God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Mental Pain Tolerance, Shroud of Turin, Bulletproof Brainwashing, Trusting Media, Trusting Experts, PolitiFact, US Birthrate, Caring About Future, UK Jailable Speech Offenses, Biden's Hate Speech, DNC Bernie Sanders, DNC Cheers, DNC Perpetual Hoax Promotions, Hoax Debunking Distraction Op, Democrat Rigged Polling, Kamala Tax Policies, Unrealized Gains Tax, RFK Jr., Nicole Shanahan, President Trump, Rigged Election Allegations, Israel Hezbollah Conflict, Kamala Drinking Allegations, 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
Shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or gel, a stein, 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 of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Now go.
How much better do you feel after the simultaneous step?
Bye.
Well, I can't hear you, so I'm going to rely on science.
Yes, there's more science about coffee.
Yeah, more science.
So now the science suggests that drinking coffee can improve your depression.
So it can decrease depression and it can lower your risk of suicide.
Personally, I feel like living a little bit longer because of that sip.
And it turns out that people thought that coffee was maybe bad for your heart or your blood pressure, but there's no long-term negative.
It turns out it might be good for your heart, might lower your risk of Parkinson's disease, and just generally is good for you in every possible way.
Helps you exercise more.
Is there anything coffee can't do?
No.
No, there's nothing it can't do.
That's called science.
It's called recreational science, because when science agrees with what I'm already doing, I call that accurate.
That's called accurate science.
When the science tells me to do something that I don't feel like doing, I call that kind of questionable.
I think we're going to need further study on this issue.
Well, there's more science that shows that thinking hurts.
Well, again, maybe you hear this too often, but they could have saved a little bit of money on this one if they had said, instead of spending whatever they spent on this study, if they'd simply DMed me and said, Scott, we're thinking of doing a study.
Does thinking hurt?
And I would have said, oh, don't do that study.
Save your money.
This one's free.
It does.
It hurts.
That's why people don't do it.
It hurts.
So yes, believe it or not, when people try to do complicated things that require a lot of thinking, they don't like it because it hurts.
Now, I would like to introduce a new concept based on this, assuming the science has any validity to it.
Have you ever noticed that there's something interesting about Elon Musk?
Besides the fact that he seems to be unusually smart.
The other thing that really sticks out is that he seems to have a high tolerance for pain.
Have you ever noticed that?
He has one of the highest pain tolerances I've ever seen.
You know, so his famous stories of not sleeping, you know, sleeping in the office all day long and working all day and doing crazy hours and taking on all the abuse from, you know, the critics and everything else.
And so it makes me wonder, If you were going to evaluate somebody's practical intelligence, their practical intelligence, it wouldn't be just their genetic ability to think.
It would also be their willingness to take on pain.
Literally.
Meaning that it wouldn't matter if your brain was awesome, if you didn't like the pain of thinking.
Because even if you're smart, whatever you're thinking about is going to challenge you in a discomfort kind of way.
So my observation is that maybe what makes Elon Musk more effective than other people who, maybe on paper, would be almost as smart, is that he just has a high pain tolerance.
And you see it in everything he does.
He seems to be pervasive across all elements of his activities.
I would say that I have that going for me as well.
Um, I don't have a high pain tolerance for physical pain.
Don't like that at all.
I'm not a fan of physical pain whatsoever, but I have noticed that I can handle more mental pain than the average person.
So I think that helps me.
I think it makes my, whatever genetic intelligence I have, I think I can take it further than other people because I can handle more pain of that specific nature.
Anyway, Breitbart has a big story about the Shroud of Turin, you know, the burial sheet that allegedly Jesus was wrapped up in after crucifixion.
Well, Dylan Gwynne is writing in Breitbart that scientists have figured out that it might in fact, the garment anyway, might in fact be dated back to the actual time of Jesus.
Now the people who had debunked this sheet being related to the actual historical Jesus, they debunked it because they did their standard testing, carbon dating, and they found out it was not nearly old enough.
So when they carbon dated the material, The scientists, and this has been, you know, I've, I've known this to be true for decades.
So for several decades, it was true that this was a hoax because the garment was not nearly old enough.
Well, now researchers have used a different method of dating it.
So rather than doing carbon dating, they, uh, They used some kind of a microscope and looked at the details of the fabric and then they compared it to other known fabrics.
So they looked at things where they knew they could date the fabric to a certain time.
Then they looked under a microscope and said, hey, this looks like the fabrics from this time, based on whatever, you know, micro elements are in there.
And they concluded that the carbon dating of the of the cloth was flawed.
Now, if you think this is a story about whether Jesus is real, it's not.
I don't have an opinion on that, and that's not what I'm interested in.
I mean, it's interesting, but I wouldn't say that Jesus is or is not real based on a piece of cloth.
So the question of whether Jesus is real, that's not part of the story, right?
That's just a separate story.
But did the science, the part that interests me, is that science had misdated this for decades, allegedly.
Now, the people who use the carbon dating may say that theirs is right, but has anybody ever doubted that carbon dating is accurate?
Have any of you ever said, how do they know it's accurate?
How do you know?
Now the specific complaint with this garment is that it basically had too many pollutants in it.
It wasn't a pure carbon dating experiment.
So perhaps if you're looking at a rock or a fossil, you might be more confident that nothing polluted your experiment to date it.
So the thinking is there was something special about this garment that made the carbon dating not work.
But we didn't know that for decades.
If this is right.
Now the other question is, is the new information right?
I don't know.
All I would like to introduce is the idea that no matter how sure you are that the scientists use their magic tools, there's still a lot of assumptions going into this stuff.
And that data is all made up.
You know, I've been saying this, it sounds hyperbolic, and it is, but I need you to get closer to the idea that 100% of the things you see in the news and 100% of the things you see from science, no matter how credible that scientific entity is, you should assume it's not true.
Now, if later there's more confirmation, blah, blah, blah, or if you just have to make a pick, because it's one of those situations where you can't just ignore the situation, you've got to make a choice.
You know, like in the pandemic, you had to make a choice.
You didn't have the luxury of knowing for sure.
You just had to take a choice.
But just don't assume automatically that anything you hear in the news or from science is correct.
Not automatically.
It might be.
You should take it seriously.
So you should definitely take it seriously, but don't assume it's true because it came from experts.
Meanwhile, the University of Kentucky is disbanding their DEI office because Republican lawmakers were pushing some anti-DEI legislation.
So they said to themselves, well, if there's going to be anti-DEI legislation, let's get ahead of it and get rid of our DEI office.
So that's a victory, right?
I saw some people on social media saying, yes, it's a victory.
We want to get rid of that DEI and we got rid of it.
Well, there's some little extra you should know about this story.
Number one, it's being reported by the AP.
So how's your credibility rating?
If it comes from the Associated Press, do you automatically think it's true, automatically think there might be some context missing, or automatically think it might be fake?
What do you think?
Well, the AP wouldn't be on the top of my list of reliable sources, especially for anything political.
But, it did say, to its credit, the AP did report, that there would be no job loss Wait, what?
They have a DEI department and they're getting rid of the function, but there's no job loss because the people in those jobs are being folded into other departments.
You know what's missing in this story?
The employees that were doing DEI that will not lose their jobs, but be folded into other departments to do what?
Are they being retrained for new jobs?
Or are they going to do their same fucking job and they're just going to get rid of the words DEI and just do it from within a different department?
The story doesn't tell you.
That's the main thing.
The main point of the story is, are they still going to do this, what I would consider illegal, DEI stuff?
Or did they say, oops, you caught us.
We're not going to do it anymore.
You can't tell.
The story is completely ambiguous about whether they did or did not decide to get rid of their DEI.
I'm a little suspicious.
And so my guess is that they just changed the names and they're going to keep it.
That's what I think.
What do you think?
But it's in the news.
So it's in the news.
So I don't study it.
We will talk about the DNC.
I'm just warming you up.
There's another study by the Medical Express that finds that young people, surprisingly, are very influenced by experts, and although they are, of course, influenced by influencers on social media, the good news that's reported Is that young people are more likely to believe an expert than some random influencer, even if they follow them on social media.
So that's great news, isn't it?
Oh, phew!
So happy that young people will get their knowledge from experts and not from influencers.
That's all good, right?
Well, let me give you a little lesson on brainwashing.
Now, if you're new to my lessons on brainwashing, I come from it from the perspective of being a trained and experienced hypnotist who writes about persuasion all the time.
So it's my main domain outside of cartooning, I guess.
And here's a brainwashing professional tip.
If you can convince the public that the news is real, and you can convince the public that experts are usually right, then you can convince the public of anything.
Let me say it again.
If the public believes the news is usually true, and if the public believes that experts, as reported by the news, are usually right, Then they can brainwash you on any topic instantly.
How do they do it?
They just find an expert, who may or may not be telling the truth, to go on the news.
Because then you've got an expert, and you've got the news, and people will say, well, those are two things that boost the credibility.
Obviously, the news looked into whether it's true or not before putting it on.
I mean, of course, they're going to make sure it's true.
You know, they're going to check with people.
They're not going to put a bunch of BS on.
So if the news put it on, it must be true.
And then the experts talking, if the experts there and you don't hear another expert, you only get that one expert or maybe a few experts on the same side.
You say, well, the experts say it.
The news, of course, checked it.
So it must be true.
This is now my belief forever.
Now you add to that the siloing of the news so that if you're on one side of the news you only see your news and you never see any other expert or any other news.
You're now done.
That is a 100% bulletproof brainwashing machine.
All the government has to do, or the Democrats, is find anybody who can say they're an expert and put it on the news.
That's all the brainwashing.
There's nothing else you need to do.
There's nothing else you need to do.
There's no extra step.
You just find an expert, put it on the news.
So we have a brainwashing system that is really effective.
Now, I don't think it's much different in other countries, but wow, is this bulletproof.
There's nothing you can do about this, by the way.
There's no defense against this.
This is 100% bulletproof brainwashing.
And it works.
Which doesn't mean that 100% of things that are on the news from experts is false.
Just to make that clear.
Doesn't mean 100% is false.
It just means you're always getting a version, a narrative, a propaganda biased version.
That's always true.
But sometimes it might even be accurate.
Well, how bad is the brainwashing?
Well, PolitiFact, that's a fact-checking organization, and somebody called Capital B, I have no idea who they are, they've announced an election year partnership to counter political misinformation aimed at black audiences.
So, if you didn't know anything about how anything works, what would you say about this?
Let's say you saw it on the news.
Well, you'd say, huh, That sounds like a good thing, because you don't want the black Americans to be lied to.
Nobody wants that.
And so you've got two entities who you don't know much about, but they're probably experts, right?
I mean, you wouldn't have a group called PolitiFact checking facts, unless they were some pretty good fact-checking experts, you know what I mean?
So you got some experts, and then I read about it on the news, Well, so it must be true.
It must be true that there's some misinformation and they're going to clear it up.
Or, if you know anything about how everything works, the fact checkers are almost always fake, literally just fake, and they're part of the brainwashing operation.
Always.
It might be, you know, on one side versus the other, but pretty much they're in the bag.
Now, Let me call out Snopes as being recently an exception to that rule.
Snopes did, in fact, finally debunk the Finding People hoax, the biggest, most dangerous hoax in American history.
And so at least they're showing some independence.
I think that's worth calling out.
I don't know why.
I don't know why it took so long.
But it's worth calling it out as a sign of independence.
Meanwhile, the U.S.
birth rate hit a new low.
So according to the CDC, it's reported in the Hill.
And I saw an interesting point of view about this.
I wish I had written down who said it.
It's just something I saw on the internet and I saw Elon Musk agreeing with it.
So forgive me for whoever the smart person is who said this before I said it.
So this is not my original observation, but it goes like this.
If you have children, you immediately start thinking everything about the future.
Now, how many of you have had that experience?
So, if you have biological children, you just start thinking about their future.
It's all just future thinking, because you're trying to take care of your offspring.
But if you're single, you're a little bit more living in the moment.
Like, hey, what do I want today?
Now, that sounds right to me.
Now here's the risk.
The risk is that if enough people are single, individually that might sound like a perfectly reasonable choice in our free society.
Not everybody should have kids, probably.
So if you're looking at it as just freedom, it's like, okay, good, we got more options, more freedom.
But what would happen if 40% of your public stopped planning for the future and just planned to get through their own life?
Well, they wouldn't care about stuff like climate change, because they'd say what I say, which is, well, I'll probably be gone before that gets me.
Now, that's assuming that you believe that it's a crisis.
I don't believe it's a crisis.
I think it's a manageable issue.
That's my personal belief.
I wouldn't say that I'm 100% certain, but it does look like there's some man-made elements in that.
I think we'll get through it.
But forget about climate change, because that kind of confuses the whole argument.
The argument is, would the United States fail for no reason other than too many people not caring about the future?
And my intuition, and I think Elon Musk as well, is yes.
Yes.
The risk is not just that you don't have enough people to create a tax base to pay for the retirees.
That's a big problem.
The problem might be how we think as a public, and then how we vote.
We might not even vote for the long-term benefit of the country anymore, because we'd just be thinking of the shorter term.
So that's sort of a really big deal that I don't know how to weight it.
It just feels like it could be a big deal that we haven't talked about.
Anyway, over in the UK, I see Aaron Siberian from the Free Beacon is reporting that apparently, if you say one of these things in the UK, you could go to jail for quite a long time.
Here are the things you can't say out loud in the UK without going to jail.
Actual jail.
Like actual jail.
All right, here's one of them.
It's okay to be white.
Jail.
I'm not making this up.
This is based on actual examples for real people who went to jail.
Here's another one.
Reject white guilt.
Jail.
Now, remember when I said it would be unsafe for me to travel to the UK?
Do you believe me?
Because apparently the statements you make are not about things you're saying today.
It's about something you've ever said.
What do you think my social media looks like?
Do you think there's any chance I wouldn't be jailed in the UK?
I mean, if they cared.
If they ignored it, I wouldn't be jailed.
But if they wanted to jail me in the UK, have I said enough online that would make me jailable?
Yes!
Quite obviously, yes!
Let me say it again.
It's okay to be white.
And you should reject white guilt.
I embrace those two messages 100%.
So, UK, fuck you assholes.
Fuck you very much.
I'm never gonna come near your fucking country.
I'll never go there again.
I've been there once and it was not impressive.
Let me just say, the food in the UK is garbage, the traffic in London is a disgrace, and the whole place looks like it's falling apart from bad management.
So no, I'm not going to travel to your fucking piece of shit country.
I'm only talking about the government now.
I like the people.
People are fine.
And if I ever have any opportunity to do business in the UK or to sell any of my products there, I'm going to try to shut that down.
I don't even want to have financial interests.
Even if I benefit from them in the UK.
No, I just can't have anything to do with your country.
You're dead to me, basically.
All right.
Well, speaking of hate speech, Obama spoke at the DNC.
All right.
But also, here's some things that Biden said recently.
So this is not Obama, this is Biden.
We'll get to Obama.
He said, how can we be the greatest nation in the world without the best education system in the world?
Donald Trump and the Republican friends, they not only can't think, they can't read very well.
This is what Biden said about Republicans, that they can't think and they can't read very well.
And the audience laughed.
And he said, seriously, think about it.
Look at their Project 2025, which is, of course, a hoax.
They want to do away with a part of education, which is not true.
Of course, they're just lies.
But talk about hate speech.
Is it hate speech to say it's okay to be a certain demographic, white?
Or is it hate speech to say you shouldn't be guilty just because of the way you were born?
That's hate speech in the UK.
But over in America, you can have the president say that half of the country are fucking idiots.
And, you know, he identifies them as, you know, Republicans.
And that's okay.
That's fine.
No problem.
Well, I do appreciate that we have free speech.
So if I had to pick one of these systems, I would pick the one where Biden can lie in front of the public and say anything he wants about anybody.
And then we get to vote.
So it's ugly.
It's messy.
But I'll take the free speech.
Thank you.
Anyway, the DNC, if you want to know how well brainwashing works, There's a great little example that somebody pointed out that Bernie Sanders gives his speech last night, and a lot of it was, you know, rich people are bad.
Rich people are bad.
Do you think people cheered for that?
You know, the billionaires are stealing your money.
Rich people are bad.
Of course they did.
Yeah.
Yay, rich people are bad.
They should share their money with the rest of us.
So then Bernie gets done, and then one speaker later, J.B.
Pritzker gets up and starts mocking Trump's business success, and he tells the crowd that they should take their advice from a real billionaire.
And they clap like, oh yeah, the real billionaire, yes, yes, we support a real billionaire, not that fake Trump billionaire, yes, yes.
And not only is a real billionaire, he's fat.
We love it.
Fat billionaires, yes!
But wait a minute, didn't you just clap for Bernie Sanders who said all the fat billionaires should be boiled down to render their fat into soap products?
Okay, I may have been exaggerating about that a little bit.
And it turns out that it doesn't matter what you tell the DNC crowd.
Apparently they're so brainwashed that as long as it comes from their own team, they're all on board.
It's like, hey, everybody, we're going to start chopping the heads off of Democrats.
Yes.
Yes.
It's been so long since I had my head chopped off.
Where's the line?
Where can I get in the line?
It's really weird to watch that they'll agree with anything.
You know, if I watch a Trump rally, I watch people agreeing with Trump.
That doesn't seem weird to me, even when I don't agree with maybe a specific topic.
It happens sometimes.
But it doesn't seem weird, because Trump is typically just offering a common-sense solution to stuff, and then people are saying, I like that common-sense solution.
What you don't see is one speaker saying billionaires are bad, another speaker saying billionaires are good, and getting the same applause.
That's just weird.
That's creepy weird to use their language.
All right.
I've got a hypothesis about all the hoaxing that's happening at the DNC.
So you probably noted that Biden had like six different hoaxes that have been debunked from these, from the drinking bleach to the fine people hoax to the everything else.
And then the other, you're seeing that the other speakers, Are repeating the debunked, the most ridiculous debunked hoaxes.
Now, at first I said to myself, oh, how can they be so misinformed or how could they be lying so badly and, you know, to their audience, you know, all the usual reactions you'd have.
But I'm starting to think something else is going on here because the, the level of hoaxing that they did was way beyond anything I expected.
And here's what I'm wondering about.
Is this intentional?
Do you think that the DNC, the wizards, the people behind the curtain who are the real persuasion experts, do you think that at any time they said something like this?
Hey, Kamala Harris's policies are unclear, her track record is not impressive, and we're not letting her talk to the press.
But it's the political season.
So whatever we do, the press is going to be talking a lot about whatever they have to talk about.
Can we change what they talk about to make it less about the errors that Kamala Harris has and more about anything else?
Yes, we can.
We can have our people do nonstop debunked hoaxes on TV all day long until the Republicans go crazy Talking to each other and not the Democrats, because remember, Democrats never hear what Republicans say.
So they can make the entire Democrat silo go fucking crazy, which they have successfully done, because I watch it and like my hair stands up like, damn it!
How can you be pushing the same hoax a million times in a row?
And then they keep doing it.
And I say to myself, wait a minute.
One of your influences is an energy monster.
Do you recognize this play?
This play, and I'm going to call it a play or an op, because it looks intentional to me, I don't know, I can't confirm it, but as someone who, you know, is, let's say, always looking at persuasion plays, the pattern I'm recognizing is they move from a talking you into some truth into an energy model.
It's the Trump model.
The thing that works so well for Trump is he moves energy.
He gets you excited about a thing and you don't care about the hyperbole, the fact-checking.
So Trump has consistently won as an energy monster.
Meaning he can tell you 15 things that don't pass the fact-checking, but if they're directionally true and they get you excited and it gives you something to talk about, We're all in.
You know, as long as it's in the right direction.
I don't care about the details of whether it passed the fact check.
Too much.
Because I've noticed it never matters.
I can't think of anything Trump's ever told me, or the country, that was both wrong and mattered.
Can you?
I can't think of an example.
Lots of things that I would say, okay, technically, that's hyperbole.
That's not exactly true.
But nothing that ever hurt me.
It was always the right direction.
Whereas the Democrats seem to be playing a different game.
It does look like, you know, actually damaging stuff, like the hoaxes are just so bad.
It's bad for division in the country.
So I think that the smartest people on the Democrat side, which are very smart, you don't want to underestimate them.
Whoever it is that is now advising the Harris campaign is at a different level.
Right?
The normal level is, hey, look at our policies.
They're better than your policies.
That's regular politics.
You don't need any geniuses to come up with those ideas.
But whoever came up with the idea of, let us flood the zone with hoaxes and make the Republicans burn up all their energy spinning about how these hoaxes are not true, it will use up all of their time, all their space, And we know that it will never reach Democrat voters.
And that's what's happening.
I spent a whole bunch of time debunking hoaxes.
And I saw all of the usual hoax debunkers who do it with me and also are just doing it on their own, spending all their time debunking things within the silo.
All that energy is wasted.
It's all wasted energy.
And they did that to me.
And I'm thinking, okay, I'm supposed to be a little bit clever about this stuff.
Because I, at least I pay attention to the persuasion things.
And I think I got had.
I feel like they, they got me on this one.
I'm going to score this.
I'm going to score that a win on points for the other team.
I think they won this round.
And I think it's intentional.
I can't prove it.
I'm not 100% on this.
But I've got like a 70, 80% confidence that it's an intentional plan to flood the zone with hoaxes that Democrats think are true, or at least recreationally they think it's true enough to have fun with it.
And it just burns off all the Republican energy debunking it.
I think that's what's happening.
And it's working.
It's really working well.
Well, apparently the viewership of the DNC is down 22% from 2016.
I don't know if that's telling me anything, because I feel like television watching is probably down 22% since 2016.
Am I wrong about that?
I mean, normal broadcast television, it's got to be down 22% since 2016.
If there's something else going on, it would be interesting because I would say that Hillary Clinton got more attention than Kamala Harris.
Maybe.
I don't know.
I wouldn't put too much weight in the fact that the viewership is down.
Well, you all noticed that the polls were saying that Trump was going to win like crazy and nobody liked Kamala Harris.
And then suddenly everybody liked Kamala Harris and she's beating Trump in a lot of polls.
And you said to yourself, is the brainwashing that good?
Did it work that fast that the Democrats just said, Oh, suddenly the worst candidate we've ever seen couldn't even make it past the first round in the primaries is now the best candidate and our best hope for winning and blah, blah, blah.
And she's great.
Well, Here's the other possibility.
So, let's see, pollster John McLaughlin was talking about this.
Was it on Just the News?
I think it was.
Said that basically the pollsters just started polling a disproportionate number of Biden voters.
Yeah, so John McLaughlin, a pollster, said this on Just the News, the no-noise television show.
And so McLaughlin is saying that all they do is just oversample Democrats.
So if you want your poll to say that Harris is winning, all you have to do is ask more Democrats than Republicans who they're going to vote for.
Think about that.
That's all it takes.
And then the other pollsters who don't do it, there aren't that many, but like Rasmussen, for example, Rasmussen will look at it and say, no, you oversampled Democrats.
If you don't oversample, the number is Trump's still ahead.
And we'll talk about that.
Actually, let's talk about it now.
So Rasmussen still has Trump up and Rasmussen still has the Generic Republican beating the generic Democrat by a good margin, like five points.
That's the margin that in 2022, if I recall correctly, that Rasmussen also had Republicans up by five.
And they ended up adding nine seats.
So the current Rasmussen poll, which is transparent about what percentage of the public they're polling as Democrats or Republicans.
Now, keep in mind, you know, I'm not the expert that can tell you which polls are always accurate.
I don't have that ability.
But I can tell what is transparent.
And Rasmussen tells you exactly their mix, and they say the other people are gaming the mix.
You can look for yourself.
Because even the ones that are gaming it, if you look in the details, it will show that they gamed it.
It's just people don't look at the details.
So, how could you be sure that that's what's happening?
That let's say the mainstream Democrat-leaning pollsters are gaming the system.
How can you be sure that was true?
Well, one way would be to see if it doesn't apply to the polls that you don't think would intentionally game the system.
So the ones that do show Trump is ahead in a two-way race would be Fox News, Rasmussen Reports, and CNBC.
And all the other ones show that Harris has got a 1-4 point lead.
Now, if you looked at these polls, Fox News, Rasmussen, CNBC, would you find any obvious flaws?
Nobody's mentioned any.
It's not for me to really know that, but I haven't heard anybody mention it.
But certainly Rasmussen and others, experts like McLaughlin, Do point out that the ones that are pro-Harris are very clearly gamed by oversampling Democrats.
So, this isn't one of those situations where you can be 100% sure from the outside what's going on, but it looks very much like that's what's going on.
If I had to bet on it, I would bet this is exactly what's happening.
That the polling is fake, When they get closer to the real election, all the pollsters will want to finish close to the reality.
In the beginning, they don't need to, because you can't really hold them to it, because you don't know what the actual answer is in the end.
But once it's close to the election, what you'll find is that all the pollsters will start polling the right number of Democrats, and then suddenly it's going to shrink to look like it's really close.
And I would argue that it's too big of a coincidence that we're always this close in our elections.
And if you were some kind of intelligence unit or deep state entity that tried to rig an election, the thing you would try the hardest to do is make sure the election would look close on election day.
You'd want it to look as close as possible.
That way, no matter which way the election goes, People will say, well, I didn't know for sure the other one was going to win.
It was so close.
So, I guess I can accept that it went slightly different than I expected.
It's not that different.
So, if the system is gamed and rigged, you would guarantee, if they were good at it, and if they were good at it, you would guarantee that it would always be close on Election Day.
If any rigging is planned.
But we're close right now.
So Kamala Harris has proposed a 45% long-term capital gains tax.
That'd be the highest in history.
And also a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains for rich people, but nobody believes that they would keep it for rich people.
Because once you took all of the rich people's money, it wouldn't come close to paying off the debt or paying all the things they wanted you to pay for.
So they would test it on the rich people.
If they get away with it, they'd have a model that they could start moving down the income levels.
So that's what people expect.
It's not what she says, it's just what reasonable people expect, that it would get extended.
So, if you combine that 25% tax with state taxes, in many states you'd be taxed over 50% on unrealized gains.
Unrealized gains.
Now, if you're not a finance person, let me explain this.
The majority of my current net wealth is in unrealized gains, meaning that for most of my career, the early part of my career, I got some extra money and just put it in an index fund 25 years ago.
Now, it turns out if you had some extra money 25 years ago and you put it in an index fund, it was first of all good for the economy, because my money is in the stock market, that's good for the economy.
Currently, since I kind of spent or donated or invested all of my income after that, I was kind of running on, you know, spending it all basically, as long as other people were benefiting.
Families, you know, for kids and stuff like that.
And currently, probably 80% of my net worth or 90%?
I think 90%.
of my net worth or 90%? I think 90%. 90% of my net worth is unrealized gains. Just think about that.
The government wants to take half of it.
I worked my entire life with the specific idea that at this point in my life, most of my net wealth would be on realized gains.
And then if I need it, I'll realize the gains and spend it and pay my taxes.
So, imagine working your whole life and having the government randomly take half of it.
That's the situation I'm in.
Now, most of you, if you're being reasonable, are saying something like, oh, my tiny violin is so sad that you've got this problem, Scott.
Because, you know, if you're not rich, it just sounds like a rich guy whining, which it is.
It is a rich guy whining.
But, you can't really build a system that makes your most productive people totally screwed.
You can't have people who own farms and own businesses and have all this unrealized gains in their real estate, etc.
You would be wiping out boomers pretty hard.
Again, once the standard gets moved down to lower incomes, and we expect that that would be a natural progression.
So, how do people think about that?
Well, Elon Musk said, this path leads to bread lines and ugly shoes.
Bread lines and ugly shoes, meaning communism.
That's one of the funniest comments on communism I've heard.
Bread lines and ugly shoes.
Now that's persuasive, because nobody wants ugly shoes, especially Democrats.
All right.
But here's my question.
And to me, this is hilarious.
Harris still has some billionaire supporters.
How could you be a billionaire and support Harris after she just said she's going to take a quarter or half of your money?
You know what I would do?
If I were a billionaire supporter of Harris, you know what I would do?
I would sell my NBA team right away.
Before she gets in office.
Has anybody done that?
Is there anybody who's a major billionaire supporter of Harris, who has recently sold their, sold their NBA interests so that they won't have any unrealized gains when she becomes?
Oh, they have?
Oh, apparently somebody did that.
Oh, well, that's exactly what I would do.
If I knew that was coming, because maybe I knew what the advisors were telling her, I would sell, I'll tell you, if I had an NBA team, I'd sell that.
Have we heard from Reid Hoffman?
Somebody said, I haven't confirmed this, but somebody said Reid Hoffman wants to know more about it.
How in the world, how in the world is Reid Hoffman going to go in public and support this plan?
Because he knows it's a bad idea.
Everybody smart knows it's a bad idea, but it would be extra bad for him specifically.
It'd probably take like a billion dollars from him.
Imagine you're Reid Hoffman, and you're putting all your time and money into this party, and then suddenly they come up with the, okay, and one last thing, thank you for all the help.
We really appreciate all the donating, you know, and just one more thing, We kind of need you to give up a billion dollars.
I think that's what he's going to work for.
So what would a reasonable rich person say under these circumstances?
Well, let's look at Jason, one of the four people from the All In pod.
Jason is one of the ones of the four.
Who most closely, I think, identifies with more left-leaning than right.
And he's been for the Democrats, not a Trump supporter, even though others, you know, at least two people on the Olin pod were Trump supporters, Sachs and Chamath.
And he said this in a post.
He said, if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz go for the wealth tax on unrealized gains, That is A, unconstitutional, and B, disqualifying for me.
There you go.
So here's what I love about the All In pod.
It's not exactly political.
They talk about all the politics, so the topics are political, but the four of them are not really political.
They're four super smart, capable people, Who just understand how everything works.
Now, I think you can be a super smart, capable, practical person and be either a Democrat or Republican.
Until this year.
Now you can't do it anymore.
No, there's no such thing as being a smart, common sense, well-informed person and also being a Democrat.
You can't do it this year.
Because they're, they're fully into batshit crazy territory.
This is not normal.
Trump, as I often say, I can't think of a single thing he's ever suggested, whether I liked it or not.
You know, it's not, I'm not saying I like everything that Trump's ever suggested, but they all fit into the category of common sense.
You maybe have to dial back some hyperbole, but it ends up all being directionally common sense.
But the stuff that's coming out of the Democrats are things that every smart person knows would ruin the country.
Everyone.
Reid Hoffman would know.
Mark Cuban would know.
Jason knows.
They all know it.
So, if they still, you know, double down for their team, something else is going on.
Right?
Now, it could be just people don't like to change their mind in public.
Could be that.
Could be something else.
I don't know if there's something else is, but it's probably not good.
So kudos to Jason for simply being about what makes sense.
Like, I have complete respect for that.
Just be about what makes sense.
And everybody knows this would be a terrible, terrible idea.
All right, so here's my take.
I think this race, unlike any other prior race, we've left the realm of politics.
This doesn't feel like a difference in political opinion to me, where every other race has.
You know, you got your Republicans, you got your Democrats, they've got, you know, somewhat different ideas.
So it's about politics.
This is not about politics.
Whatever this is that we're observing is Common sense things like close the border, don't overtax, you know, don't rape your taxpayers, just ordinary stuff.
Don't get overexcited about climate crisis if the other countries are not doing their part.
Very basic stuff.
Common sense.
And if somebody says to me, but Scott, why are you registered as a Democrat but supporting Trump?
To which I say, it has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican.
I don't even really think about those things.
I just look at, well, is that a good idea?
Yes.
Okay, I like it.
Is that a good idea?
No.
Well, okay, I'm against it.
Because you can usually tell what a good idea is, you just look at the incentives.
You look at what people have done before that would be in that vein that would inform you about the future stuff.
It's not hard.
To know what is common, you know, I mock common sense because we all imagine we have it, but there are some things that every smart person will agree on, right?
I've never seen a smart person argue for keeping the borders as porous as they are.
Not really.
I've never seen that.
Even the people who are behind it make sure that they don't comment on it in public.
Have you ever seen Alex Soros give an interview about how the current rate and flow of immigration is a good idea?
No.
No.
I mean, he might be sort of generally pro-immigrant, but everybody is.
So, no.
All of the smart people are on the same side.
And if you're a public smart person, you're going first.
Alright?
Elon Musk is a public smart person.
Boom.
Trump supporter.
The Sachs and Chamath are public smart people.
Boom.
Trump supporters.
Bill Ackman is a public smart person.
Boom.
Trump supporter.
RFK Jr.
Well, maybe.
You know what RFK Jr.
is?
He's a public smart person.
And it turns out that Alex Jones is reporting, he has a source he says, that he believes that RFK Jr.
will announce on Friday, and I'm not seeing this confirmed from other sources, so use your judgment about the reliability of the reporting.
But he's thinking that on Friday, RFK Jr.
might throw in with Trump, and presumably there would be some Opportunity in the future for him to work with the administration, in some capacity that would be unnamed.
Now, does that sound like that might happen?
I don't know.
Let's look at what RFK Jr.
is saying.
Here's something that RFK Jr.
said that is not about this topic, but I want you to listen to how he talks.
About this topic.
And you tell me, does that sound more like somebody who would be a Trump supporter or more like somebody who would be a standard Democrat supporter?
Right?
Here's RFK Jr.
recently.
Quote, the COVID pandemic was used to fundamentally change the relationship between U.S.
citizens and their government.
The government's public health response was not a medical response, but instead a test of technocratic power to see how the population would respond to totalitarian edicts Masked as medical intervention, the government also selected the lockdown winners and losers, transferring nearly four trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class and small business to Silicon Valley and big box stores.
There have been no corrections and no apologies because the government wants to be able to do it again.
Now he says, that is why we're hearing all the hoopla now about the monkey box and bird flu and yet more experimental vaccines.
We cannot let this happen again.
We must resist.
Who's that sound like?
Now, now Trump has not said this.
Trump has not said this, but who does it sound like?
Well, it doesn't sound like Harris.
It sounds the opposite of Democrat.
It sounds more like the Republican base.
It doesn't sound like Trump, because he hasn't said this as directly as the base does, but the base says this every day.
The ordinary Republicans say exactly Exactly, exactly this every day.
Is it a coincidence that RFK Jr., you know, two days before Friday, comes out with something that matches perfectly one of the most emotional, important issues to the Trump base?
Doesn't look like a coincidence.
How about his VP choice, R.K.
Jr.' 's VP choice, Nicole Shanahan?
What did she say recently?
She just said Kamala Harris's economic plans, particularly her flawed ideas about price gaps on food and the misconception that farmers are responsible for price gouging, echo the very policies that caused Listen to this.
Echo the very policies that caused the famine my family suffered through in Mao's communist China.
Our path forward as a nation lies in supporting our farmers who care for our land and produce the real nutritious food we rely on.
What does that sound like?
Does that sound like Kamala Harris talking there?
No, because she's actually directly saying that Kamala Harris would turn us into a famine-ridden death country.
Does it sound more like Trump?
Well, yes.
I mean, it does sound more like Trump.
But what it sounds even more like, what it sounds like more than Trump, is Trump's base.
Right?
I mean, Trump's in the same domain as this idea, but this matches the base.
Perfectly.
So what have I told you about RFK Jr.?
One of the things that makes him extra interesting is that I said whether he agreed with the Republicans or backed them or not, I said he fully understands how they think and feel.
Do you get it now?
He fully understands how Republicans think and feel.
That doesn't mean he has to agree with them all the time.
But he fully understands how they think and feel.
Nicole has, you know, done her podcast.
I guess you'd call it campaigning, which is good technique.
You know, she's a single mom.
So she's having podcasts and the people that she invites on her podcast were people like me.
So I was on her podcast.
So does Nicole understand what Republicans think and feel?
Even if sometimes she would disagree with them.
And the answer is yes, absolutely.
She's proven it, and she's done it publicly.
She talked in person, publicly, with a whole bunch of people on the left and the right.
So yes, she absolutely knows what Republicans are thinking and feeling.
Do you want them on your team?
I do.
Yes.
Be on my team, please.
All right.
I think I had a couple of things that I wanted to talk about first.
All right, so Trump went on the Theo Vaughn podcast.
I guess what's notable about that is that Trump is really the perfect podcast guest, isn't he?
When Trump goes on a news show, it's just combat.
And the combat, it's kind of repetitive and doesn't look fun and you're fake news.
And then the fake news makes him reply to a hoax.
And then he says, that's a hoax.
You're fake news.
I mean, it's all just the same thing.
But if he goes on a podcast, you don't know where it's going to go.
And you get to really see the real person in a situation that's not scripted.
Trump is great.
I feel like every time you see one of these, you watch the podcaster fall in love with him.
Have you noticed that?
Whenever Trump does a podcast, by the time he's done, it's just almost, you can see it.
Like the podcaster doesn't just enjoy that they had the experience.
It's like they fell in love with the fucking guy.
He does have that power.
He's got the thing.
He's got the X factor.
And I'll say it for the millionth time.
As much as I love seeing him talk to podcasters, especially interesting ones who are not your traditional ones, I'd love to see him talk to some Democrats.
The voters.
Only the voters.
But my God, how much do you want to see that?
I want to see it so much.
Now, I don't necessarily think he needs to go on, you know, Charlemagne the God's podcast.
Although I give Charlamagne a lot of credit.
He's an interesting addition to the conversation, right?
Wherever he goes, he's interesting.
That's all I ask, right?
I think he's in it for the right reasons, as far as I can tell.
I mean, I think he'd like the country to do better, etc.
But I don't think he's the right fit for Trump.
I'd rather he talked to just a regular voter who was just curious and just say, Can you explain why you're in favor of this?
And then just have Trump explain it?
I would love to watch that.
I'd watch that all day long.
Well, according to Liz Harrington, so here's something that I see because I'm plugged into a certain part of the internet.
Every single day, I see one or more than one reports about credible-looking, I don't know how credible they are, but credible-looking reports of confirmed election rigging.
Now, when I say confirmed election rigging, I mean, that's what the report says.
Do I know that it's confirmed?
I don't.
Because unfortunately, these are the kind of claims I just look at and go, well, I don't know who this person is.
They've made some claims.
I can't check them.
I don't know.
But they sure look believable.
I mean, they're persuasive as hell.
And there are a lot of them.
So here's one.
There's a claim that over 6,000 votes were fraudulently inserted into the Fulton County hand count audit.
Now, if I understand this correctly, the allegation goes like this, that the machine count didn't match the hand count.
And since they didn't want to go public and say, uh-oh, we're way off and our hand count doesn't match our machine count, Allegedly, there's evidence, I don't know if it's proof, but there's evidence, that what might have happened, again, I'm going to say might, and I don't know the credibility of any of these reports, that the people doing this true-up just double-counted some ballots so that they could have the two systems match.
Now, is that possible?
Could it be as obvious as somebody did a recount, it didn't match, so they just rigged it, so it didn't match?
I mean, that's really right on the nose.
So those are the times I get a little suspicious.
It's a little too close to too simple.
I don't know.
So I'm going to say I'm very curious about all of these claims, but it would probably be a huge mistake To assume that all of them, or even half of them, are going to pan out.
But what if some of them do?
I mean, there's so many.
You do that laundry list persuasion thing, where if there's enough on the list, your automatic common sense says, well, the list of claims is so long that even if some of these are not right, there must be some that are true.
I don't know.
I don't know if that's true.
It could be that none of them are true.
But boy, do they look true!
If I had to bet my life on it, I would bet some number of these claims of rigging are exactly what they look like.
If I had to bet my life on it.
But, that's only if I had to.
I'd prefer not, because I'm not sure.
But I always go back to whether or not we've found any irregularities, We have designed a system that appears to be designed more for hiding the outcome than for revealing it.
So if you have a system which appears in every way to be more designed to hide an outcome than to give you a real one, I think that you should assume there's a reason for that.
And I do.
And that's different from having any proof.
I just look at the design of the system and say, well, that design should give you a non-credible election every time.
You be the judge.
All right.
Let's see what else is going on.
So the IDF, the Israeli military, has done some airstrikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah sites.
And there were a number of different attacks.
Let's see, they hit a weapons depot, an air defense site, and they took out some leader, Abu Shash.
Hezbollah operative in some buildings.
Now, does that sound like an escalation?
Well, it's more than I've heard Israel doing in one day in that direction lately.
So, you know, I always start with the assumption that Israel is smart.
And then I analyze everything they do from that perspective.
I think that usually works.
I mean, presumably there are some times when they don't do something smart.
But it's my first filter.
I just say, OK, if you are smart, what am I seeing?
So the first thing I'm seeing is it looks like they ratcheted up their attacks on Hezbollah during the DNC.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
Do you think it's a coincidence that Israel is going in behind the cover of the news being, you know, saturating in the DNC?
I doubt it.
I doubt that's a coincidence.
Now, because my starting filter is that Israel is smart, would they intentionally do a little uptick in violence during the DNC?
Yes.
That's when I'd do it.
If it were me, that's what I'd do.
Now, suppose Israel has already decided that they would rather have Hezbollah actually do a serious attack.
Because they need to provoke it, because the timing is right now, for their action.
Because we'll be between presidents, right?
Next several months, the leadership of the United States is going to be a little shaky.
We know that.
It's like, I don't even know who the president is.
So from Israel's perspective, again, if you assume that they're just always operating from smart, they would say to themselves, this next several months, we can get away with the most stuff in terms of public opinion, because we'll just be diverted.
We'll be looking somewhere else.
And so they might be prodding Hezbollah and Iran for a bigger response.
So one possibility is that Israel isn't just Warning them to stay silent, but rather is intentionally poking them, because Hezbollah will now have to send more rockets, which Israel can then respond a little extra hard again.
And then Hezbollah will say, well, I mean, we might as well just send a thousand rockets if you're just going to keep doing this.
And then they send their thousand rockets, the Iron Dome knocks most of them out of the air, and then Israel has a free pass to get rid of Hezbollah once and for all.
And I think everything's heading in that direction.
And I think that the reason it seems like things might be compressed is because Israel will never have, in their whole history, A better opportunity to be super violent against the people who would kill them first if they had a choice.
So everything is suggesting that it's going to get really hot there really fast.
But not unless Hezbollah takes the bait.
So I believe that Iran and Hezbollah have decided to stand down and maybe not do this super big response.
And I think Israel's daring them.
Say, hey, where's your big response?
How about that big response?
How about we kill a couple of your leaders?
How about now?
Big response?
How about that weapons depot?
Gone.
Don't you wish you had that?
Big response?
Big response?
I'm not touching you.
I'm not touching you.
That's what it feels like.
Well, there's more news about the story about Drunk Kamala, or the allegations that she's drunk in public, and it's been captured on video a number of times.
I was looking at an article from Vivek Saxena on BizPac Review.
And Vivek is talking about this issue, and the people on the right making these accusations.
But here's a sentence that made me laugh.
It said, this is from Vivek in BizPak Review, talking about Newsweek.
And Vivek says, according to Newsweek, the drinking rumors began with Trump campaign insider James Blair, who tweeted basically about it.
Does that sound right to you?
That the rumors about Kamala Harris drinking started with James Blair?
Is that check?
Fact check?
You've all heard of something called the Gelman Amnesia, because I talk about it all the time.
That's a situation where if you know the story, like you have some personal connection to a story, you know the news is always wrong.
But if you don't have a personal connection, you think, well, that news is probably true.
But every time you know something, you can tell it's false.
Every time.
Is this one of those cases?
Well, here's what I know.
I know for sure James Blair didn't start that rumor.
Anybody want to disagree with that?
Now, you all I would consider somewhat insiders on this topic, because you've been watching on social media, you know, how I and a whole bunch of other people have been talking about this for a long time, and very loudly, before James Blair made the first mention of it.
So I know that this is fake news.
I know that James Blair didn't start anything.
In fact, I know that the reason he felt safe mentioning it is that it was already saturated in social media.
But Newsweek told you it's coming from the campaign.
Why would they do that?
Why would they say it's coming from the campaign instead of it's coming from every single Republican who's seen the videos?
Well, if they say it comes from the campaign, everybody knows that's bullshit.
Because if they said something, no matter what it is, if you said it came from the Harris campaign, what would you say?
You'd say, I don't even need to hear it, it's bullshit.
Because everything that comes from a campaign is always bullshit.
Always.
So, if you say, everybody who's looked at the video has the same opinion, because she certainly looks Whatever is the truth, a lot of ordinary people look at it and say, yeah, it looks drunk to me.
And a lot of those people are police officers who've had lots of experience with drunks.
People who themselves have had addiction who say, yeah, I recognize it.
That's it.
People have family members who've been in that situation say, oh, I wish I couldn't recognize it, but I can.
So you're talking about a situation which is close to a fact.
Which is lots of people looking at the videos and saying, okay, that's definitely drunk.
And by the way, if that's not drunk, it's a bigger problem.
Right?
If that's not drunk, there's something wrong with that woman.
We'd better figure out what that is.
So the fact that she has completely different personalities when she's appeared, like when I mentioned when she was at the DNC, did she look drunk when she did her appearance at the DNC?
No!
Not even a little bit.
You couldn't even twist your mind into imagining she was inebriated.
Not even a little.
That's why, when you see the videos where it very clearly looks like she is inebriated, it means something.
Because it's not a normal situation, even for her.
So, Gelman Amnesia, just know that all the news is fake, because every time you see the news that you know about, that's always fake.
All right, Obama gave his speech last night.
I watched a little clip of it.
Of course, it was full of hoaxes and lies and bullshit, but here's what I noticed.
He looked very uncomfortable and awkward and sweaty.
So, you know, I guess maybe just they couldn't figure out the temperature?
Did they have an AC problem?
I've never seen Obama look like Richard Nixon debating Kennedy before, but he did.
He didn't look comfortable or happy whatsoever.
So I was kind of expecting to watch Obama just to be impressed by his skill.
You know, I've told you before that I've always been impressed with Obama as a politician.
You know, like Bill Clinton.
Skill is skill, right?
It's the same thing I say about Trump.
Aside from policies, you just have to give them full credit for having incredible skill.
Clinton, Obama, Trump, incredible skills, which Harris doesn't have.
That militant, all right, got a few more drunks in the comments.
I feel like there was something I haven't gotten to yet, but probably I did.
So ladies and gentlemen, That concludes my prepared remarks for today.
Do you know that if you're still looking for some entertainment for the ear, that my book, Reframe Your Brain, is changing people's lives?
Have you ever looked at the reviews for the people who read my book, Reframe Your Brain?
They're incredible.
And it's one of those books that actually does change your life.
Almost certainly.
I mean, it's about as guaranteed as anything could be.
Now, what's interesting is it's a book full of reframes, different ways to look at ordinary situations.
And most of them won't be the ones that you need, but they'll make you look like a genius.
So if you read all the reframes and somebody comes to you someday and says, I have this problem, you'll know what to say.
It's like, well, why don't you reframe it this way?
So it turns you into the smartest person in your environment, because you'll have reframes for things in every category.
And if there's even one, if there's even one in the entire book that fits your situation, it's life changing.
And I hear about that all the time.
People message me and say, uh, change my life.
You know, this one reframe and they're different ones.
People have different reframes that hit their, hit their feels.
But if you don't like that, you can say, you might want to get the version two of how to fail at almost everything and still win big.
Not much different from version one.
It's just a better at it.
Um, and this is the most influential book in the field of personal success.
Other books.
Borrow liberally from it.
And if you didn't know, my book God's Debris, which is one of the top-selling or top-read e-books of all time—it's also a regular book—is now God's Debris plus the sequel, all in the same book, It's called The Religion War, the sequel, and then a new short story at the end called Lucky House that I wrote just to fill it out.
That one's fiction, but philosophical fiction, so it'll make you think.
And Winn-Bigley version 2 is gonna be out pretty soon.
Sabrina looks rich.
Sabrina, let me give you some advice while you're drinking and shouting in all caps.
You sound like somebody who believes something you say on social media from Andrew Tate.
You should not be proud of that.
That you believe something that Andrew Tate said about me.
Don't be proud of that.
That is you being a drunken cunt.
So if you have more to say, just jump in with your all caps.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
But anyway, I was going to say that Winn-Bigley is going to be reissued with some updates.
I'll tell you about that when it's available.
And also, don't tell anybody, but the Dilbert calendar It's almost ready to be announced.
Not ready.
It's not ready.
But it's almost ready.
I've looked at the prototype and just a couple more tweaks and we'll have the first Made in America Dilbert calendar.
The first one.
So, cancel me if you will, but at least I get to do things my way now.
Alright everybody, I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
