have to win ugly, I'll win ugly.
I'm not going to lose.
What?
You think I'm going to lose so I can look classy?
No.
If I have to be trashy to win, give me the trash.
Because winning is what I'm designed to do.
I'm designed to, you know, kill the intruders, you know, to fight off the people trying to, you know, destroy my town.
And winning is all that matters.
Like, if somebody's trying to kill me and my family and I can take him out in some inelegant, trashy way, oh yeah, I'm all over it.
Wouldn't even think twice.
So I think that Men look at Trump and they say, yeah, he's full of things that I wouldn't associate with personally.
But can he win?
Yes.
Yes, he can win.
He can win against other countries.
He can win in a variety of ways.
Kamala Harris, I look at and I say, is she a better thing to associate with?
Well, in some ways I'd say yes.
I believe my social life would improve.
If I said I supported Kamala Harris?
I think it would.
I mean, I'd have to have all new friends, because most of them are on the right right now.
But overall, I wouldn't feel guilty or embarrassed by it.
But I don't think she can win.
Now, she might win the election, but I don't think she can win for the country.
So if you give me a choice of a very respectable-looking Democrat, Who doesn't look like they can win for the country, you know, against other countries, let's say, in our normal collegial competition.
I'm not interested in any of that good luck.
Yeah, that looks great.
I would look great if I were attached to that.
I don't care.
Get me ugly.
I mean, you've watched me get cancelled, right?
When I got cancelled, do you think I was aware I was taking a risk?
Of course.
Of course.
Anybody would be.
Did I know it was ugly?
Did I know that other people would be disgusted by it?
Of course I did.
Did I care?
Not as much as winning.
So, I care about winning.
And what I care about is that people like me can eventually get their free speech back and we don't get cancelled for bullshit.
So somebody had to get canceled to make the point.
A lot of us got canceled to make the point.
And maybe someday we'll get to reverse that.
But I cared about winning.
I didn't care about what you thought about it.
And that's very male.
So I think Carville is right.
It is classy versus trashy, but I'll take trashy and effective every day.
Trump, of course, is being attacked on his personal attacks.
So people are saying, stop making personal attacks against Kamala Harris.
It makes you look bad and it's not helping you.
You should talk about policies.
But Trump says, quote, as far as the personal attacks, I'm very angry at her, meaning Kamala Harris, because of what she's done to the country.
And then Trump said, quote, I think I'm entitled to personal attacks.
I don't have a lot of respect for her.
I don't have a lot of respect for intelligence.
And I think she'll be a terrible president.
What do I think of that?
There's a guy saying, like, ugly, unpleasant things about another professional running for president.
I'm fine with it.
If it works.
If it doesn't work, oh well then, I got a problem with it.
But do I mind associating with this terrible, terrible, insulting thing that people will call misogynistic?
Nope.
I don't have any problem associating with that at all.
Does it make my brand look better?
Nope.
I will roll around in the mug if I'm on the winning team.
I will walk through the swamp if I can be on the winning team.
I will cover myself with feces if I can be on the winning team.
Because winning is more important.
All right.
So Miriam Adelson, the widow of, what was his first name?
Adelson, the billionaire who passed away.
But both, both of them were big supporters of Trump and Miriam is continuing that.
And there's suggestion that she's not even going to put a cap on how much she would give.
I guess she gave almost $90 million to Trump in 2020.
And, uh, she looks like she could be the biggest booster by election day.
And, uh, one of her, one of her people said that they're going to pay whatever it takes.
So she's basically said, whatever it takes, we're going to win and whatever it takes.
So it looks like Trump won't have a money problem.
Let's talk about those grocery stores, gouging people.
So I'm hearing two different versions.
One is that the grocery business has the thinnest margin of business.
And then the Democrats are saying, but the grocery business, the food business, they're gouging.
So I'm trying to, I'm trying to reconcile how could it be gouging, but also small margins of profits.
Well, let's dig into it a little bit.
I don't have the full answer, but here's some things.
Number one, the grocery stores are the ones that I consider the ones with the small margins.
I've kind of never looked into it, whether the provider that puts the food into the stores, I don't know what their margin is.
So we could be talking about them.
So we might be talking about different entities.
So if you're talking about the grocery store, they might have small or reasonable margins.
But we don't know about the people who buy it from the farmers, add the markup and the processing, and give it to the stores.
Maybe some of them have high markup.
Now, I heard some Democrat complaining that the prices went up during the pandemic when there were supply chain problems.
But then when the supply chain problem got worked out, the prices didn't go down.
I think, was it Van Jones who said this?
And therefore, that's an indication of gouging.
Does that track with you?
The prices went up when the supply chain was limited, so supply and demand, so the prices went up.
And then the supply chain got fixed, but the prices stayed the same.
So that's like an obvious signal of gouging, right?
No, it isn't.
It isn't at all.
Because the cost went up at the same time.
Everybody's cost went up.
The cost of fertilizer went up, the cost of employees went up, the cost of insurance went up, the cost of energy, the main thing that you need for producing food, it all went up.
So, I don't think that that formula is even slightly true.
I don't think that the food companies just raised their prices And then just kept them there because they thought they could get away with it?
I mean, that might have been a little while.
But the free market should have fixed that.
Shouldn't it?
Wouldn't there be at least one supermarket who said, you know, I could take 10% off of this and I would sell my competitor by a mile because, you know, they're still overpriced.
Now, I'm not sure if the free market works with the grocery stores because there's been a lot of consolidation.
So I'm not entirely sure that they don't use anti-competitive colluding stuff.
But that's a different problem.
If companies are doing anti-competitive practices, the government already has laws that they can go after that, right?
That's not about price gouging.
Price gouging is a, you know, it could be an outcome of that, but you have a solution for that, which is not price control.
The solution is you go after the anti-competitive behavior, if there is some.
So, then the other thing that Democrats say is that some food company made $6 billion last year, so obviously there's gouging.
Oh my God, that's so wrong!
No, the amount of profit that you make does not indicate gouging.
You cannot infer anything from profit.
Nothing.
If you look at return on asset, or you look at the profit margin for any particular good, you could say, oh, that particular good is definitely overcharging.
But you can't look at just the net income and decide that they overcharged to make money.
That's crazy!
Now, if their entire operation was a $1 billion operation and they earned $6 billion, well, okay.
Then maybe that's starting to suggest there's some gouging going on.
Or that at least they could lower their prices if there's not enough competition or something.
But, if they're in a $200 billion industry, I'm just making up this number, and they've got a $6 billion profit, I don't know, is that gouging?
How could you tell just by the numbers?
You can't.
So, a lot of what's going on is Democrats who really don't understand economics.
Or, there's something that nobody has told me that I don't understand.
But if I judge by what we know, and what's public and obvious, looks like just a real confused argument on the Democrat side.
Well, here's some fun.
James Blair, who's the political director of the Trump 2024 campaign and Republican National Committee.
So the important part is that this next story comes from somebody who's got an official role in the Trump campaign.
Here's what he says.
A lot of rumors out there about Kamala having a serious drinking problem.
Uh-oh.
Apparently coming into focus as campaign heats up.
And then he says, stay tuned.
Stay tuned.
Well, now the Gateway Pundit is also talking about this.
And it mentions there's an anonymous source on Axe who's making some claims about Kamala Harris having a drinking problem, but it's an anonymous account.
So I would count the anonymous account as zero.
Discount that to zero.
That is the correct way to deal with that.
Now, don't agree with it because it agrees with maybe what you think is true.
It's an anonymous account saying she has a drinking problem.
That is zero credibility.
Now, I have to say that because if this were the other way around and an anonymous person said that Trump was, you know, shooting up heroin or something, I would say, hold on, anonymous account, zero credibility.
Now, zero credibility doesn't mean it's not true.
It just means you shouldn't take that source as anything.
So, anonymous equals zero.
Just keep that in mind.
But, there are videos of her looking pretty damn drunk, and the fact that it's being now, let's say, some hints coming out of the Trump campaign that maybe they've got more information than they've revealed so far, and maybe the October surprise is this.
I feel a foreshadowing of an October surprise.
Now, separately, somebody said that Kamala Harris knows so much about wine that she can talk quite intelligently about the various varietals and wine types, and she often has wine-related events and stuff like that.
Now, I believe that that comes from other sources as well, because it's something I've heard long before the current reports.
And I'm just going to say this again.
Everybody I know who is a wine connoisseur, who really knows a lot about wine, is an alcoholic.
Everybody.
And they use their hobby They turn it into a hobby so it's not so obvious that they have a drinking problem.
Now that's my observation.
I do think it's possible you could have somebody who, you know, has two drinks a week and they're just really interested in wine.
But I haven't seen it.
What I see is that the people who have a real wine interest are just all functional alcoholics.
Now they might be functional.
Most of them are.
They hold jobs.
If you can afford to have a wine hobby, you're probably at least functioning well enough that you can hold a job.
So I don't know that she's dysfunctional, but keep an eye on that one.
Meanwhile, Kyle Becker is talking about a, there's a former student of Tim Walz, Minnesota Governor Walz, saying that he secretly worships the Chinese Communists.
So remember there were students he would bring from America over to China.
So this sounds like he was one of those students.
And the student said, quote, it was almost a daily revelation how much he adores the Communist regime.
And the student told something called Alpha News, Minnesota, that there's no doubt he was a true believer, meaning in the Chinese system.
A student named Shad said, I've been trying to tell people this for 30 years, nobody wants to listen.
At night, we'd go out, we'd walk the street fairs, we'd be buying souvenirs, and Tim was always buying the Little Red Book.
That would be Mao's Little Red Book.
He said he gave them as gifts.
I saw him buy at least a dozen on the trip.
Now, can we conclude from him buying a dozen of Mao's Little Red Books that he therefore was a fan of the Chinese system or whatever the Little Red Book said about communism?
It's definitely raising a flag.
But you could also imagine how he would think that that would be the more educational gift.
I mean, he was a teacher.
So yeah, I'm going to try to be fair about this.
The fairness in me says, if you're a teacher and you want people to understand the history of China, I can see it.
I can see him thinking that that was a better gift than a trinket.
What's a trinket worth?
How many of you want like a vase that came from China?
So it could be that he's just a nerd and he's really interested in the politics of things.
And he thinks that if you don't have a copy of the Little Red Book, you'll miss some of the flavor of what has gone on there in the past.
Maybe.
But is it a red flag?
Yeah, yeah, a little bit.
A little bit.
I'm not going to conclude that this proves anything.
And also, we don't know who Shad is, right?
It's a little publication talking about a person I don't know who may or may not exist.
So I'm going to put the reliability of this one at low.
So I'm not going to put much credibility in this story.
Tucker Carlson on his podcast, I think he was talking to comic Dave Smith.
So Tucker was talking about Walsh being creepy.
He says, that guy, not babysitting my kids like no way.
So Tucker went on a little bit about how Walsh gives off a creepy vibe.
And I'll tell you, I sure feel it.
Now, again, a vibe is not a proof of any bad behavior whatsoever.
I don't have any evidence of anything like that.
But why do I get that vibe so strongly?
All right, here's an update on UFOs.
You know, yesterday, I guess, or the day before, there were a bunch of UFOs spotted in Southern California.
Here are two things that you should ask yourself about UFOs.
Number one, if it has blinking lights, What are the odds that it came from another planet?
Blinking lights.
Do our spaceships have blinking lights?
No.
Why would you need them?
And if you had blinking lights, why would they be on when you visited Earth and you were looking down at all the people looking up at you?
Isn't the last thing you do, if you're a UFO, is have blinking lights so that the other aircraft can avoid you?
No, if it has blinking lights, or any kind of lights, I'm pretty sure that means made in... made on Earth.
Alright?
You're not going to talk me out of that.
If it has lights, it was made on Earth.
Here's a second one.
Have you noticed that all the UFOs are about the size of a car?
A human car?
Some a little bit bigger.
Some might be smaller.
But why are they all about the same size as what a human would expect a human-sized alien to be in?
Wouldn't the size and age of the universe make it entirely possible that if a spaceship ever did visit the Earth, it could be as big as New Jersey?
And the people inside it could be as big as mountains.
Is there anything that would make that impossible?
Remember, if the aliens evolved on Earth, they might have to fit a certain size.
Because our Earth's gravity, etc., creates some challenges.
But if they were anywhere else, what size could they be?
Couldn't they be as big as the whole planet?
Why won't we see a spaceship that's the size of our entire planet?
There's nothing that rules that out, is there?
So if you continue to see UFOs that are conspicuously the size that you expect a UFO to be, it's probably not real.
Probably not real.
So lights and size.
Look for those two things plus blurry pictures.
Those are your tells that that's not from another planet.
Apparently Trump is hammering on Kamala for being a communist and she's being called Kami Kamala.
And I guess Trump, he reposted a meme that made it look, it was an AI generated thing that made it look like it was a big Chinese communist convention that Kamala was talking about.
Now, I was trying to think, how persuasive do you think that is?
Is it persuasive to say that Harris is a communist?
My first impression was no.
That it's too conceptual and, you know, just it seems like not something people would embrace.
But then I wondered about people who are older than me.
You know, so people who had maybe a little bit more experience when communism was a bigger thing.
I wonder if seniors are more triggered by, oh no, she might be a communist.
I don't know.
So I don't have a good read on whether this is good persuasion in 2024.
But I don't know anybody who would change their vote because of it.
I mean, it's enough to say that price controls never worked anywhere and will destroy everything.
You don't really need to also say it's communist.
Because then people start worrying about the definition of communist.
They'll be like, well, it's not central planning, so... So I'm just not seeing the communist attack as being the most effective.
Maybe.
Maybe a little.
Anyway, over at the Hill, there's a writer whose name is Julia Manchester.
That's a weird name for a woman, isn't it?
Her last name is Manchester.
It's got man and chest in it.
I'm a Manchester.
Here's what she says about Trump.
She said he campaigned in Pennsylvania.
And that he went after Kamala Harris' physical appearance.
Oh, wow.
Oh, you bastard.
Oh, you bastard, Trump.
You went after her physical appearance?
Oh, so, so terrible.
I wonder what he said.
And then other people said that he proved that he was a narcissist.
And they showed definitions of narcissism.
Oh, my God!
What did he say?
What did Trump say that made him look like a misogynist, uh, insulter of a woman's appearance?
My God, she's running for president, she's been a senator, she's a vice president, and he goes after her appearance?
Come on.
And then, and then he proves he's a, he's a narcissist, which can be proven by looking at the definition of narcissism, and then looking at what he said, and sure enough, he's not only a horrible, trashy sexist, he's a narcissist.
What was it he said?
Well, here's what he said.
Quote, I am much better looking than her, Trump told supporters.
I'm a better looking person than Kamala.
And then I think he made fun of how his hair is real.
Okay.
Does Julie Manchester not know he's joking?
Did she write a whole article in The Hill as if she thought he was serious?
That he's better looking than Kamala Harris?
Was that taken as a serious comment?
And then the people who researched his mental health... Who has the mental health problem?
The person who can't identify a joke?
Or Trump?
How weird is this?
He literally just makes a joke, that's obviously just a joke, and in a way it's like his version of self-deprecation.
Trump's version of self-deprecation is to say he's handsome.
Because he's a certain age, he's a certain weight, he's got a few wrinkles, and so because you know it's not true, that's why it's funny.
It's funny because he knows you know, That he's not better looking than Kamala Harris.
How do you not understand that?
How could you listen to that comment and think he was being serious and that he was going after her looks?
That was self-deprecating.
It's just the way he does it, which is funny.
That's a real head shaker.
Anyway, so also on the All In podcast, the one they call Friedberg, I was pointing out the following thing, that Boeing was given $4.2 billion by NASA to build the Starliner, and they've had zero successful flights so far.
They're currently connected to the International Space Station and can't disconnect, so that's not successful.
So they got $4.2 billion to build one thing that has never worked, and at the same year, NASA gave SpaceX, Musk's company, less, $2.6 billion, to build Crew Dragon, which has had 13 successful crewed flights so far.
So Musk, 13 successful flights.
Boeing spent a lot more.
They're up to zero.
And Musk just commented on that.
Accurate.
Accurate.
There was some kind of shooting that happened at a U.S.
base in America, in Texas.
So the joint base at San Antonio Lackland and somebody came up or a group of people came up and started firing.
They opened fire on, I don't know who shot first, but there was a gun battle outside the fort from some people who came up and started shooting at the fort and the fort shot back.
Have you ever wondered how hard it would be for you to take a shot in the United States?
If you were guarding a fort in the United States and some car drove up to the fort, how hard would it be for you to take the shot in the United States?
Like if it's a foreign war, it's an easier shot, but you're looking at what probably is a car full of Americans.
And you know, they may be up to no good, but that's got to be hard to take that shot.
And so they got in a gun battle.
Now, if the car shot first, it's a lot easier.
But even still, it's hard to be in the military and take a shot at what looks like Americans.
Anyway, so we'll hear more about that.
That was just breaking.
According to the Telegraph, over in the UK, extreme misogyny is to be treated as terrorism.
That's right.
If you say things that somebody says is extreme misogyny, that can be treated as terrorism in the UK.
As Michael Schellenberger, who's been on this story quite a bit, says, that soon in the UK you'll be able to report your sexist uncle as a terrorist threat to the police.
Literally.
You could just call the police and tell them your uncle's a terrorist because he's being such a misogynist.
Like, actually, really.
I think there's no hyperbole there.
I think this is just literally true.
You could just call the police and turn in your uncle.
Oh my God.
So, stay out of the UK.
It appears that they have fallen.
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my prepared remarks.
If you didn't know, the Dilbert Reborn comic recently dealt with Dogbert being the space flight consultant and what to do about that rocket that stuck to the International Space Station.
He's got some ideas.
All right.
Thanks for joining on X and YouTube and Rumble.
Export Selection