God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, America's Poison Environment, Tucker Carlson, Body-Brain System, Peter Thiel, Compromised Leaders, Jen Psaki, DNC Harris Speech, President Trump, Mischaracterized Policies, Tim Walz Son, 21st Century Democrat Men, DNC Pelosi, RFK Jr., Nicole Shanahan, Trump Intel Briefings, Georgia Election Integrity, Israel Hamas War, 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
So, we'll see if the show's any better once I'm demonetized.
Oh, look, we've got some YouTube people coming in now.
Oh, that's interesting.
So YouTube's online.
It looks like only X is failing.
I wonder why.
Why?
No, no.
Do do do do do.
Mum bum bum bum bum.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of.
Your entire life.
If you'd like this to go up to a level that you can't even understand with your tiny, shiny human brain, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind to fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and wow, it happens now.
Go. So good. So good.
So good.
Well, here's some science updates and we'll talk about the DNC and Harris and RFK Jr.
and UFOs and anything else you want to talk about.
But just so you know, all the cool things that are coming, according to WIRED, mRNA technology could be used to make your damaged liver good again without a transplant.
How about that?
There's actually a technology that can Heal a mouse's liver.
Not completely, apparently, but it makes a big difference.
So we might be on the verge of giving you new organs with a shot.
Can you imagine that?
Oh, my organs are failing.
That's okay.
Come here, I'll give you a shot.
And then all your organs start rebuilding themselves.
That's a real thing that might actually be coming.
Well, Medical Express publication Says that there's some indication that THC, that would be the active ingredient in marijuana, reverses brain aging and enhances cognition in mice.
Now, you know what I'm going to say, don't you?
You know what I'm going to say.
I don't recommend marijuana for anybody because it's a medical product in my opinion.
I don't think marijuana has the recreational value that people use it for.
But medically, medically has some real uses.
And they could have saved a little money because I will tell you that my own experience is that, well, I'm just going to say it.
I'll say it as directly as I can.
There isn't a chance in hell I would be meeting five deadlines a day, creating new content, without a little help.
My aging brain would not be able to sit down every single day and write seven new jokes.
I'm telling you, my own experience is that it's a brain enhancer, and to me it's obvious.
No, I don't recommend it.
You should only talk to a doctor and don't drive a car.
And if you're under 18, it'd be stupid to do weed.
It'll just ruin your life.
So I don't recommend it.
But on this one limited claim that, uh, they're talking about low doses, by the way.
Oh, this is important.
They tested low doses.
Now, my experience is that if you're a daily, let's say medical user, you get used to it.
And then what would be a high dose for somebody else is kind of a low dose for you.
So it could be that I've been low dosing for a while.
Anyway, there's a trailer for a movie, you know, the advertisement for a movie called The Trailer.
Movie is a megalopolis.
But they had to remove the trailer because apparently it included some quotes, some praising quotes from critics that those critics never said.
How do you think they ended up with a bunch of quotes from critics about their movie that they never said?
Well, I don't know if there's, um, I don't know if there's a specific explanation of how it went wrong, but here's my guess.
Hey, chat GPT, can you tell me what the critics say about the movie?
Well, so-and-so says it's the greatest movie and it will change your life.
Okay.
Then they write that down and they make the trailer with those quotes, only to find out later that Chad GPT literally made it up.
Now, the story doesn't say that's what happened, but isn't it obvious?
If he had to place a bet, If you've used AI, by the way, you'll know this.
It does make stuff up.
I ask AI about myself, just because that's the easiest thing to check.
It makes stuff up.
Things I've never heard of, awards I've never won.
I mean, it just completely fantasizes about people.
So, that's probably what happened.
But, I have a standard for judging things like this, and most other things.
I don't believe in judging people by their mistakes.
Because if you did that, you'd just hate everybody all the time.
I mean, humans are just making mistakes all over the place.
There's nobody you know who hasn't made mistakes that you think they shouldn't have.
So instead of judging people by their mistakes, because nobody makes a mistake intentionally, judge them by what they do when they get caught, or when trouble happens, and how do they respond?
Well, here's how they responded.
I guess Lionsgate is the entity that put it out.
They said, quote, we offer our sincere apologies to the critics involved and to Francis Ford Coppola and American Zoetrope for this inexcusable error in our vetting process.
We screwed up.
We are sorry.
Almost perfect.
Almost perfect.
I will accept it as completely sincere sounding.
And they didn't look to blame anybody, did they?
It would have been really easy to blame somebody.
Nope.
Lionsgate said our mistake.
We apologize.
But there's one thing missing.
One thing missing.
Steve Jobs knew how to do this.
The one thing missing is what are you going to do about it?
What are you going to do so you don't do it again?
So they said it was a mistake in their vetting process.
But just this little bit of improvement would have taken them to A+.
It's already an A-.
It's very acceptable.
I think they did a good job of it.
But if they just said, we're going to redo our vetting process, maybe even telling us what went wrong.
You know, we relied on an internet search.
We're going to have to make sure that we verify things.
Something like that.
So always, you got to take full responsibility.
But then you got to say what you're going to do to not make that same mistake again.
That's perfect if you get that.
All right.
YouTube apparently has some new feature that I'm also assuming is AI driven, something they wouldn't have been able to do before, I think, which is they're going to allow premium users, the people who pay to be on YouTube, allow them to skip sponsored segments in YouTube videos.
Now, what would be a sponsored segment in a YouTube video?
Well, it'd be like me giving a commercial for a product, which I would never do because then people would skip it.
Now, would YouTube be able to pick out that this is not a sponsored product, but rather my own product?
And would the AI make a distinction?
So when I say I've got a new book and the main reason I do social media is so people could know if I I have a new product.
If I tell people about my new product, are they going to introduce a button so you can skip it?
I don't know.
Is the AI smart enough to know that this is my product and that's very different than a sponsored advertisement?
I don't know.
We shall see.
But the effect of that would be to actually destroy a huge bunch of people who their entire money comes from doing sponsored commercials on YouTube.
Now, I won't destroy it right away because people won't know the button's there and maybe the feature doesn't work perfectly and blah, blah, blah.
And also, you can always fast forward a video.
You always have that ability.
But it might allow me to watch Joe Rogan stuff if it were on YouTube.
I can't watch, as much as Joe Rogan's show is amazing, I can't get past the ads.
I just, my life is too short.
I don't have time for listening to a bunch of ads.
Anyway, here's something interesting.
I saw a post from a user on X called Vittorio who said in a few years people will not be able to function in society Without a brain-computer interface.
So that's sort of like the Neuralink chip in your head.
And Elon Musk commented, at some point having a Neuralink will be normal.
And separately, Musk is predicting that in several years, there could be tens of millions of humans who have a chip in their head.
And that would be approaching normal.
Do you think that's going to be normal?
Do you think that in your lifetime, all children will have a chip in their head?
I think he's right.
I think he's right.
And the reason is that AI is too powerful to be separate from humans.
In other words, humans are going to have to absorb the power of AI into themselves.
And it might be the chip that allows them to do it.
I don't know if there's a plan to do that specifically.
But you can imagine all kinds of things that you'd want to do better and be competitive in an AI world.
You just might need a chip.
You might not even be able to hold a job unless you've got a good chip in you.
You can easily imagine in the future an employer saying, we're only looking for people who've been chipped because when we give our new announcements and memos and stuff, we don't want to send it by email.
We're just going to send it directly to the employees in their heads.
Now, I don't know if that will ever be possible with the Neuralink, by the way.
I don't know if it can... I don't even know if it's two-way in that way, or it could be, or what.
But yeah, I think Musk is right.
It is inevitable that humans will have computer chip interfaces in their head.
I don't think there's any way around that.
Tucker Carlson has been I don't know, do we say red-pilled anymore?
About the chronic disease epidemic in America.
In my opinion, the primary message givers that the country is sick from our food, our pharma, and maybe other stuff.
We don't know what.
But Tucker says, quote on a video recently, if you look at the rates of chronic illness in this country, it's destroying the country.
And it's an emergency.
It's an emergency that I would say supersedes all other emergencies.
Now that's the key line.
The key line is that that's the emergency.
That's bigger than all the other emergencies.
That's, that's like it came right out of my mouth or RFK Junior's mouth.
I do believe that the food supply, the big pharma, and maybe even the things that our media is doing to us are so bad, it's just killing America to the point where I'm not sure we can even be a competitive country if we let ourselves be just destroyed by these forces.
So, the first step in doing anything about it would be acknowledging that it's a major, major problem.
And I don't see Trump saying it, and I don't see Kamala Harris saying it.
Why is it that Tucker and I and RFK Jr.
and probably a lot of parents think this is the biggest problem in the country?
And by the way, when I say the biggest problem in the country, I mean by a lot.
I mean that whatever is number two isn't really even close to this, because I don't really think we have much of a risk of a nuclear war, and I think climate change is sort of a long-term manageable situation.
I don't think AI is going to kill us.
Those are manageable risks, but we don't have really any effort whatsoever to stop the fact that our environment is killing us like crazy.
I reposted Tucker's comments on X, but I wanted to add that you have to add mental illness to this.
Because when you're talking about chronic illness, you aren't necessarily talking about the mental part.
Now add the mental part.
So take the number of people who have a chronic illness, one of the ones that we didn't get 100 years ago, that's just something about modern living.
And then add to that the number of mental illness situations that's modern, that also we didn't have 100 years ago.
You get almost everybody.
You get almost everybody.
Everybody has at least a mental problem that you wouldn't have had before, and at least one chronic illness that you never would have had before.
So yeah, it's that bad.
But remember, I always tell you that we make this mistake of thinking that the brain and the body can be looked at as separate machines that just have some connection.
And I say, no, no, no, they're not separate machines.
They're all just one thing.
Your arms and your legs are what keep your brain healthy.
Because if you get up and your arms and your legs take you into a forest, suddenly your brain says, ah, I'm a little relaxed now.
I'm in a forest.
So separating your body from your brain gets you all the wrong analysis.
So here's something to back that up.
At Michigan Medicine, the University of Michigan, they found that mental health and chronic diabetes are strongly linked.
Now you say to me, you say, well, that's obvious, Scott.
If you get chronic, you know, if you get diabetes, obviously you're going to be less happy.
To which I say yes, that makes sense.
But it turns out that the correlation works both ways, they think.
So the study shows that your mental illness might cause your diabetes, but also your diabetes might cause your mental illness.
But if your mental illness causes your diabetes and your diabetes causes your mental illness, you're kind of in bad shape if you get either one of those two things.
So that's just more evidence that your brain and your body have to be considered one system.
All right.
I don't know if you watched this.
It was kind of one of these wonderful moments in live television.
Was it live?
I think live-ish.
When I guess Fox News cut the, must have cut Trump's feed off.
I think they were watching him do a speech.
So they cut it off and it went to the Gutfeld Show.
Guffield exclamation mark.
And I guess Greg Guffield said on air, you know, since they cut off President Trump, he said, you've got my number.
Give me a call.
So as Guffield is doing his show, his phone rings and it was Trump.
Trump actually called him.
You know, he's on, he's on air.
He's like, yo, give me a call.
Next thing you know, he's on the phone live to Trump.
He puts on the speakerphone and Greg has to tell him, you know, the audience is here.
Don't say anything.
Don't say anything embarrassing.
And then the funniest part, the funniest part is that Greg had to do a show.
And it wasn't really the most convenient thing to have a half hour conversation on your cell phone, holding it up to your microphone on your chest.
So he needed to get Trump off the phone.
The best part about it is, have you ever had the situation where you're done with a phone call?
One of my exes had a way to tell you that the phone call's done.
You know, you'd be talking about some stuff, you'd be going back and forth, normal conversation, then you hear on the other side of the phone, And then I know the conversation's done.
Anyway, so Greg was doing his version of, how do you get the president off the phone?
And I don't know, that was the best part, was trying to give us the ex-president of the United States, maybe the future one, you know, the bums rush off the phone.
You know, once you've done your polite stuff, it's time to move on.
Anyway, that was fun.
You should watch the video.
I just saw a clip from Peter Thiel talking to Joe Rogan.
I guess that interview happened several days ago, but I hadn't seen this part.
And apparently Peter Thiel has this theory that the reason that so many compromised people seem to be in power, you know, people that you would assume there would be some blackmail on, you know, you just, if you're, if you're paying attention at all, you look at our leaders and you say, We got a lot of leaders that, in my suspicious mind and based on what I've heard and what I see, they all look blackmailable.
You've heard me say that, right?
I've said that a number of times, that they just have this blackmailable vibe to them, like there's something going on besides their political stuff that somebody could blackmail them for.
And Peter Thiel seems to think that it's a necessity to get ahead, that if you're not blackmailable, The people who really run the country can't trust you.
They need to be able to control you, and so they prefer people who have blackmailable things that the public doesn't yet know.
Now, that would explain everything.
Now, when I say it, it sounds a little crazy, right?
When I say, it seems to me like they're favoring blackmailable people.
It sure looks that way, but I don't have any evidence of that.
However, when Peter Thiel says it, Um, suddenly I think, was I right?
But he didn't show any evidence either.
It's not like there's some scientific study, but he is way more connected, I think, than I am.
In other words, he would be closer to the, you know, whatever's behind the curtain.
And for him to say this really got my attention.
It's certainly short of something that is confirmed, but it looks like it.
And when your observations are so consistent over time, it might be confirmation bias, but it's certainly helpful to hear at least one other smart person who is well-connected to say that's what it is.
Well, let's talk about that DNC and Kamala Harris talk.
By the way, I'd like to make an announcement.
If you stay till the end of my show today, I've got a special guest, Beyonce.
And after she's done, Taylor Swift will do a couple of tunes.
I told her to keep it short.
And then George W. Bush.
George W. Bush will be here as my special guest.
That's all completely true.
Stop it.
Stop acting like I just made that up.
This is the way you handle a big event.
I learned that from the DNC.
Yes, the DNC hinted that there would be a special guest so that people wouldn't turn off the TV before Kamala Harris was there.
And then rumors started online.
It's Beyoncé, but of course it wasn't.
It's Taylor Swift, but of course it wasn't.
It's George W. Bush, which was just stupid because of course it wasn't.
But it probably worked.
It probably kept their numbers high.
The number of lies that come out of the Democrat side is just, it's just breathtaking.
It's just everything all the time.
They've only got one mode.
Anyway, remember ex-press secretary Jen Psaki?
She said on MSNBC that Kamala Harris, well, she was complimenting her, and she said that Kamala Harris is likable.
She's very likable.
If you meet her in person, she's got this likable personal vibe.
It's so likable that Jen Psaki said that she's as likable as Hillary Clinton, with her magical, charismatic quality.
I saw a post from Eric Abernathy.
He said that that should be the Republican slogan.
The Republicans should run on the idea that Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton.
You know, as funny as that comment is, the thing that makes it funny is that it would actually work.
If tomorrow the Republicans erased every commercial that they have, just dumped them all, got rid of all their signs, all their slogans, everything on their website, and they just went with one sentence, That Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton and never said anything else about politics?
He can win.
I'm not recommending it.
It's not going to happen.
But yeah, in my mind, I say, you know what?
Nothing else makes a difference.
At this point, everybody has a general idea of which direction the policies would be in both cases.
You could just say she's as likable as Hillary Clinton.
I don't know how many people would register with that, but it worked for me.
I saw the Mays account on X say that the DNC is like one big support group for people who are imagining that Donald Trump has hurt them.
That is the best summary.
It looks like a support group for people who imagined that Trump had hurt them, but also imagine that he will hurt them again after the first time that they imagine they hurt him.
That really does capture everything.
If you had heard that framing, and said, we've got a convention of people who have mental problems, and their specific mental problem is they believe that this one person, Donald Trump, has hurt them, and he's coming back and he might do it again.
That really would explain 100% of everything you observe.
That one frame wouldn't leave anything.
They do act exactly like he hurt them, and he might do it again.
I don't know what they're thinking, but they sure look that way.
Well, so Kamala Harris gave her speech.
They made that same mistake they made once with Biden, where they gave her a dark and foreboding background and put her in a dark suit.
So she looked professional.
She looked presidential, but evil at the same time.
I'm sure you can do a background that doesn't make you look evil.
It can be done.
I think I've seen Trump do it, for example.
You have some nice lighting, you got a nice light background, you know, you got a bunch of flags.
She did have flags, but then she had this weird dark, dark look that just looks sinister.
Big mistake on the design people, I would say.
Um, but the only thing I learned from that is that Harris can still read because she didn't talk about policies, which Trump was mocking her for.
She talked about her childhood.
Don't care too much.
And then she told a bunch of obvious lies and the things that would get, uh, Republicans killed and divide the country that, uh, she said Trump will set free violent extremists.
I don't think there's any chance of that, do you?
He said he would pardon the January 6th people, but do you really think he's going to pardon anybody who is violent?
I doubt it.
I would think that that would be an exception to his pardons.
She said that Trump was going to jail journalists and political opponents.
Well, did he ever say that?
Has Trump ever said that he would jail journalists and political opponents?
I've never heard that.
Have you?
Now, the question of whether he should, I think, is in the ballpark of nobody's above the law.
I mean, they've lawfared him beyond any reasonable level.
And if he decides to lawfare them back, I wouldn't be terribly in favor of it, because they think it would, you know, tear the country apart.
But he certainly has a right to do it, provided that they have done real crimes and it's obvious, right?
If they haven't done real crimes, well, no, I don't want to lawfare anybody for bullshit.
That's what they did to him.
It's what they did to some of us, you know, in a way.
So she threw up all the hoaxes, looked pure evil to me.
I gotta say that whenever I see Trump demonized this way, as someone who would jail journalists and political opponents and set free violent extremists, it feels personal.
Meaning that she's really painting half of the country, or I don't know, 40%, of the country as supporting this person.
Which sort of would make you that person too, if it were true.
I mean, I regard these as simply not true.
But if you want to know how I take it, I take it as you're attacking me.
I don't know.
Do Democrats get that feeling when Trump talks?
Does it feel like Trump is attacking them as humans?
Now, I know that they don't like, you know, particular policies, but does he say things that make you think he wants you to be dead?
Because when I read this, I think, do you want me to be dead?
Would you think you'd be better off if I support Trump and you think Trump's so dangerous?
Wouldn't you be better off if I were dead?
So, I mean, to me, that's really dangerous rhetoric.
And it gets worse.
We'll talk about Nancy Pelosi in a second.
Anyway, to me, the weirdest attack is that Trump is in it for himself.
And it's the weirdest attack because it's the easiest one to debunk.
Now, Trump has never done that.
And I always wonder about that.
Here's the easiest debunk to Trump's only in it for himself.
And this is something that Trump is good at.
Is putting it in the form of a question.
If you put it in the form of a question, it's way more powerful debunk.
And here would be the question I would ask if I were Trump.
How could I possibly get anything that's good for me unless I do the best job for the country?
You know you're all watching, right?
You understand everybody's watching, everything a president does.
I only have one path to getting something that's good for me and the Trump family.
I've got to do the best possible job for the country in public and let you watch it.
Anything short of that is a failure for me personally.
If you think I'm this big old narcissist who's only in it for myself, that's fine with me.
Because the only way I can get anything that's good for my reputation or ego or family or even future income of the Trump family, the only way anything good happens for me Is if I absolutely nail it in giving the American people what they want and need and deserve.
So if you think there's some way I could benefit without you knowing it, and it would be somehow bad for you, did that happen in the first term?
Now, of course, people will say, but, but Jared, Jared, you know, went off and got a deal in Saudi Arabia, but he's not part of the administration.
And he's also not Trump.
Anyway, so I'm surprised he hasn't taken that one on straight on.
MSNBC's coverage was entertainingly ridiculous.
So Rachel Maddow looked at the camera and with great sincerity and emotion told her viewers this.
Quote, you will remember where you were.
She's talking about the Kamala Harris speech.
It was so powerful.
You will remember where you were.
The speech tonight from the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, really introducing herself to the nation.
You're going to remember where you were on this night.
This was an inflection point in history.
That's your news network, MSNBC.
It all looks like just mental health, just screaming for help.
Well, how good are Trump's policies?
Well, Trump's policies are so good that his opponents decided not to talk about policies when competing against him.
They literally have to make up policies that are not his to have something to bitch about.
What's the top thing in the country?
Economics.
Do they go after Trump on economics?
Well, good luck.
The country thinks that he's better on economics, so you don't do that.
How about the border?
Well, good luck.
Country thinks that Trump would be better on the border.
How about international relationships?
Good luck.
Country thinks that Trump would be better on that stuff.
So what do you have left?
You make up stuff.
Look, look at this 2025 book.
Project 2025.
These are all the things that Trump's going to do.
No, he isn't.
He already disavowed that book.
He had nothing to do with the creation of it.
He's going to round up, he's going to round up all the journalists who don't like him.
No, he's not.
Nobody would be in favor of that.
There's no Republican who would be okay with arresting journalists because they didn't say good things about Trump.
Nobody, literally nobody would be in favor of that.
No, that's not going to happen.
So if you have an entire convention that lasts days and nobody can mention a real policy of Trump, they only can make up something so they have something to bitch about.
That's a strong campaign.
I would love to be in the campaign that they can't talk about what you're really doing or have really done.
They can only talk about what you haven't done or won't do.
That's it.
Now let's be fair.
Does Trump do the same thing?
And mischaracterize the Harris policies.
He does it transparently.
So Trump will say something like, she was in favor of this.
He'll acknowledge that her current view might be different, but it's a sign of her character.
Now that's not what we're seeing from Harris.
We're seeing that he's going to do these things.
Trump says, you know, it's something you know about the character, and she would probably bring these sensibilities into the office.
And that's actually a fair thing to say.
Because if you say we know what somebody's past opinions are, and it's not that far in the past, it's reasonable to assume that they would bring that same mindset into the job.
What Harris does is say the opposite of what Trump plans to do.
So Trump will say, I am not for a national ban on abortion at the federal level.
What they say is he's totally in favor of a national ban.
Well, that's the opposite of what he said.
He's not going to change his mind on that.
Anyway.
I saw a user named Tandy on X. He said, the only thing I can gather from this convention Is that somehow they managed to sell the idea that they're running against the people in office, who are also the speakers at the convention.
That's true.
If you want to know how deep the brainwashing is, the Democrats ran against themselves, saying that, you know, the things that they've been doing hadn't been working, so you have to do it some other way.
And then they brought on, brought as speakers, the people who are the very people who hadn't been getting it done.
And I thought, wow, you can really brainwash the public to believe absolutely anything.
So it does seem to me that Harris is running against herself.
And that's the weirdest thing I've ever seen.
And even Trump said, he joked about how she's had three and a half years to fix this stuff, so she's running against herself.
She is.
Let's see, how did the political consultants, who we don't trust one bit because they're all in the bag for one candidate or another.
Let's see, Jonathan Chait, a well-known political writer.
Said, quote, Kamala Harris gave the best acceptance speech I've ever seen.
Well, that does raise the question of how many he's ever seen.
Maybe it's the first one.
But did anybody watch her speech and say, that's the best speech I've ever seen?
She never even talked about her policies.
And all she did was lie in really easily checkable ways.
And that was the best acceptance speech I have ever seen.
Well, there's this weird little, uh, weird little event that happened at the DNC that's getting a lot of play on social media.
And I don't know how to analyze this, but I'll tell you what people are saying.
So there's a video of the Walsh family walking onto stage to, you know, accept the applause or whatever.
And there's four of them holding hands.
So there's two children and the parents, and there's a point where, Walt seems to take his son's hand and sort of yank him almost angrily.
Now, it's a very hard-to-spot thing.
If you were watching it live, you probably wouldn't have noticed.
But on video, you can see it a little more dramatically.
So maybe it looked completely different live.
But it's hard to explain, because when you see it, you say, why did he do that?
Cause it didn't look like the son was not walking in the right direction.
I mean, they were holding hands, but he gave him like the yank almost like a little, it almost looked angry, but there was nothing to be angry about that we could see.
Now it needs to be said that his son, I don't know what the right words are, but special needs.
Would that be the right phrase?
So the son has some, um, some mental health problems, I guess.
And when you add that to the fact that it looked like his father angrily gave him a yank in his hand, I'm not sure that that's what happened, by the way.
So I think I'm going to be, um, I'll talk about it as a story.
But I think I'm going to maybe surprise you a little bit, and I'm going to back the parent on this.
So there's plenty of stuff for not liking Tim Walz, like politically, if you don't like his politics, there's plenty to work with.
So you don't need to dig too deep to find reasons to not support him as a future vice president.
But since we can't We can't know their relationship.
We can't read his mind.
I will tell you that the son did not react in any way that looked like it was a problem.
He didn't react to it at all.
So I feel like maybe it's a little creepy to get in, you know, to insert ourselves into that relationship.
Whatever Tim Walz has done to raise two kids, that's not going to be my point of criticism.
We don't know his situation.
We don't know the son's thinking.
The son is clearly very much in favor of his father.
I mean, he was crying with tears as his father was accepting the nomination.
So the kid himself looks like a really sweet kid.
And I don't think that he was any of the worst for whatever happened.
And it could be that it may have been as simple as dad was getting his attention for something.
You know, just make sure he kept him in the game.
So it might be the video makes it look worse than it is.
I will.
I'm going to give you two opinions that seem like they're contradictory, but maybe not.
When you see it on video, it's disturbing.
So don't get me wrong.
I found it disturbing, but there's too much we don't know.
And so to, you know, complete the story in our heads, that's a little too far from me.
Just, we just don't know what that was about.
But it raises a flag.
If you said, raises a little flag, I got to agree with you on that.
But I won't go so far as to say that, you know, therefore he's beating his children or something like that.
There's no evidence of that.
All right.
Let's see, MSNBC's Joy Reid was talking about the, quote, men of the Democratic Party.
And she said they were portraying something that she called 21st century masculinity.
And some of the other MSNBC hosts were talking about it.
And the idea is that they're defining what a real man is.
So a real man is not Dana White with his muscles and his success and his confidence and his swagger.
Who needs that, right?
They're saying that a real man is somebody who can support a woman to be their leader.
So a real man is somebody who takes a secondary position to a strong woman, in this case.
And all of those supportive, caring, empathetic things that women do, a real man It's going to be strong, but also have these other characteristics.
Here's my take on that.
It ain't a man if you have to explain it.
Should I go on or is that enough?
If you have to explain it, it's not a fucking man.
The most obvious statement of what a man is, is you can tell when you look at it.
If a woman has to explain to you that that's a real man, I'm sorry, that process doesn't work.
How about when I see Trump take a bullet and get back up and yell, I say to myself, that's a man.
Did anybody need to explain that to me?
Nobody needed to explain it.
No, there was.
Now, I'm not saying that everything that the, quote, real men do is acceptable and legal and appropriate.
Not at all.
But I never wonder who the real men are.
If you need to explain it to me and make an intellectual argument for who the real men are, well, that's sort of a tell.
Here's what Nancy Pelosi said.
I'm roughly paraphrasing her.
She said that Trump is a threat to the democracy, threat to freedom, and she likened it to a Thomas Paine and Lincoln situation.
And I said to myself, Thomas Paine, wasn't he the guy who said, We need to pick up arms against our oppressors?
In effect, you know, during the Revolutionary War.
Lincoln.
Lincoln.
Interesting choice.
Wasn't Lincoln the president who was shot because he wasn't popular for, everywhere, for freeing the slaves?
Is Nancy Pelosi giving the public permission to kill this guy?
That's what it looks like to me.
To me, this looks like how you activate somebody like a Thomas Crooks.
Somebody who's maybe not the greatest at understanding the world, but can be weaponized by being told that if they would just do this one horrible thing, you know, shoot Lincoln at the Ford Theater, you'll be maybe hailed as a hero.
To me, this is encouraging violence at a level where I ask myself, where's the guideline on that?
At what point is that literally just invoking violence?
I believe you can get kicked off of X if you encourage violence, am I wrong?
That would be one of the things that free speech has a somewhat acceptable limit to it.
If you encourage violence, you get kicked off the platform.
Which is why I tell you as often as possible, I am against violence in every context.
Sometimes you can observe it, and sometimes you just know that it was inevitable.
But you can't encourage it.
My interpretation of her comments are that she walked right up to the line of encouraging The worst kind of violence against a political leader.
Well, I guess they're all bad, but one kind affects the whole country.
So if I had to judge Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris on their ethics, it would be the lowest grade.
There isn't a grade below this unless you're actually murdering people yourself.
But getting right up to this line and knowing you're doing it, this is obviously very intentional, That's the most disrespectful, disgusting, unethical, immoral thing you'll ever see.
Now, let's check ourselves.
Does Trump do this?
If Trump does it too, then I'm going to say to myself, oh, now Trump does talk about illegal immigrants in a way that makes you say, hmm, is this going to cause people to, you know, do violence against illegal immigrants?
Has it yet?
I'm not familiar with any story in which an American citizen did some violence to an immigrant because it was an immigrant.
Or because Trump said something.
I've never seen it.
So, it does seem that what Trump does is talk about something we can all observe.
We can observe that people are coming across the border, We can observe that some number of them murder.
So when he talks about that, is that encouraging violence or is it encouraging us to defend ourselves from violence?
So I think Trump is still in the clearly acceptable range of discussion.
I don't think Nancy Pelosi is.
And I don't think Kamala Harris is, when they talk about stealing your freedom and stuff and, you know, being an insurrectionist.
You know, some of it is just normal political talk.
If a candidate says, oh, they're taking away your freedom, that alone isn't going to cause violence because it just sounds like political talk.
But if you pair that with Well, he did try to take over the country once, and he's this unstable, crazy narcissist, he's a psychopath, doesn't care about anything but himself.
If you start adding it all together, he sounds like somebody who's literally really dangerous in the real world.
Which he's not, as far as I can tell.
So, that's that.
Alright, RFK Jr., I believe I heard that Trump has a secret guest today at his rally.
And we heard that RFK Jr.
has pulled out of Arizona from the presidential race, which you wouldn't do if you were planning to stay in.
So the rumors seem to be pretty strong and consistent, and we don't see any denials when there's plenty of time to deny.
For example, Nicole Shanahan has not made it a denial, and it looks like something's going to happen.
Now, I'm going to stop short of saying that the rumors are true.
So the rumors are that RFK Jr.
is going to endorse Trump and in return would get some role in the government.
I think it's going to be less than that.
I'm not saying those things won't happen, but I think by today's rally it might not be as strong as that.
It might be a little circumspect.
So it could be, for example, I'm just speculating now.
It could be that RFK Jr.
doesn't want to do an unambiguous, complete endorsement of Trump, because that might be too far.
I mean, the reason he was running against Trump and against Biden at the time was because he thought the two candidates didn't have the goods.
If he had from the very beginning thought everything Trump was doing was the good stuff, he wouldn't have run.
So here's what would make me feel like honesty had happened.
Because I'll tell you, the one thing that I most appreciate about Kennedy and Shanahan, I don't think they lied about the other team.
Can you give me any example?
Have either of them at any time said something about the other candidates that you said, well, that's just a lie.
That's not true.
You just made up something so you can complain about it.
I don't think I saw it once.
Did any of you see that?
Did any of you see anybody in the Kennedy-Shanahan campaign say anything that was an insult to any American or something that was a clear political lie?
Now, you have seen things where people interviewed Kennedy and accused him of lying in the past about vaccinations and stuff, and then he gives his explanation and you can check for yourself, but I haven't seen him get caught in an actual lie.
I've seen, you know, things interpreted that he said that he had to clarify, etc.
But it's very unusual to have somebody, well, two candidates, that are that completely honest about what they want to do and what the other people want to do.
So here's where RFK Jr.
could find a honest middle ground.
It's not going to look honest if it's a unambiguous endorsement of Trump.
I wouldn't buy it, honestly.
I wouldn't buy it.
It would look like, hmm, that looks like a guy who wants a job or something.
I mean, it just wouldn't sell.
Here's what I think he can say.
President Trump and I do not agree on everything, but the Democratic Party Has turned into a monstrosity.
And the president's approach to border control and some other issues, which I consider the important ones, are far stronger than the other campaign.
And the Democrats have just completely fallen apart, and you just can't support that anymore.
Now that would be completely honest.
We don't agree on every policy.
But there are some big, big things in which Trump gets it right, and the other side just can't be supported with what they're doing.
It's just too dishonest, etc.
Now, I don't think that anything will happen in terms of a promise of a role in the administration, unless it's something general like, you know, I hope you could work in my administration.
Well, you know, maybe we can find a way to be productive.
You know, so it's going to be some generalities about that.
Um, but I hope, I hope that Kennedy is completely transparent about this not being an embrace of all things MAGA.
And then I think, then I think he's a hero.
So he's already a hero.
And in my mind, you know, the important place, all the important things happen in my mind, not in the real world.
But in my mind, Kennedy and Shanahan are heroes, because they did make this chronic illness medical situation a top conversation.
And if endorsing Trump can make it an even higher priority, that's hero stuff.
That's hero stuff.
That's even better than President, in my opinion.
If he could pull that off, It would be one of the greatest feats in productive American history, you know, where you're moving stuff in the right direction.
And he got there without lying.
Amazing, really.
So what else has happened?
Trump says he didn't want any intelligence briefings, which he could get as a candidate if he wanted, because he's worried that he would get a briefing about some secret stuff, And then the secret stuff briefing people would leak it, and then everybody would think that Trump leaked it.
Because they'd blame him.
So they'd tell him something, they'd leak it, and then they'd blame him for being the leak.
So Trump says that's what he's worried about.
Is that a realistic worry?
That any briefings would be a setup to say that he leaked it?
I think so.
I think that is an actual legitimate worry.
Now, I don't know If that's the reason he doesn't get them.
He might think that they're fake.
For example, the intelligence people, some of them, have said out loud that they don't think they can trust him with the real intelligence, and that they would give him, like, intelligence light, you know, the stuff without the good stuff.
If he knew that the only intelligence that they were going to give him was the obvious bullshit stuff, and that they weren't going to tell him anything good, Unless it was a setup.
Yeah, there was no reason to be briefed.
You know, every time Trump shows you a new version of reality, you say to yourself, why didn't I see that on my own?
Here's the version of reality.
Remember you used to think that watching the news was useful?
It's not.
It's all lies.
Remember you when he thought science was honest and if the scientists agreed that pretty much guaranteed it was true?
Nope.
No.
Scientists agreeing doesn't mean anything.
What about, you know, so basically the news is fake, the data is fake, the scientists are fake, and now Trump is telling you that intelligence briefings are fake.
If I'd heard this 15 years ago, I would say that's ridiculous.
That's ridiculous.
But now I think, oh, obviously they're fake, because they don't want to tell them the good stuff.
So of course they're not going to.
They said it.
I mean, you know, some of the top intelligence people have said it out loud.
We'd be afraid to give them the good stuff.
I think Brennan said that.
So yes, Trump would get nothing he didn't already know.
Because they would leave out the good stuff and it would just be a trap for them to say that he's a leaker.
So he's completely right.
Not so much that the leak part is the important part, but that the briefings would have no value.
What's he going to do with that?
Is he going to change his policies because he heard a secret thing?
Probably not.
What's the point of it?
So every time you think something's important, and then you find out, I thought my whole life this was important.
And then you find out it's not, it's just a mind, it's just a mind spinner.
My mind is still spinning about the fact that it's true that national security briefings for the guy who's likely to be the next president wouldn't have any value.
Like that's hard for me to get my head around, but I do believe that in this specific case, I believe it.
Meanwhile, the Georgia State Election Board They passed this new measure for the elections that the number of voters casting ballots must match the number of ballots counted.
What is the story?
Is the story that the new procedure is that the number of voters has to equal the number of votes?
Or is the story that it wasn't true before?
Apparently, The number of voters didn't need to match the number of votes.
How about that?
So there's your most secure election in American history, where the number of voters didn't need to match the number of votes.
Until now.
Now here's my second question.
Was this only an issue in Georgia?
Was Georgia the only place where the number of voters didn't have to match the number of votes?
Let me tell you as clearly as possible.
If the filter you put on our election system, in terms of how fair and unrigged they are, if the filter you put on it was, the experts told me it was completely secure, Oh, you're so lost.
You're so lost.
How about taking it up a level?
All the experts agreed that the elections are too hard to rig.
It's very fair.
That doesn't mean anything.
All the experts agreed.
All the experts didn't check the machines.
All the experts can't even describe the system in every state.
How would the experts know if somebody hacked into it and was so good at it they could get away with it?
What expert would know that?
Here's the filter you should put on it.
Not the experts said is true.
Put the Dilber filter on it.
So you know what the Dilber comic is.
It's about mass incompetence being normal, not the exception.
So that's the Dilber filter.
Mass incompetence is universal and normal.
It's just that big companies are good at hiding it from their customers because the customer might just see the product.
So if you apply that to the Secret Service guarding the President, suddenly everything makes sense.
Now, there is a question of whether they were extra incompetent intentionally.
That's still an open question.
But incompetence can explain just about everything you see in the news.
And when I look at the elections, you've got 50 plus different entities handling elections.
You've got hundreds of people, maybe thousands, involved in every state.
They don't do the job every day as like paid employees or a lot of volunteers, so they have to be retrained every time.
The process for the election itself changes every year.
For example, this New Georgia procedure is new, so you'd have to train people on that.
And I could go on and on about the complexity and the number of people involved, but when you have this level of complexity, you have that number of people involved, They're not the permanent employees, they just come in as needed for an election, most of them.
Every part of that screams that there isn't the slightest chance that we even know what's going on in the election.
It's the same filter I put on climate change.
Yep, there are all these thermometers around the world, and we've got all these crack employees in different parts of the world checking those thermometers.
No, there's no situation in human history in which you can make that work.
That being a big complicated thing where you got different technology in different places and the environment's changing and the heat islands are moving and they're all different countries and different languages and they're checking these thermometers.
All about half the time they don't even check.
Do you think every single time, in some other country, the person goes through the jungle and then writes down correctly, you know, the numbers from the machine?
The thermometer?
Or sometimes do they say, ah, it's probably the same as last year.
I'll just bump it up a point one.
And then you get paid the same?
Whether you looked at it or just said you looked at it?
Now, maybe there's some logs where they would get caught if they did that.
But who checks the logs?
So my point is, whenever you see any system that's vast and has lots of people involved, it's always a mess.
With those of you who have experience in large organizations of any kind, can you confirm this for maybe the other people who don't have this experience?
If you've worked in any big entity, would you confirm that they're all just a disaster if you know what's happening behind the curtain?
They're all a disaster.
It's just that over time, some of these disasters can produce an iPhone.
And then you say, wow, industry is awesome.
All right.
So Kamala Harris is trying to be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but apparently she can pull that off because her customers don't care about anything except not having Trump in office.
I think we should stop pretending that anybody is influenced by the policies except a handful of independents.
But people who would go to the DNC or even watch the DNC, They don't care what the policies are.
They just want less Trump.
That's all they need.
So yeah, Harris is pulling off the, I'm for both sides.
Okay.
So who's going to get the boost from the DNC?
So you'd suspect the Democrats would get a little boost, but it's working the other way.
The polls might show a boost, because I think most of the polls are rigged at this point with oversampling the Democrats.
But the betting markets turned negative on her.
So when she should have been getting a boost, the people who had actual money to put on it They said, I think we trust her a little bit less by the end of this.
So that's a pretty expensive event to put on to reduce your credibility.
Anyway.
No, the Daily Wire says the betting sites, two betting sites, have moved in Trump's direction.
They think part of it could be that revision of the jobs thing, 818,000 jobs revised, which means that the Bidenomics wasn't working nearly as well as they've been claiming, and now we know.
And the other part might be the Kennedy alleged potential endorsement.
So the betting markets might be ahead of reality there.
All right, there's a The article on Psi Post, as in P-S-I-S-I, that Democrats rarely have Republicans as romantic partners and vice versa.
Did you know that having a mixed marriage where you got a Democrat and a Republican remarried, only 8% of marriages, they disagree on politics?
Now, I would say that makes sense, especially in our current situation.
But I would love to know if the marriage where the 8% of the people, I wonder if they have better results of staying married or worse.
You know, if the 8% who do get married and one's a Democrat, one's a Republican, if they can stay married longer, maybe we learn something.
But if they get divorced Much faster.
Maybe we've learned something else.
I'd love to know that.
That'd be the stat I'd like to see.
But we are not surprised that the country is so divided that we can't reproduce.
That's right.
The country is so divided that we've lost the ability to reproduce at replacement level.
And I think this is a big part of it.
You know, it used to be that if somebody was, you know, mildly leaning in the other direction on politics, you wouldn't even care that much.
You just wouldn't even party.
You know, if they didn't watch TV and, you know, go to events, they just sort of mildly had an opinion.
Maybe even would vote differently than you.
That's not a big deal.
But today everybody's an activist.
Everybody either has to love Trump or hate him and he's the devil.
You can't really have that in your house.
You can't have that kind of disagreement in your house.
All right, here's an update on Hamas and Gaza and Israel.
This is from Saul Sadka on the X platform.
Seems to be pretty tapped into what's going on over there.
So here are the claims from Saul.
And I know he's smart.
I don't know too much about him, but he follows me on X. So obviously he's pretty smart, just like the rest of you who follow me.
Anyway, he says that in a longer post that I recommend you read, because it's really interesting, he says the Hamas are contained and almost totally defeated.
So there's as much containment as there is defeat, meaning that allegedly 17,000 of the Hamas enemies were killed already.
And at the cost of 330 Israeli soldiers who died, and they've got 5,000 prisoners of war, and they're taking out many more as they keep fighting.
But apparently now Israel has succeeded in creating what is called strategic corridors.
So it looks like they're putting Gaza into sort of a grid, not a symmetrical grid where it's, you know, boxes or anything like that.
But they're covering, they're basically breaking Gaza into parts, where if you wanted to get from one of those parts to the other, you'd have to go across some kind of strategic corridor, and that would be very dangerous because the IDF would control it.
Now, so that gives them the ability to stop, you know, weapons and resupply of at least weapons.
And it also isolates in one part of Gaza, they think even Sinwar is there, he's the head of the Hamas.
So they think the whatever's left of the leadership is in one little section that's now completely surrounded, and they can't resupply and they can't get out.
So that would suggest that Israel's plan of what they call total victory might be slow, but is now guaranteed.
Meaning that the only thing that could stop them from having 100% control over, you know, every body and whole in Gaza is that they're stopped before they get there.
But nothing would stop them unless the external situation stopped them.
So they now have complete control.
It's a whole different situation.
And by the way, this is what Israel said on day one, that the understanding of Gaza would be different.
You know, it's not going to be the same place.
So the whole conversation about a two-state solution, I don't see that happening, but it's not up to me.
So I'm not giving you an opinion, and I'm not giving you a preference.
I'm just observing like the rest of you, and I don't see any chance that it would be a two-stage solution.
To me, that just sounds like something that people have to say so that they don't look like they're monsters.
It's just something you say.
I used to think it was real, by the way.
Actually, at one point I was in favor of it.
But then I realized it doesn't matter what I'm in favor of.
At some point I realized, oh, I have nothing to do with that.
I'm just watching.
So you can predict, but what you're in favor of doesn't make any difference.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have.
I'm going to say bye to the YouTube and Rumble folks.
I'm going to talk to, privately, the people on Locals, if I can remember to hit the correct button this time.
And has anybody confirmed that we didn't stream on X?
