God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Joel Pollack, Book The Agenda, Trump's 1st 100 Days, J6 Political Prisoners, National Unity, Election Margin of Fraud, Harley-Davidson DEI, Robby Starbuck, Alex Berenson, Newsweek Spin, Mike Benz, Coup Playbook, Anti-Trump War Games, DNC Vasectomies Abortions, President Biden DNC, Rep. Warnock DNC, DNC Lies & Hoaxes, CNN Daniel Dale, Hillary DNC, Kamala DNC, Ron Klain, Harris Polling, Thomas Crooks, Russia's Anti-Liberal Offer, President Putin, Contract Legalese, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And today, if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen now.
Goddamnit, go!
Ugh, divine.
Bye.
Bye.
So, so good.
Well, today I have a special guest.
I'm going to bring on author, Joel Pollack, who's got a new book called The Agenda, What Trump Should Do in His First Hundred Days.
And if my technology works the way I know it will.
There you are, Joel.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Wait.
We don't have sound.
Did you turn off your sound?
No, I'm still here.
Hopefully you can hear me.
Problem was on my end, as usual.
Well, good morning.
It's great to see you.
Good morning from Chicago, Illinois.
I'm usually in L.A., but I'm here covering the Democratic National Convention.
Have you run into any protesters who threatened your life yet?
No, but they tried to block me from walking down the street at one point, and I just told them not to do that.
And they're not a particularly intimidating bunch.
That's the best riot story I've heard.
It's like, you can't go here.
No, I think I will go here.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, I was doing a live stream and one of the guys in the yellow jerseys, who was from the protesters, was wearing an outfit.
I didn't really want to do this, and I don't like to make fun of people's appearance, but I just panned the camera down because he was wearing these rolled up jean shorts.
And these loafers without socks, so he had these like very thin legs, and I just thought, you know, people need to see exactly what's going on here.
This is not exactly the Chicago Bears defensive line.
Yes, if things turn dark, it'll end soon.
Hey, let's talk about your book.
Do you have an image of your book?
It's so brand new, it just came out today that I There it is.
It's called The Agenda, What Trump Should Do in His First Hundred Days.
Now, my audience knows that I don't normally have a guess, unless it's something pretty interesting and special to me.
So I got to, you let me look at the book ahead of time, before publication, and it's one of the few books that actually has impressed me.
And it's because I got a feeling from it.
Like I got a feeling of optimism in politics that I've not experienced Really a long time, maybe since 2016 or something.
And so your book, if I can describe it, is 200 suggestions of what Trump could do in his first 100 days.
And that would include executive orders and other things that a president can do.
Yes, and you know, you're feeling a sense of optimism, partly because I'm reflecting your optimism.
You've inspired me in so many ways, including in writing this book, so I'll tell you the story of how this book came about, but you'll really see that I'm applying the Scott Adams approach to life here.
So, I was watching Trump get convicted in New York, and like a lot of people, not just Trump supporters, I was frustrated, I was angry, I hung my flag upside down outside my house for a few weeks, and I made some nasty social media posts, and I still felt angry.
And I thought, you know, this is not the way I like to live.
Certainly in the decade almost now that I've been watching you, I've learned you don't have to live that way.
You can actually get into the interface for reality and think about a more positive direction.
So I thought, okay, let me do something positive.
Let me think about what happens if Trump wins?
What happens if he overcomes all these prosecutions and the media bias and everything?
What does that feel like?
So I fast forwarded in my mind to January 20th, 2025, imagining that Trump had won the election.
What next?
And then I realized he had to come in with a very strong agenda of things he could do right away because the media narrative would shift from the election and the transition, and it would just be on day one, Trump's a lame duck, he can't run for re-election, let's talk about the candidates for 2028.
It would be Gavin Newsom for four years, and they would drown out Trump.
So he had to come in with something really big and a list of things he could do right away and get them all done as soon as possible without waiting for Congress, without waiting for Democrats and Republicans to figure themselves out.
So I wrote the book that way, and I go issue by issue, point by point with suggestions and ideas.
And I think you feel optimistic when you read it because I felt optimistic when I wrote it.
It really pulled me out of the morass of the polls and court cases, and it just painted a picture of the future, and I think the future is very bright, potentially.
So, that's why I wrote the agenda.
Yeah, it sounds like you had an experience that I have every now and then, where I remember I'm an adult.
You grow up in the country and you think you're just an observer, right?
You're tall, you can't do much.
But then you look around and you go, wait a minute, I've got a podcast, you've got a big platform at Breitbart, and you're an author.
You can actually change things!
So you write this book, I read it, and I'd love for you to give some examples, things that Trump could do without getting too much approval from other people that would just be commonsensical.
I mean, that's what I reacted to.
It's like, my God, these are all just common sense.
Can you give us some examples for the audience?
Yes, well some of them are simply reversing bad things that Biden has done.
Biden came in and reversed a lot of Trump's policies on immigration, for example.
So Trump can immediately restore the border wall project, he can restore Remain in Mexico, and those policies will immediately tighten the border and have a huge impact.
But he can do also other things as well.
He can, for example, he can suspend student visas from China because of the fentanyl problem.
He can say to China, and you've said this many times, hey, if you're not going to stop producing fentanyl, we're not going to let Chinese students study in the United States anymore.
Donald Trump can do that himself.
He doesn't need Congress to do that.
He can stop that right away.
And there are so many other examples of things he can do.
One thing I think he should do that I know you've also mentioned is Release all of the nonviolent January 6th protesters.
You know, we have political prisoners in this country, and it's not just about Republicans and about January 6th.
It's about the rule of law.
People have lost confidence in the impartiality of the Department of Justice and the justice system in general, and you need to restore that.
The other suggestion is you've got to punish people who did things that were wrong.
Oops, we lost our sound for a moment.
We have sound?
How did we lose sound?
Oops, I just lost the signal.
Looks like it might be a Wi-Fi problem.
Maybe on Joel's end?
No, I'm here.
I'm good.
Oh, now I got you back.
All right, continue.
Oh, I lost you again.
So I'm losing the signal, not just the audio.
So you're freezing.
Yeah, so I was just... I think we may have a bad hotel Wi-Fi issue here.
I'm here, if you can see me and hear me.
Yeah, I can intermittently.
Okay, well let's keep going and see how we do.
Go ahead.
So one of the other things Trump needs to do is punish people who've broken the law.
And one of the suggestions that Steve Bannon in particular liked, he wrote the foreword for the book.
I didn't ask him to.
He simply did it.
It was the last thing he wrote before he went to prison.
But one of the suggestions is to revoke the security clearance of all 51 of the national security officials who signed that letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
I mean, they've abused the public.
So that's just some of them, but there are over 200 suggestions in the book.
Now, give me some that are maybe not as obvious as, you know, we would have guessed something about immigration and rule of law, but what are some things that maybe people didn't see coming that you just thought were a good idea?
Well, you've advocated for this, and this is in the book, develop a national bicycle trail.
And this is a section about the environment.
You know, there are things Trump can do to restore a sense of national unity, and the environment and national parks are part of that.
And you don't need to extend federal authority over more pieces of land, but you can take existing rights of way and connect them and create a national bicycle trail that becomes like the Appalachian Trail for bicycles.
That people visit, they can hop on, hop off, they don't have to do it coast to coast.
Or they could, they could take a week or two and just go from one side of the country to the other.
And again, it's not just about recreation, it's also about national unity.
So there are things that he can do and there's funding to do it in the national parks budget and so forth.
Go ahead.
Yeah, there is a national bicycle trail project that is transitioning railroad, you know, abandoned railroads into, and other things, into bicycle trails.
But it would be one trail across sort of the, maybe the top third of the country, from east to west, but it wouldn't be a complete trail to get to all the cool places.
Another thing he could do, you know, President Biden has played around with student loans a lot to try to forgive as many student loans as possible.
So he's shown actually that the president has executive authority to redesign student loans.
Well, I think Trump should redesign student loans so that the universities are on the hook.
Right now, it's just the federal taxpayer and the borrowers and the universities are raising the tuition prices and churning out graduates who don't have any marketable skills.
Trump can redesign the loans and say, OK, the universities are on the hook if the student goes into default.
All of a sudden, you're going to turn out more engineers.
You're going to have fewer queer studies majors, and you're going to have people who can build things and who can learn things.
And that makes sure that we don't have a massive student loan default.
Again, Trump can do that on his own.
Now, I like that.
But does that get the government into the free market business?
Well, it's in the business already.
I mean, so much of our student loan market has already been taken over.
Obama basically took over the federal student loan market.
I'm just saying, as long as the government's issuing these loans, they should make the universities the guarantors of the loans so that the universities have an investment in the students actually being employable after college.
Yeah, it makes sense.
I mean, they have the upside.
They're getting the revenue from the students, so they should take some risk.
All right, so is there a few others that you want to mention that Would be non-obvious to us?
Well, I think that federal regulations need to change to allow households to make money from power generation.
You know, when they started solar energy in California and other places, you could get money back if you put solar cells in solar panels and fed back into the grid.
There are still places where they do that.
But in California, they canceled that because the large utilities were spending all this money to develop these big solar farms and they wanted to recoup the investment.
So there wasn't this expansion of solar energy anymore at the household level because you couldn't make money.
They should change federal regulations so that people can make money by generating energy.
I mean, if you want social solar energy to expand, just do that.
So yeah.
Yeah.
That was the thing that really struck me when I was looking at your book, is that so many of the ideas, they just sit there like, well, this is so obvious.
Why weren't we doing this before?
And I'm sure you would acknowledge there might be some counter arguments to them, but just having 200 really good ideas is just so exciting to me.
If 20 of these got implemented, you would really be excited as a citizen.
Now, I didn't include all the ideas that I could have thought of.
You know, there are some ideas that I like that I know Trump doesn't like.
I'm in favor, for example, of banning TikTok.
I think you can do it consistent with the First Amendment because it's not about free speech.
It's about national security.
But Trump has already said he's not going to ban TikTok.
So I didn't put that in there because I wanted this list to be practical.
I wanted it to be real.
So I didn't put that in there.
But this is not just a list of ideas.
It really is a program that Trump could implement.
And that's because I want people to be able to envision what the future looks like if he wins.
Again, I'm not a member of the Trump campaign.
I actually think that even if Trump loses, the country's going to be in a bad place, but it's not lost.
I mean, as we've learned from California, none of the ideas that the Democrats are proposing actually work.
So it's almost like you have two ways to win.
Trump wins and you have this great future, or Kamala Harris wins and we get to laugh for four years as price controls fail and, you know, it's going to be bad for the country, but I think that there needs to be just a sense of optimism.
Trump is getting better at it.
I've seen him improve over the last few days.
But what he's got to do is convince his own voters that voting for him means something positive, that they don't have to worry about the polls so much, that they just have to stick with him, and that they can actually overcome all the obstacles, the vote by mail and everything like that.
You know, we like to joke about a margin of fraud, which is the margin you actually have to win by because of the fraud inherent in the system that Democrats are running.
I think he can beat the margin of fraud if he has enough enthusiasm.
So he's got to inspire his own voters to believe that he can win.
And I think this book, The Agenda, can be part of that.
And importantly, people are going to, and this is not your fault, of course, they're going to say, hmm, how does this relate to that Project 2025, which was nothing but bad news for Trump because he always had to explain why that wasn't his ideas.
Now, yours clearly are your ideas.
And you've tried to make them not provocative in terms of Trump world.
So there wouldn't be as much gap between Trump and your ideas, I'm guessing.
Then there would be between 2025 and his ideas.
Well, also, Project 2025 was written kind of as a conservative wish list.
You know, if we controlled Congress forever, and if our congressional leaders actually cooperated with each other and with Trump, this is what we could do.
Oh, and also if we had the right people appointed in the right places.
So it's kind of like a utopian vision of what a conservative future would look like.
I liken it to the phone book.
You know, we don't use phone books anymore, but those of us over a certain age will remember if you wanted to find a number, there was this thousand page tome that you would keep under your desk and you would open it up and leaf through it and find a page and find the number.
That's kind of what Project 2025 is.
It's like a giant phone book where Some government official in a Trump administration would forget about what policy they were supposed to have on a particular issue and then they'd kind of leaf through it.
It's 922 pages long.
I guarantee you nobody has actually read it, not even the people who wrote it.
There were like 100 authors.
So that's kind of what it is.
But I didn't even know about Project 2025 when I wrote The Agenda.
Nobody heard about it until late June, really.
And I just wrote this List of ideas and suggestions that Trump could implement on his own without waiting for the politics, without waiting for the media, for the filibuster, for whatever.
These are things he can do within his constitutional authority.
And I felt liberated by writing it.
I know you enjoyed reading it.
I've had a lot of people have the same reaction that they felt it was really a fun read.
And that's unusual for a policy book.
People actually enjoy reading.
Yes.
That was the thing that surprised me the most.
Was that I couldn't put it down.
Like, like every page was like, wow, that's a good idea.
Wow.
That's a good idea.
I loved it.
So, um, uh, I will, uh, let you get back to your day, but, uh, it's available now on Amazon and I assume wherever books are sold.
I wanted to say one thing, Scott, and that is to thank you.
And I know that the people watching agree, but you've really changed my approach to writing and to politics and life in general.
And, you know, I was living in California, nice family, great job, things were pretty good.
But when I started tuning in to you and learning about how you approach the world, it made things so much better.
I found myself so much less frustrated by everyday problems.
The idea that there's kind of a user interface for reality, that we can be the authors of our own experience, that changed the way I think about everything.
And so that's why when I was feeling miserable about Trump being convicted, which is really a terrible thing to happen in a democracy, I said, well, OK, he's going to have a mandate for radical changes when he gets into office because of this terrible thing that's happened.
Look on the bright side.
And that's often what we get as viewers when we come to your show every day is we get unexpected analysis of what's happened in the news.
You often take a point of view that's different than the standard conservative view, for example, or standard.
You're not a conservative, but standard view of someone who likes Trump or is partial to Trump.
And you also just say, look, there's positive energy in some negative events sometimes.
And I think that's what enabled me to write this.
If I hadn't watched you for eight years, I turned this book around in 10 days.
You know, they were, the publishers were, they said, if you want to get this out before the election, you have to do it by June 11th.
And I started writing on June 1st.
It's not unless you've got that Scott Adams energy.
I mean, honestly, it's so so I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk about the book, but also just thank you for everything you do for your viewers and for the country, because I really do think you've cracked the code about how to live a happier life.
Well, thank you for that.
I don't know what to say about that.
That's a lot.
But thank you very much, Joel.
So the book is The Agenda, What Trump Should Do in His First Hundred Days.
Joel Pollack.
It's available on Amazon, and it's great.
You should get a copy.
Thanks, Joel.
Thanks so much, Scott.
All right.
Take care.
All right, it's back to me.
Want to talk about some news and politics and stuff?
And now suddenly it just seems so lonely.
It's, you know, it feels so different when it's just me all of a sudden.
All right.
So here's some things in the news.
There's a study that says that people who smoke a lot of marijuana are less obese.
So there's a high correlation, according to a study, if studies were real, and if you believed them, and if they were better than a coin flip, and if anybody really thought that there was no money involved with the people who did the study, and if you were inclined to believe everything you see in the news, you would say to yourself, wow, smoky weed might make you thinner.
First of all, we don't know if the data is true, because remember, all data about everything important is fake, but here's why it might be true.
I've told you this idea before, that I believe humans require a minimum amount of pleasure, or else they can't go on.
We're sort of dopamine fiends.
We gotta get, and I use dopamine for any source of pleasure, but we need pleasure.
So I'm not surprised that if somebody finds pleasure in one way, let's say marijuana, legally, we're talking about adults, that they might need to seek a little less pleasure in another way, which is delicious food.
Now, that's that's kind of my experience.
That if I have one kind of pleasure in any domain, it's like a really good pleasure.
I don't feel the need to go chase another pleasure because I got some.
So it might be true.
It might be true that if you're getting your pleasure one way, you don't need another.
This is why I don't judge people who are drug addicts.
Partly because I don't believe in free will, but partly because I think that if you don't have access to some other pleasure, you're going to get it any way you can.
And I don't judge that because I think that's everybody.
And the people who are judgy, maybe they do have easier access to regular pleasure.
And somebody else doesn't, but everybody's going to get it.
You're going to get your minimum pleasure per day or die trying.
We're just built that way.
Well, Star Wars has canceled future plans for the Acolyte after one season, so that was there.
Some say extremely gay version of Star Wars, which, by the way, the creator of it says.
The creator of it says, yeah, it was intended to be a little extra gay.
But I don't know if it was the extra gayness or just being bad, but it was roundly criticized.
I guess it's going away.
Meanwhile, over at Harley-Davidson, you've heard this story, but here's the update.
They had, apparently, a pretty aggressive DEI woke culture there that the new CEO had brought in, and that got a lot of external pressure from customers.
Robbie Starbuck, in particular, was making a public social media example of them as somebody who had gone too far in their wokeness.
But Harley Davidson has apparently reversed all of it.
And Robbie Starbuck gets the win on this, I think.
This would be his second in a row.
Very similar to John Deere Tractor.
So in both cases, Starbuck went after—that's a person, Robbie Starbuck—went after both of them on social media simply to explain to people what was going on.
So it's not like he was a critic, per se.
He just shined a spotlight on the thing, and they died.
So both John Deere and Harley-Davidson completely folded on all their extra DEI wokeness stuff as soon as the public got a good look at it.
Just think about that.
As soon as the public got a good look at it, they had to completely just get rid of it.
So that should tell you something.
But they have, and so I'm going to join with Others who have said, uh, this would not be the time to criticize Harley-Davidson.
Great American company.
Maybe they did some things you don't like.
Maybe they corrected it.
What do I tell you about how to judge people?
Well, if you don't remember, I don't judge people by doing something I didn't like, which you might call a mistake.
I judge them by, did they correct it?
You know, once they realized that they messed up, did they fix it?
Yes.
Yes, they did.
They fixed it.
Well, you know, if you believe their statements as of now, they got rid of their DEI.
They're just going to concentrate on, you know, good quality employees and making a good product.
And they're just readjusting their point of view.
To me, that's a 100% honorable move.
We do not expect people to be flawless.
We do not expect them to agree with us.
We do not expect them to never make a mistake.
That's unreasonable.
I do expect that once they realized that they had a misstep, if you could call it that, that they acted in the way that a sensible, realistic person who wants to make the world a better place would act.
And they did.
So John Deere, thumbs up.
Harley-Davidson, thumbs up.
If you're thinking about getting a bike, I recommend them.
Alex Berenson, you know Alex Berenson from the COVID days.
He was very influential in that world.
I think he was writer at the New York Times at one point, now independent, I think.
But anyway, he noted that I and others have been talking about Kamala Harris looking like she's obviously inebriated, and he said this.
He said, the quote, Kamala is drunk thing is the latest sign that the right has lost its mind.
He said, look, I get it.
The media gaslit all of us about Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline.
But that doesn't mean making up stuff about Kamala Harris will work.
It makes you look crazy and mean.
Now, I was named in the post that he was reposting.
So I thought, hmm, maybe I need to respond to this, which I did.
So here's my take.
Four or five years ago, I said, Joe Biden has obviously got dementia, and it's not going to get any better.
Don't you all see it?
And some of the people on the right said, yeah, we see it.
But generally speaking, the public did not.
Now, was I right about that?
Yes, I was 100% right.
And I saw it before most of the public saw it.
Why?
Well, I'm not entirely sure.
But if I had to guess, I might be a little bit better at detecting things in people's personal actions.
Because, you know, there's a wide, wide range of how good people are at this.
You know, can you read people's faces?
You know, can you intuit what's going on?
If you're, let's say, if you have Asperger's, for example, you wouldn't be as good as, you know, you would have other skills, but maybe not that.
So what it feels like, based on a lifetime of experience, Is that I'm kind of good at it.
And it's been my observation about Kamala Harris being what I think is obviously inebriated in a number of videos where she's operating in an official capacity.
I've had lots of other people who I would consider experts in that domain weigh in.
So people have worked in rehab, people have themselves been addicts, people who are police officers who have dealt with hundreds of inebriated people.
And to a person, every one of them says, yeah, that's obviously inebriated.
The only conversation is, what is the source of the inebriation?
But I haven't seen anybody who looked at the videos that I've looked at, who said, no, in that video, she's just being joyous.
No, no, no.
I think you're over-interpreting this, Scott.
In that video, she's just being silly, having a good time.
Not a single person.
Now, I am a little bit siloed, you know, in my social media experience, so I don't get all of the Democrat opinions, but I don't know how much more obvious it could be.
It's not really hard to pick on a drunk.
That's not a hard thing.
Now, I said that about dementia, too.
You know, when I was picking it out, I felt like the little boy crying wolf or something.
You know, don't you see this?
Like everybody, everybody, you can't see this, you know, back in 2019, I'm saying.
And sure enough, apparently people didn't see it, but they learned to see it.
So, um, I had to point back that, uh, I'm not making a claim of fact.
I'm making a claim of observation.
My observation is that she looks drunk to me.
If you don't think that's important, I think you're missing something important, which is it might not be important if it was, you're just some citizen, but this is somebody who's running to have their finger on the button and in her official capacity looks inebriated.
I don't know if she is.
So, is it inappropriate to say how somebody's vibe is?
Not in politics.
It's the one place where talking about somebody's vibe and how you suspect they are really matters.
I mean, the main complaint about Trump is that the people who don't like him get a vibe from him.
It's not about what he has done.
It's about what they suspect, based on their vibe, he might do.
Now, I think that they're bad at judging character.
And, you know, there's a lot of brainwashing going on.
So I don't think they're right about Trump.
But it's certainly part of the conversation.
I would never deny that if half of the country thinks he looks sketchy to them, that that doesn't matter to voting.
Of course it does.
The feeling you get from the candidate is very, very important.
Maybe more important than their policies in the real world.
Same thing with Tim Walz.
I don't have any proof that he's done anything, you know, untoward or illegal or inappropriate in any way.
In any way.
I don't have any proof of that whatsoever.
But there is a certain vibe.
And I think the Democrats are saying some similar thing about J.D.
Vance.
So the vibes matter.
Yeah.
How they present themselves does affect your vote.
Well, Newsweek wanted to weigh in on this, and it said that, here's the Newsweek take on this story.
As Donald Trump grapples to combat the surge of support for Kamala Harris, alright, first sentence is in the bag for Harris, with a barrage of personal attacks, okay, second part of that is in the bag for Kamala Harris, against her, his campaign team appears to be rolling on a new line this week by alleging that his Democratic rival has a, quote, drinking problem.
Then they go on talking about one of the campaign people mentioned that she might have a drinking problem, etc.
And then it closed by saying that there's no evidence of this drinking problem.
Wait.
The entire point of the drinking problem claim is that there are at least half a dozen videos that clearly show, in my opinion, her looking inebriated in public during the course of her official duties.
Did Newsweek not know that that's what we were looking at?
Because most of them are being forwarded around like crazy.
They're all viral.
So when they say there's no evidence, don't you think that they should have let you figure that out on your own?
How about, here are links to six videos that people say proves or is evidence that she's inebriated.
Judge for yourself.
No, they not only don't show you the links to the evidence, they tell you there is none.
What do you mean there is none?
If you see a drunk stumbling in the streets, are you going to say, well, there's no evidence that that person who's stumbling and okay, they just fell in the bush.
Okay, they got a bottle in their hand, but there's no evidence they drank the bottle.
Yeah, it's half empty and it's in their hand and they're stumbling and they fell in the bush.
Well, I don't see any proof that that person's an alcoholic or that there's any drinking going on there at all.
So I thought that was pretty funny of Newsweek.
No evidence.
We'll talk about the DNC in a second.
So I have to just reiterate the Mike Ben's view about the 2020 BLM riots.
Did you know that the CIA has released documents that show the technique used by our CIA to destabilize and take over other countries?
And what it involves is, you know, bribing or getting control of leaders of movements that could start trouble on the streets, such as Black Lives Matter.
And it's a normal, repeated process.
It's their most normal process to bribe the leaders of movements so you can put muscle on the street opposing whoever's in charge of that other country so that it's easier to take them down.
So it's basically a coup process.
So did you know that John Podesta and I think there was at least one CIA asset, maybe more, that they ran before Trump got elected the first time.
They had a big meeting in which they did war gaming of what would happen if Trump lost or he won barely, and then what would happen if he just unambiguously won.
Thank you.
And they actually wargamed how to take him out of office if he won fair and square.
And that's all documented.
We know the people, and we even know what their solution was.
And I believe the solution was to create unrest.
So exactly what the CIA does in other countries, they had already war-gamed that they would try to take out President Trump if he got totally legally elected.
They would use their same technique they use externally, internally.
And then we watched it happen.
You know why you're not seeing a lot of Black Lives Matter protests anymore?
When nothing changed.
Nothing they asked for really changed.
It's because it was fake.
Apparently it was the Democrats and maybe the CIA who may have inspired their leaders with money or bribes or whatever it took to get their people on the streets.
And, you know, you heard that Soros was funding Black Lives Matter.
Well, I heard it from Black Lives Matter.
Soros would be, allegedly, the bank for all those people.
You know, the Atlantic Council.
So if the intelligence and State Department and those people want something to happen that requires money, Soros has money.
So they have some kind of a working arrangement, apparently.
Now, I don't know the details, and I'm just telling you what it looks like, and I'm telling you what Mike Benz is explaining.
So, look for Mike Benz, look for his videos on this topic, and you will find that apparently fully disclosed, fully documented, no secret documents, right?
There's no sketchy evidence.
This is all well-confirmed, published, no controversy that these things happened, etc.
Sure enough.
And then, of course, controlling the media would be important to run a coup in any country.
And do the bad guys control the media in this country?
Well, according to a newsbuster study, Harris' coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC has a 84% positive, while Trump's coverage on the same networks is 89% negative.
Does that sound to you like the intelligence people in this country control the media?
Well, unless they're all just automatically accidentally on the same side, yes.
But you don't know.
I don't have any proof.
So everything I've talked about, I have no proof for.
But the pattern recognition is really high on this one.
It does look like people in this country associated with our intelligence and You know, let's say the long-term managers of the country use the techniques they use to do coups in other country against Trump.
It looks like everything from the legal, the legal lawfare stuff to the fake news, to the fake protests was all run for the purpose of a coup.
Now, I can't say that that's 100% true.
I'm just saying that it's hard to imagine what the second explanation of it would be.
Let's put it that way.
There's a whole bunch of stories about elections and all the states trying to shore up the elections, and there's always some Democrat who wants to stop them from making the elections secure.
So that's the big story.
And I feel like every day there's another few of these stories about some state that wanted to make their elections secure, but the Democrats in the state didn't want to.
Here's the newest one.
So there's a group that wants to challenge up to 364,000 voters in Georgia.
Meaning that there might be 364,000 voters, 364,000 who are not eligible to vote, but are on the voting logs, I guess.
So those would be people who moved or died or are not citizens.
I don't know what the mix is, but they'd like to challenge them and then have them removed from the voting rolls.
But Cobb County, Said that they would have to charge any group that wanted them to do that.
If you're saying to yourself, oh, wait a minute, isn't that their job to make sure that you don't have fake names on there?
Yes.
It is Cobb County's job already to make sure there are no fake names.
They're being asked to do it and they're saying, we're going to charge you $10 estimated per challenge per name.
So that would be $10 for each of the 364,000 voters.
So if they want to actually check to make sure that the people listed as eligible for vote are really eligible to vote, it would cost $3.6 million.
And of course, it's the Democrats who want to install that fee.
So it's very consistent.
Number one, that the Democrats say that it's Trump who is trying to Rig the elections, or the Republicans, are trying to rig the elections so that they suppress votes.
But what they're trying to suppress is the very obviously illegal votes.
They are trying to suppress those, but the Democrats are so good at the bullshit that they'll just say, no, they're trying to suppress all those minority votes, which nobody's trying to do.
All right, let's talk about the DNC.
So, you know that the Democrats are very welcoming to the migrant community.
Very welcoming.
But also, you know, you probably heard the story that Planned Parenthood was going to provide free vasectomies and abortion pills during the DNC.
They didn't say that's only for the white Democrats, but I got that feeling.
I feel like the Democrats Want to get rid of the residents of this country, whether they're white or black or anything else.
And they're really very welcoming to the people who weren't born here.
We're here illegally.
I like the people who weren't born here who are here legally.
So anyway, I don't know.
There's a joke here about the Democrats wanting to kill the people who are here, but let in the people who are not legally here.
The consistency of this is just very alarming.
You know what we'd like of?
We'd like less of you citizens.
We'd like lots of abortion.
And I'm not giving you any personal opinion on abortion.
I'm just saying, why is it that everything that looks like creating less Americans who are already here is always popular with Democrats, and anything that brings in people who weren't already here suddenly is very popular?
Like, why is that?
Where's that even coming from?
Well, anyway, the Democrats tried to screw Joe Biden by making him the last or one of the late speakers at the event on the first night.
I think he was there way past his bedtime, but also way past the time people would watch.
They're obviously embarrassed to have him there.
Nate Silver says the media is very East Coast focused, talking about the, you know, the timing of it.
And he said, You've got to be pretty naive to think the prolonged DNC tonight is for any reason other than diminishing Biden's visibility.
In other words, they made sure that everything ran late so that when Biden talked, nobody would be listening.
They'd already be in bed.
And that turned out to be probably a good idea because Biden did the entire dump of every debunked hoax he ever talked about during his life.
He spread the fine people hoax again, the most debunked hoax in American history.
He did the, there's going to be a bloodbath if he isn't elected.
That, of course, was a different context.
They took out a context.
He did the suckers and losers hoax, of which there's no evidence that that actually is something he ever said, nor would Trump ever say something about the military, that they were suckers and losers.
How did anybody ever believe that he ever did that?
By the way, Trump himself was debunking that the other day.
He said Trump will not accept defeat if he loses.
You know, that's the whole he's going to steal your democracy thing.
Crazy.
He said Trump tried to avoid visiting U.S.
graves in Europe.
That's been debunked.
That's a hoax.
Then Representative Warnock came out.
Well, let's just finish with Biden.
So everybody, I think, had the same impression I did.
That Biden was so angry and dementia riddled, he just had dementia anger, that it was hard to watch.
Cause I just saw a crazy person who shouldn't be talking in public.
But it looked like old man yells at the sky.
Cause he seemed angry at everything he said.
He was even angry at his own accomplishments.
So when he wasn't complaining about Trump, he was just as angry when he would talk about what he did.
He'd be like, and, and we did this.
And it was just like old angry man yelling at everything.
It was really embarrassing.
He should not be allowed to speak in public.
I mean, that was really bad.
It's the worst I've seen.
I would say of public speeches, maybe of any public political speech I've ever heard, that was probably the worst.
Would you disagree if anybody saw it?
I think Biden's speech at the DNC last night was the worst political speech I've ever heard.
He looked bad, he looked scary, he didn't look in control, he looked crazy, and he repeated every debunked hoax.
It couldn't have been more pathetic.
And, obviously, Kamala Harris didn't even look comfortable listening to it.
But then Representative Warnock gets up, and he starts telling the big lie about January 6, which is that it was an insurrection.
He talks about all the anti-democratic voter suppression laws that the Republicans are passing.
No, these are laws to make sure that non-citizens and people who shouldn't vote don't vote.
He said that Trump is a clear and present danger, which is only weeks after an assassination attempt on him, which is probably one of the most dangerous and irresponsible things a elected politician could ever do.
Sounds like he's kind of asking for violence against me.
Let me say that again.
When Representative Warnock says that Trump is a clear and present danger, And I would be identified, as many of you, as a supporter of Trump.
That puts me in physical danger.
Because he's basically saying it's okay to kill these people.
Now, he didn't say that.
You know, I'm putting words in his mouth.
But somebody's going to hear it that way.
If somebody is a clear and present danger to the entire country, that would include the supporters as well as the person they support, what would you do to somebody who's a clear and present danger?
Let them go on with their business?
Is that how you handle a clear and present danger?
Carry on.
Free speech.
Go ahead.
I don't know.
It looks like a call to violence to me.
Because what are you supposed to do about a clear and present danger?
Talk about it?
I mean, I think it's a call to action, not a call to talking.
But that's how I take it.
And then Breitbart's fact-checking him.
Biden said he was creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in clean energy for American workers, including the IBEW, installing half a million charging stations.
I think he's done eight.
But the way he said it was suggesting he's already done it, but you could also interpret it as suggesting that the plan is that they will do it.
So he was ambiguous about has it happened or are they in the process of trying to make it happen.
But it did create the impression, if he didn't know any better, that they'd already done it.
So I think the fact check is correct in claiming that's false.
So here's the fun part.
So I just told you that the convention was especially full of lies.
Some of the worst lies In the history of politics.
The fine people lie.
Also, Robert Garcia, he's another Democrat, got up and he said that Trump told us to inject bleach into our bodies.
Of course, that never happened either.
So now you've got everything from the fine people hoax, these... I mean, there's like half a dozen of the biggest hoaxes in the world.
But, fear not.
Because CNN brought their fact-checker on after the Biden speech.
And if the fact-checker comes on, and Biden is told the biggest whopper's ever, well, you know he's gonna dig in, right?
He's got a lot of juicy material, that fine people hoax, the drinking bleach, I mean, lots of stuff.
Here's what Daniel Dale fact-checked.
You're not even gonna fucking believe this.
So after all of those lies, Daniel Dale says, uh, there were certainly some false or misleading claims there.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
Maybe I was too, too harsh on him.
Cause he's saying right, right in the front, he goes, there were certainly some false or misleading claims.
All right, now we're getting into the good stuff.
So what'd he say about him?
He says, especially on the subject of the economy.
Huh?
Well, I just, I just mentioned a whole bunch of hoaxes, but none of them were about the economy.
So it turns out that the things that weren't hoaxes were just lies.
So the stuff about the economy, which I don't call hoaxes, they're just flat-out lies.
Daniel Dale decides to fact-check just the technical problems with the financial claims.
And he says, Um, he said that Biden said that we have a thousand billionaires in America and their average tax rate is 8.2%.
And, uh, he also said that, uh, we used to import products and export jobs.
Now we export American products and create American jobs right here in America.
So Dale fact checks them on the tax rate of billionaires saying that that's not true for, you know, all billionaires.
It's every situation is different.
Correct.
Then he fact-checked them on the ratio of imported versus exported jobs, and apparently that was just a lie.
So the two things that Joe Biden said about economics, at least those two things, were a lie.
And then, you know, since that's just the beginning, I mean those are like the warm-ups, You know Daniel Dale's gonna go hard on this fine people hoax, and the drinking bleach, and the January 6th insurrection, and the losers quote that's obviously... So here's how that went.
Jake Tapper said, alright Daniel Dale, thank you so much.
And we're done.
Are you amazed?
That you can watch this happen right in front of you?
The biggest lies in the whole fucking history of the United States.
And he didn't even address them.
He's the fact checker.
Didn't even address them.
How embarrassing and humiliating would it be to beat Daniel Dale today?
He's either a fucking coward, and doesn't want to lose his job.
Nobody wants to lose their job.
So he's either a fucking coward, Or he's really incompetent at his job.
And all the evidence so far suggests that he does know how to do his job.
So, he must have management advice that says he can't fact check the big ones.
Do you think he's doing it on his own?
Did he decide on his own to leave the biggest lies in all of American politics untouched?
As the fact checker.
The fact checker on CNN.
And he's not going to touch the biggest hoaxes in American history that were repeated in public again.
What is wrong with that fucking guy?
Man, I've never lost that much respect for a human being so quickly.
I really thought maybe he'd take a swing at it.
Not even, didn't even try.
Then Hillary the horrible gets up and I forgot how much I hated that woman.
And I think a lot of it has to do with her face matched with what she says.
Cause she goes after Trump with delight that he's been lawfared into 34 felonies.
And of course her idiot audience thinks that these are all deserved, you know, department of justice, nobody's above the law kind of stuff.
None of that's true.
These are all bullshit lawfare charges that wouldn't have happened to anybody except Trump.
And probably they'll all go away eventually.
And she gets up there.
Happy as a little clam.
She can't get that smile off her face.
Fucking bitch.
Oh my God.
I hate her.
Now, if you think that sounded sexist, it wasn't meant to be.
Cause I don't say that about, you know, Democrat women who are just ordinary people, but she is a piece of work.
Oh my God.
I hate her.
I hate her with just a passion.
You know, Kamala Harris, I don't have any hatred for her at all.
Because she doesn't project something that would trigger that.
You know, I think she's lying, I think she's a drunk, I think she's incapable.
But so are a lot of people.
You know, that's not that unusual.
But whatever Hillary Clinton's got going on is a whole other level of evil.
I don't feel the same about her that I do about anybody else.
She's a piece of work.
Wow.
I am so glad she never became president.
My God, she's evil.
You can just feel it.
You can just feel the evil.
Ugh.
Now again, that's just my impression.
You may have a different one.
All right.
But Kamala Harris herself did appear at the DNC.
And did she appear inebriated?
No, not at all.
Not at all.
Which is more evidence that those other videos are in fact inebriation.
Why?
Because when she's not inebriated, it's really obvious.
She looks like everybody else who's not inebriated.
She looks like she's in control.
Her body looks normal.
Her mannerisms look normal, and she looks like a leaderly, you know, persona.
So the fact that she looked perfectly fine and in control and, dare I say, presidential, doesn't change the fact that those other videos really look drunk.
So if there's some other explanation for the videos that make her look drunk, I'm open to that.
If they're fake videos, I'd really like to know that before I go too far.
So if somebody does have any pushback to that, based on the videos, not just based on there's no proof, but based on the videos, I'd like to know.
I guess Kamala Harris has declined the offer to do a debate of Fox News with Trump.
So that may have more to do with Fox News.
I don't know what made it may have to do with fewer debates is better from her point of view.
But I would agree that there's no reason for her to ever do a debate, and there's no reason for her to ever talk to the press, because apparently her voters don't care.
You don't really see a bunch of Kamala Harris supporters saying, but you know, I'm not going to vote for her unless she does a press interview.
None of them.
And they're not wrong.
You know, as I've said before, when Trump talks to the press, We do say, oh, there's somebody who can talk to the press.
But when it's done, they take something you said in a context and turn it into a hoax.
That's where the find people hoax came from.
It came from talking to the press.
That's where the drinking bleach hoax came from.
It came from talking to the press.
So talking to the press is a losing Strategy for everybody.
You know, I've told you the story about Bloomberg back in 2016, maybe?
They sent a reporter out to spend the day with me.
And I don't know what I was thinking.
Like, I don't know why I said yes to that.
Because I should have been smart enough by then to know that it was going to be a hit piece.
And of course it was.
So even for me talking to the press, unless I'm selling a book, it's just a bad idea.
The press is just so evil that spending time with them is just a bad idea.
So neither of the candidates should talk to the press, in my opinion.
Ron Klain, is Ron Klain still the chief of staff for Biden?
Or has he moved on?
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
But Steve Hilton is reporting, and the New York Times had a story That Ron Klain said that Kamala Harris failed as a vice president.
He said, quote, we were all united behind the idea she should be successful.
We just didn't find a path to do it.
So that's like a major part of the Biden administration saying they wanted her to be successful as a vice president, but they couldn't figure out how to help her and she was not successful.
That's from a Democrat.
And that wasn't the headline of the report.
They included it to their credit, but they didn't emphasize it.
All right.
The DNC platform on the website apparently mentions Biden's second term 19 times, but doesn't even mention Connell Harris once.
Are they incompetent because they have not updated their website to get rid of the Biden second term stuff, especially by the DNC, the time of the DNC?
And to update it with all of Kamala Harris' ideas.
Well, they're in a tough spot.
So I put my Dilbert filter on this one.
And I say, what would happen in a Dilbert world?
In a Dilbert world, since they don't know exactly what the Kamala Harris policies would be yet, if they got rid of Biden, they would have nothing.
That would look even worse.
If they tried to tweak Biden's and just put in her name instead of his, then it would be the wrong policies.
Because her policies might have some nuances that his didn't.
And if they're not done coming up with her policies, they can't just erase everything that's there and put in all of her new policies.
Because that would just create targets for somebody to shoot at.
The longer she goes without telling you any of her policies, The better she is.
You know, when she tried and said, how about my policy of price controls on food?
She couldn't even get a Democrat economist to agree with it.
So I don't think you need much more proof that the less she tells the public about her policies, the better.
So instead of having a blank, which would raise questions, they just left the old Biden language up there.
And then every reasonable person says, oh, You know, they'll update that later, but they haven't gotten to it.
As dumb as it sounds to not have her named on the platform, it actually was the right play.
So I'm going to say it again.
Whoever is managing her campaign right now, it's just nonstop good advice.
I hate to say it, but it's nonstop good advice.
So we'll see if that continues.
Meanwhile there's a founder of the, there's a Harris Super PAC, so somebody who's big on getting money for Harris, who says that they have some internal polls, I guess the PAC itself has some internal polls, and it says our numbers are much less rosy than what we're seeing in the public.
So if you do your own private internal polling, Apparently it says that Kamala Harris is losing big.
But if you were instead to look at the public polling, it says the opposite.
Now Rasmussen has been on this for a while because Rasmussen has continuously shown that Trump had a solid lead.
And Rasmussen kind of makes fun of the other polls because they're so obviously rigged.
What they do is they just oversample Democrats.
So instead of saying, you know, they're, whatever the number is, 32% Democrats.
So instead of saying the 32% of the people we talked to are Democrats, they would just have more of them.
And so if there are more Democrats, Harris gets more votes in the poll.
So it's apparently the polls are rigged that obviously, because even when you read the poll, you can tell, you know, the numbers of people who are, who are polled, you just have to know to look for it.
So the current polls are.
Allegedly, completely fake.
Not Rasmussen, but a number of the others are allegedly completely fake.
Surprise?
No.
There was a labor union boss who talked at the DNC, April Verritt, and you'd have to listen to this to hear the worst voice you've ever heard in your life.
I can't do an impression of it, but oh my God, I hope she doesn't have a husband unless the husband is deaf.
You cannot listen to that woman talk.
Just the physical sound of her voice.
I can't even do an impression, but oh my goodness, it was difficult to listen to.
Wow!
Anyway, she said, quote, we're going to build a younger, darker, hipper, sneaker-wearing labor movement.
What does she mean by darker?
She means less white people, right?
How do you get fewer white people?
Well, in the ideal world, it happens on its own.
Because you just, you know, hire the best people you can, and then it starts to look like the character of the United States itself.
So that would be good, right?
If all you had to do was do a really good job in making sure you got the best candidates, you would end up with something that represented the country.
Say the people who believe that works.
But those of us who have had one minute of experience in the real world know that what that means is massive discrimination against white people.
And you can say it out loud now at a convention that you were going to massively discriminate against white employees.
Now, she didn't say that, but in the real world, that's clearly what happens when you set your sights on getting a quote Browner labor movement.
Or darker.
She said darker.
I don't know what else it could mean.
Anyway, then my favorite guilty pleasure is watching Morning Joe.
Because as I've said, if you think about it this way, it's funnier.
So if you want to enjoy watching Morning Joe, imagine what I said, that every day is like a college essay, where they have to write a brand new essay that doesn't repeat their last one.
That's yet another reason that Orange Man is evil and Trump should not be your president.
So they got to write a new one every day.
So here's what Scarborough said about the DNC.
He said, Republicans saw what they fear the most at the DNC last night.
Joy.
Now you tell me, does that sound like a real person's opinion?
Or does that sound like a college student who was asked to write an essay and they had run out of good ideas?
It's like, well, I'll just say, I'll read the minds of the Republicans and I'll find out that their biggest fear is not nuclear war.
It's not the end of democracy.
It's not any of those things.
Their biggest fear is that the DNC would have joy.
How do you treat that as anything but humorous?
Yeah, everybody's afraid of that joy.
Now, presumably, we would be afraid of joy because it would cause the Democrats to win the election.
I don't know that joy has anything to do with it, really.
I mean, I get that enthusiasm is part of every election.
But joy?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
We'll see.
Kamala Harris did say she wants to raise taxes on corporations from 21% to 28%.
Is that a good idea?
Probably not.
How does this work?
If you raise taxes, they pay fewer dividends.
I don't know.
I'm not sure you get your money back on that one.
But as she would tell you, that's a good return on investment.
So yesterday we found out that that shooter, the attempted assassination guy Thomas Crooks, was not shot first by the Secret Service sniper.
He was shot first by the local police sniper, or local police who saw him and took the first shot.
And the first shot might have hit the gun and disabled it, but it was the Secret Service who did the headshot.
Why did it take so long for us to find that out?
I can't even believe, you know, certainly I always warn you about the fog of war.
You know, when the story about the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania first came out, you know, I always do the, beware, all the early stories are fake.
But we got weeks into it, weeks into it, without finding out who shot the shooter first.
How in the world did we not know that until now?
How in the world?
I guess Representative Clay Higgins dug into it, and he may have uncovered that.
Well, Vladimir Putin continues to be a clever bastard, so he put out a notice to the world that Russia will be a safe haven for people trying to escape Western liberal ideals.
Now, if you separate the question of whether that's a practical idea You know, is anybody going to actually move to Russia to get extra freedom?
Maybe not.
Maybe not.
But is it smart for Putin to make the offer?
Yeah, it is.
I hate to say it.
I don't want to be, I don't want to sound pro-Putin.
All right.
So I'm not supporting Putin as a, as a leader.
I'm just saying that this was damn clever.
It was damn clever to put this out there, and essentially paint him as the protector of some kind of ideals.
Pretty clever.
And he might get some famous people.
You could easily imagine somebody in the UK being given a jail term for free speech, who says to themselves, Okay, I can either go to jail or if I can somehow stay released on bail or however it works in the UK, I will escape the country and go to Russia and live out my days.
There might be somebody who takes him up on that.
I don't know if it's a good idea.
I mean, I wouldn't do it personally, but it's a hell of a smart thing for him to offer that.
It just made me laugh.
It's so funny.
All right.
Meanwhile, the Israeli military says it recovered six bodies in a Gaza operation.
No mention of how or when they died.
Any questions?
They got six bodies of hostages from Gaza, but no mention of when they died or how.
Well, here's what I think.
I don't think that they necessarily dug up six graves.
It feels to me like the most likely situation is that they died during the operation to release them.
There's no direct evidence of that, but the way the story is written, it's written to avoid the question of how and when they died.
So even the news is acting incurious about that question.
No, all we know is there was six hostages were dead.
It's a tragedy, of course, I don't want to, I don't want to, you know, get past the tragedy of six human beings.
First of all, captive, you may be tortured, and now dead.
It doesn't get much worse than that.
But what is the news trying to do with this?
Is the news really just working for Israel at this point?
And by the way, I would not blame Israel if they did an operation to release the hostages and it didn't work out.
I wouldn't blame them.
It's war.
Stuff doesn't work out.
If they thought that was their best shot, and not releasing them was worse, and not trying to get them was worse, things don't always work out.
You know, war is not a clean business.
So I wouldn't give them even the slightest bit of criticism if what they did is try to release them militarily and it ended up in their deaths.
That's terrible and it's tragic, but it's not to be ashamed of.
You know, there may be some details that maybe they wouldn't want you to know if something just went wrong.
But if they made a solid good attempt and it just didn't work out, resulting in the tragic deaths, I feel like the news should at least report that.
Or at least they should act like they're curious why they don't know how and when they died.
Because I feel like if they had died a while ago, Israel would say that.
We recovered the badly decomposed bodies Of some hostages who had died we don't know how long ago.
So, the lack of saying something like that tells you something.
Allegedly, according to The Sun, a publication, there's some kind of breakthrough in the Gaza War negotiations.
And Netanyahu has, quote, accepted the framework of a ceasefire deal to stop the Gaza War.
So this was last night's news.
Now, do you believe that?
Here's my take on that.
You can easily get one side to agree to a ceasefire.
The magic is getting two sides to agree.
All you have to do to get one side to agree is say, well, suppose it was you getting everything you wanted.
All right, I agree.
But you have to talk to the other side.
So, to me, this news looks like complete bullshit.
I don't think they're close to any kind of anything.
And even if they do something that looks like a deal, it's going to be a fake.
You know, if Israel says, oh, we're going to remove our military, well, if they get their hostages back, you'd think the military will stay removed, if all they wanted was their hostages?
You know, I think all it would take is for them to see some provocation and say, well, we intended to stay out, but look at this new provocation.
So we had to go back in.
Anyway, I don't expect anything good to come out of that anytime soon.
Did you ever wonder why laws are written in an incomprehensible style?
You know, contracts are always written in this legalese gobbledygook.
Well, MIT did a study to try to figure out why that was.
And you know what I'm going to say.
You didn't really need to do that study.
You could have just asked me.
Because I can tell you with complete authority and certainty why legal contracts are written in weird jargon that even lawyers have trouble reading.
Are you ready?
Number one.
Sometimes the language is overly complicated to make sure they don't leave something out.
But you could probably accomplish that with ordinary language as well.
So that's not the top thing.
The top thing is that you're not going to pay your lawyer to write something you could have written yourself.
You're not going to pay your lawyer to write something you would have written yourself.
And then when you need to revise a contract, You don't need to call a lawyer because it's just written in plain English.
So you go, oh, all right, we'll just get rid of this sentence and we'll add this sentence.
Are you good?
Yeah, I'm good.
But because you can't do that, you know, contracts are written so that things refer to other things and things have contingencies and they're so complicated that you would need a lawyer to know that any negotiated change won't have more impact than you hoped it would.
But the most important part is to make everybody sound smarter than they are.
It's the same thing in business.
So this is why the Dilbert filter works so well.
In business, people use lots of extra jargon to sound like they are smarter.
And that's the reason.
People want to appear smart.
And if you're a lawyer, you want to get paid.
So you want to be smart and also get paid.
So you use this weird, impenetrable legal language.
So everybody thinks, well, I couldn't have done that myself.
I certainly need to pay you thousands of dollars because there's no way I could have written this thing.
But what you didn't know is you could, you could have just written it.
Probably would have been fine.
So something I used to do with my first lawyer during my years of Dilbert contract negotiating, I was always doing contracts.
You know, being a cartoonist is so contract intensive, it's crazy.
Every licensing deal, every publishing deal, they're all contracts.
But then there would be smaller deals, such as me hiring an assistant at one point.
And I had a contract.
So what I found with my lawyer is I would just write it in my own English and I would give it to him so that he'd know what I wanted in my contract.
And then he would rewrite it into weird legalese.
And then I would say, that's terrific.
Do you mind if I use my version?
Cause yours is all complicated for no reason.
And he would say, well, yeah, you could do that.
And then I would say, well, what would be the downside of doing that?
Wouldn't it be better to have the one that's in plain English that both parties know exactly what they're doing?
Well, you can do that if you want to.
There's no real downside to that.
So it took a while, but my lawyer was kind of awesome.
And he did allow me to write things in plain English, and then he made sure there was no mistake or something left out.
And then he would often do his own work far more closely aligned with ordinary language than normal.
So you can get that done.
You can write things in your own language and ask your lawyer, what did I leave out?
And that works pretty well.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've gone on way too long.
No, not too long.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to say some words privately to the local subscribers.
So goodbye to the people on X and YouTube and Rumble.
