God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, RFK Jr., Nicole Shanahan, Kamala Harris, Anti-RFK Jr. Lawfare, Anti-RFK Jr. Gossip, Van Jones, Vivek Ramaswamy, David Plouffe, Democrat Party Media Ownership, DNC Hoax Usage, Governor Youngkin, Dead People Voter Suppression, Non-Citizen Voter Suppression, Governor Newsom Honest Reaction, Biden Admin Censorship, Jake Tappers Fake News, Harris Walz Bus Tour, J6 Insurrection Hunters, Hunting Republicans, Israel Hamas War, Old People Life Strategy, Pant-less US Navy, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
And I need to make a technological change right now because I've got a little problem.
Hold on.
This will require my last remaining piece of paper.
Bye.
Now I'm using this piece of paper to fix my iPad.
Because it turns out that there's two versions of me looking at me.
There's one on the iPad that's slightly delayed.
I'm using just for watching the comments.
And there's one version of me that's not delayed.
And boy, you can't look at two versions of yourself operating at a different time while you're doing something live.
It's impossible!
But I just put my last remaining piece of paper in my entire house because I was just looking for paper.
Couldn't find it.
But that's all boring to you.
You don't care.
What you care about is the Simultaneous Sip, which is gonna happen now!
And if you'd like to join in, all you need is a cup or mug or glass or tank or chalice.
Just tie in 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.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it's gonna happen right now.
Go!
Oh, so good.
Oh my goodness.
So, so good.
Well, it turns out that my house is out of printer paper, so I'm using my digital device to look at my notes, and it's just different.
We'll see what happens.
So I saw a news report that people are using Google Maps and blurring their house on the map so that burglars can't tell what their security system is and how easy it would be to climb over a fence and stuff like that.
And part of the story about people blurring their homes is that somebody from the Department of Justice, well actually the Department of Justice says there's less than or fewer than 1% of households ever experience a burglary.
Does that sound right to you?
In your experience, do only 1% of households experience a burglary?
Where the hell do you live?
I don't think I've ever lived anywhere that didn't get burgled.
1%?
Let's see.
Yeah, almost everything, I think everywhere I've lived, I've been burgled.
I think where I live now, I've had all the tools in my garage stolen.
When I lived in Dublin, all the tools in my garage were stolen.
People would, if I left by, let's say, when I lived in Danville, all of the tools in my garage were stolen.
I've lost all of my tools three times.
Yeah.
When I lived in San Francisco, I came home and my door was open already.
I'd been burgled.
And the neighborhood I'm in now, three of my neighbors that are within literally a stone's throw, well, one of them's two stone throws, three of them have been burgled in the last 18 months.
Bye.
There are bands of burglars that we actually observe casing our neighborhood, literally, because we have all kinds of good security and we're all connected by WhatsApp.
So, a common thing is, you know, we're being cased right now.
And you can look inside, you can actually see The automobile that's very clearly people casing your neighborhood.
So 1%?
I think they need to update that a little bit.
Of course we'll be talking about RFK Jr.
But just a couple of things before that.
So there's a company, I don't even know if this is real.
So here's something I just saw on social media.
And you can tell me if it's even real.
There's a company that's selling sunlight at night.
Now you hear that and you say, oh, they're making a light bulb that's like, sort of like the sun.
No, actually.
And again, I'm not sure this is real.
So somebody is going to have to tell me if I got taken by a hoax.
If I have been taken by a hoax, at least my only defense is, well, at least I was a little suspicious.
But the story is that there's a company that sells you an app Where you can direct sunlight at night to your location.
And the way you do it is through mirrors on satellites.
Does that sound true?
That you can, you know, basically it would be a network of mirrors.
So if the, if the sun is on the other side of the planet, the, the series of mirrors will redirect it exactly down to where you are.
Why is everybody saying the date is wrong?
Oh, I wrote the wrong date on the live stream.
Do you know what I did before I wrote the wrong date on the live stream?
I was talking to my pre-show people on live stream and I was telling them how I have trouble concentrating writing dates down.
And then after the... So that was the fifth time I had to write a date down.
That's part of my morning process because I publish the cartoons, etc.
So it was the fifth time I had to remember the correct date and write it down.
I got it wrong on the fifth time.
Yeah, when I tell people that I have a date-related mental problem all my life, this has been since childhood, people don't really believe it.
Because I've never heard of it before.
I've never heard of anybody who couldn't keep dates straight.
I just look at them and I can't write them down.
It's the damnedest thing.
Anyway, enough about me.
So I was thinking about this sunlight and night thing.
Imagine if you had a military operation.
Let's say you're the Ukrainians, and it's night, and there's an operation going on.
If you could just turn on the lights on just your enemy, imagine how that would mess them up.
Imagine being in a night fight, but you stay in the dark, but use your app to turn on basically the sun on your enemy.
I think they can do that now, if this is real.
All right, there's a article I just read that apparently there's a big study that there's a lot less alcohol being consumed by the young.
And their title of the article was that the young are being more sober curious.
So apparently the percentage of Gen Z's who drink is way down, college students way down, and the way the article seemed to frame it is that young people are less interested in alcohol.
Now, that's not exactly my experience.
It's true.
It's also my experience that young people seem less interested in alcohol, just from anecdotally, but Here's what's missing from the article, and I know many of you can confirm this.
I hear about three times a day from people who are definitely not in the young people category that they stop drinking.
Three a day.
Now it's because I say alcohol is poison and I'm listening to my own live stream audience, you know, who are being influenced by that messaging.
And so just within my small live stream audience, at least three people a day quit alcohol.
Forever.
I've never seen anything like this.
So there's definitely something happening, but it's not limited to young people.
There's something about the understanding of alcohol and how it influences your life that people are just saying no to.
And I don't know that there's anything behind it.
You know, I often say that I'm trying to figure out why it is that when I take a stand to try to persuade publicly on some issue, I feel like I always get my way.
And I've been influencing against alcohol for a number of years now, and sure enough, there's this major drop in alcohol.
Now, I wouldn't say that's because of me.
There's something else going on.
But it does say that I am good at picking winning topics.
So, if you had told me that anybody could make the rate of drinking go down in the United States, I would have been skeptical.
But apparently, I joined the right side.
I don't think I caused it.
All right, let's talk about RFK Jr.
I would like to start out by showing my complete respect and appreciation for the Kennedy-Shanahan team for what they've done.
For me, they have modeled the best American behavior as I want to see it.
Now, I think America has been going through an identity crisis lately.
Partly because of the division in the country.
That, you know, you feel like you're either a Republican or you're a Democrat, and the whole idea of being an American got kind of pushed back a little bit.
But then, out of nowhere, suddenly RFK Jr.
and Shanahan are showing us what America is supposed to be.
So here's my take of what they got right, which is a lot.
Number one, we watched as they personally sacrificed for the country.
Personally sacrificed.
You saw that RFK Jr.
literally couldn't get Secret Service protection.
You know that he is physically in danger.
You know that when Nicole Shanahan started this, she knew that she was going to take on a lot of grief from the people around her, from the rest of the world, and maybe the rest of her life.
And it was going to be super expensive, and she had a family that she needed to take care of at the same time that she was trying to help the country.
Personal sacrifice for the country, modeled in front of you.
Yes, thank you.
How about running an entire campaign that, as far as I can tell, involved no hate, no lies, no hoaxes, no division, no racism, or accusations of racism, no gender stuff, or accusations of gender stuff.
Just policies.
Just telling you what's important.
Telling you what they're going to do about it.
I've never seen it before.
Let's talk about the dog not barking.
These two just ran a presidential campaign in the United States for months and months and months.
No lies, no hoaxes, no hate, no stupid racism claims, no stupid gender claims, just policies and what's good for the country.
It didn't work out in terms of getting the most votes, but it's what I wanted to see.
Very American, in the best way.
They also fought against huge odds.
They took on a task which is bigger than just about any task you could think of.
Trying to change the priorities of the country to concentrate on our medical and food-related safety.
In my opinion, our biggest challenge.
And they actually convinced enough people that it was a big enough challenge that the entire mind of the country is starting to move in that direction.
And certainly with the team up with Trump, a much stronger case.
So when you see individuals trying to move the country on their own at great personal risk, you say to yourself, hey, one person can't change anything.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
One person, and in this case one person who got a really capable partner in Shanahan, changed the country.
Now I'm not just talking about election result, I'm talking about how we think.
They change our priorities and fix them.
Now not everybody, not right away, but you can feel, you can sense and feel the change.
One person, especially if they have a strong partner, can change the world.
It just happened right in front of you.
That's American.
It's American to say you can change the world and then go do it.
All right.
So that's just my appreciation and congratulations.
But let's talk about the politics.
I feel as though
Losing, you know, a prominent Kennedy, part of the most famous political families in the country, famous for being Democrats, and having him defect to be at least a, you know, united partner with Trump, not agreeing with him on policy, very clear on that, not agreeing on all the policy, but finding a way to work productively with Trump, it makes you wonder if this is the death rattle of the Democrat Party.
Because you know how things don't happen until they happen quickly?
I feel like there's something that maybe is happening on the Democrat side that looks like nothing so far, but, you know, once the crack forms, maybe it's something bigger.
Have you noticed this yet?
Remember the commercials that Apple used to run against IBM computers back when IBM made personal computers?
And the commercial was, Or at least the message was that lots of people will change from IBM computers to Apple, but almost nobody changes from Apple to IBM.
And that was one of those things that you hear and you go, well, you know, that can't be true.
And of course it's not 100% true, but it's kind of true.
It is a one-way trip when you move to Apple products.
It's really hard to get back because they just perform.
And so now we've seen Elon Musk, a lifelong Democrat, embrace the Trump team.
Again, not necessarily every policy, but that's not necessary.
We've seen Brett Weinstein, He's been making some noise on podcasts, etc., in which he's been a lifelong Democrat and says he doesn't recognize these Democrats because he became a Democrat because he didn't like the... He says the Democrats are now anti-democratic, pro-censorship, pro-foreign wars, and deeply corrupt.
And he says, that's not the Democrats I signed up for.
Now they lose Kennedy.
That's about as Democrat as you can get, and for reasons.
Not for crazy reasons, for really legitimate, transparent, public reasons.
Now, I've told you many times I'm registered as a Democrat, but I've been persuading on the side of Trump for now quite a few years.
I'm pro-Trump, I'm not Republican.
You all know that, right?
I think I've been transparent about that.
I've been a lifelong Democrat.
So my only votes have been for Democrats.
And, you know, I've been happy when Democrats got elected in the past.
I like Bill Clinton, for example.
I thought he was a solid president.
One of the best, frankly.
So I, too, am in the camp of people who are lifelong Democrat supporters.
I feel a little embarrassed about it, but it's true that I was.
And I did not become a Republican.
I didn't become a Republican.
I became a Trump supporter.
Do you know why?
Because Trump's not exactly a Republican.
He's a guy who says, why don't we do smart stuff?
And I said, what?
And then Trump said, of course I'm making this up, why don't we just do smart stuff?
Stuff that you know will work.
And I thought, you have my attention.
Say more.
You know, close the border.
Maybe cut the taxes on the corporate stuff.
I'm like, well, all of that makes sense.
You know, if you can, if you can cover your deficit, it makes sense.
Let's have fewer wars because there's no real reason for them.
What?
That makes sense.
So let me say very clearly, I'm not a Republican.
I just love Republicans.
I really like Republicans.
If I had a choice of who to hang out with, probably Republicans.
I like Republicans because they have a code of ethics and they stick to it.
I don't know what the Democrats are up to.
Honestly, you can't even characterize them.
If I tried to describe what Democrats are, I'd say, I'm not so sure.
If I were trying to describe Republicans in the past, before Trump, I would have said they're religious-oriented people who are also involved in politics.
So that's how I would have described the Republicans.
You know, sort of religion first.
And that, you know, that informs family ideas as well as politics.
But starting with religion and then filtering that through politics.
In the days of Trump, I don't see that.
I mean, there's still a healthy respect to the religious elements of the Republican Party.
And, you know, Trump respects that.
But he's not leading with that.
He's leading with, how about we do things that make sense?
How about things that everybody could look at and say, oh, that makes sense.
Like having border security, for example.
You know, just obvious stuff.
So how hard is it for me to be in support of something that just makes sense and is fully transparent?
It's easy.
It's easy.
It's not even political.
That's why I say that Trump doesn't even feel political to me, except that he's in a political process.
Anyway, so look for this pattern of there's a one-way trip.
Even people who are sort of rhinos, as you like to call them, you know, the people who aren't as Republican as you think they should, they're not joining the Democrats.
Right?
Is Mitt Romney going to become a Democrat?
Or support Harris?
No, I mean, he might, you know, write somebody in or skip voting for president this time.
Maybe.
You know, which is a different thing.
But he's not going to become a Democrat.
All right.
So.
I've got a question for you.
I was looking at this meme.
Somebody made an instant meme of Kennedy and Trump, you know, doing a dance to, I don't know, I forget the popular song.
But I looked at that thing and I thought, God, I love this meme.
Just watching Kennedy and Trump do this dance in an animated meme thing.
I was trying to figure out why.
Now, part of it is I like both personalities.
So it's two people I like, but I don't know that you could just take any two people I like and stick them together and having them dance and make me happy.
Like, what is it that's the deeper thing that's reaching me?
It's not about the people exactly.
There's something deeper going on.
And I don't know, but I'll give you some speculations.
How many of you are old enough to remember the Rat Pack?
Remember Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr.
and some of those other cool cats?
Dean Martin?
And even though they were, you know, heavy drinkers and womanizers and, you know, they certainly played fast and loose with the rules, they were so cool that you just sort of liked them even if they had bad behavior.
You ever notice that?
Somehow the Rat Pack Became cooler because of the things they'd had in their past.
You know, you wouldn't necessarily approve of everything they've done, but somehow they pull it off and they just look cool.
And there's something about that, that Kennedy and Trump both have, which is that even at their current ages, there's, there's a coolness that runs through them that somehow reaches me.
Now if you add Elon Musk to the party, and you add Vivek to the party, and you add J.D.
Vance to the party, you have this wonderfully diverse—in their own way they're diverse—diverse group of people who are all in the same fight.
And I've said before that the Trump movement always reminded me of a pirate ship.
The 2016 Trump supporters were just the weirdest group of non-regular political people.
Suddenly, if Mike Cernovich is on your ship, you're not exactly just a Navy ship.
Suddenly, you're a pirate ship, in a good way.
If I'm on the ship, I don't belong on that ship.
I'm a pirate.
I'm there to do some stuff.
So, I feel like it's some kind of a Rat Pack Pirate Ship thing, but I'm going to go a little bit more controversial.
It's unambiguously male.
It's unambiguously male.
And what I feel about the, you know, where the country is going is, I'm just to say it honestly, I don't want a woman in charge anymore.
Now when I say anymore, because I think women collectively have had, you know, a rising influence, and I think for a lot of good reasons.
A lot of good benefits, a lot of equality, all the right reasons.
So I'm not complaining about the rising power of women in America.
It's all good.
You know, get what you want, get more power, get more equality.
It's all good.
Unless your job is to keep me alive.
If your job is to keep me alive, I want men.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I want men.
Do you know why?
Because I know men.
I know how they act.
I know how men act at a deep biological level.
And here's what I'm going to tell you.
Trump is willing to take a bullet to fix the country.
Robert Kennedy is willing to take a bullet to fix the country.
Elon Musk has heavy security and he's willing to risk taking a bullet to save the country.
Vivek just had a tense conversation with Van Jones in the hallway, I think it was at the DNC, about Van Jones' rhetoric which caused a death threat against his wife and family.
Vivek is still in the game.
He's willing to take a fucking bullet to fix the country.
What's Harris willing to do?
Take a sip?
Seriously.
You've got a pirate ship full of the strongest people you've ever seen in your life who have very clearly sent you the message in reality.
This is reality.
Willing to take a fucking bullet.
Do you see that in Harris?
No, in Harris you see an opportunist who maybe was just pushed in front of a parade.
I don't give a fuck about the opportunist who was just pushed in front of a parade.
She doesn't look like she would take a bullet for me.
So, I won't take a bullet for her.
That's how it works.
Well, I probably would take a bullet for her.
It doesn't work both ways.
It's sort of built into being a man.
You're sort of raised that you're going to take a bullet for somebody.
So I'm going to be as sexist as I need to be.
Now, but I also allow that it would be easy to imagine a female candidate who would take a bullet, as demonstrated that, you know, courage and would be a perfectly acceptable president.
So I'm not going to rule out that you can't be a woman and be president because you can't do defense of the country.
You can.
I just don't see any of it in Harris.
And from her Democrat supporters, I don't see any of that energy.
I don't see any of the protect the country, take a bullet energy.
And sorry, my allergies killed me today.
So remember, all the smart people are telling us that policies, policies are being pushed aside in both cases, you could argue.
And that it's a vibe election?
I agree with that.
It's very much a vibe election.
Here's the vibe.
Harris is dangerous.
As I saw Brett Weinstein say in a podcast, that the Democrats look at the moment like an existential risk to the country.
I don't think that's an exaggeration.
I think they're an existential risk to the country.
Now, maybe I've been brainwashed.
Maybe.
But that's how I feel.
And remember, it's a viable action.
So how you feel about it is going to determine how you act.
So telling you how I feel, maybe I can't always defend it with a bunch of logic and policies, but it's how I feel.
I feel way, way safer if the people making the decisions about how I live or don't live are made by people who prefer freedom and are willing to die for it.
That means a lot to me.
All right.
So.
I think the joke I made online is that both Kennedy and Trump would be willing to take a bullet, but Kamala would be willing to let both of them take a bullet so she could be president.
That's a very different vibe.
So, as you know, the Democrats have been trying to lawfare both Trump and Kennedy.
Well, I wasn't aware until just recently, last few days, how much lawfare the Democrats had sent toward Kennedy.
And apparently, there were a few mega donors that were behind it.
Reid Hoffman, one of them, funding some of the lawsuits, and Ron Conway's Clear Choice PAC.
So they both sued to remove Kennedy from the ballot, and as some would say, denying some voters their option to vote for him.
Now, how much do you love the fact that Kennedy tried very much to work with the Democrats?
I mean, there's lots of reports where he reached out and was rebuffed.
And then they tried to sue him out of existence, and they forced him into a unity party with Trump.
This is very much an own goal on the Democrat side.
This is very much an own goal on the Reid Hoffman side.
They may have made the biggest mistake in the history of politics, because he was the wrong guy to fuck with.
That's why he's cool, too.
Trump is the wrong guy to fuck with, and I like it.
Kennedy's the wrong guy to fuck with, too, and I like it.
So we got that going on.
The big worry that I've seen others say online is that if it looks like the Kennedy, Trump, Elon Musk, Vivek, J.D.
Vance, etc.
team—I'm obviously leaving out a lot of strong players, but you get the idea—if it looks like that team's on its way to victory, what would the Democrats and the bad guys do to stop it?
And I'm really worried that whatever plan C is, because they're already on to— their plan B of Kamala Harris might not be working out.
Too soon to say, but it might not.
What happens if they think they're going to lose?
How deep would the Democrats go in that case?
I think everything's on the table.
Let me give you an example.
The Daily Mail already has a story that RFK Jr.' 's Harvard classmate Says that RFK Jr.
was a coke dealer.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
I don't care what anybody used to be.
You can't make me care what somebody used to be.
I won't buy it.
Do you know what I used to be in college?
Not so good.
Do you know what most people were in college when they were college age?
Not so hot.
Yeah, not so ethical, maybe not as useful to society as they could have been.
I'm not going to vote for a college RFK.
I mean, I'm not voting for him, but you know what I mean.
No, no, I don't care what he used to be.
I also don't care that Kamala Harris, you know, may add some friends help her out.
I'm not voting for what she used to be.
I'm not voting for what Trump did in his past.
Or didn't do.
I mean, I don't believe half of it.
So, but you'll see the type of attacks just increase.
And by the way, the fact that RFK Jr.
has gone through what he's gone through, drug addiction, he's very transparent about it.
Can you believe that RFK Jr.
was literally Uh, addicted to pretty hard drugs, has admitted it completely, um, also admitted, you know, his, let's say, marital fidelity issues, basically completely transparent about all of his past flaws.
And to me, it made it all go away.
I definitely trust somebody who, who went through something, learned from it, turned into a different person.
I like that person.
I like it more than somebody who never experienced it.
So a lot of this stuff about Trump's past and Kennedy's past aren't really hurting at all.
Let's talk a little bit more.
I mentioned Vivek.
Ramaswamy and Van Jones had a little A little conversation in the hallway that got kind of tense, but maybe turned into something more understanding.
Because Vivek said very clearly, you said some things about, I guess Van Jones' comment was that even though Trump is a certain age, Vivek might be like a new Trump coming up and you might have You might have decades of Trumpism as expressed through a Vivek, and so Vivek would be dangerous.
And right after that, his family gets a death threat.
Okay, so Vivek is, you know, connecting the dots correctly, I think, and saying that Van Jones, your rhetoric basically put my family in danger.
Now here's what I loved about it.
I loved that Vivek was defending his family.
And he phrased it that way, and I do think that's the way he was thinking about it.
He was thinking about the effect on his wife in particular.
I don't know if the kids are paying attention, but his wife was quite distressed by, wouldn't you be?
A death threat, right?
Obviously, she's going to be distressed, correctly so.
And I like the fact that he defended his wife, and he didn't care who was listening.
Like, as soon as he saw Van Jones, he just went into, all right, I need you to do less of this.
Now, Van Jones, to his credit, after an initial, maybe brusque reaction, decided to listen to it.
And he simply listened.
To everything that Vivek said.
Now, I'm not going to defend anything that Van Jones did in this case.
He gets to do that himself.
But he did say that he would apologize to Vivek's wife.
He offered it.
It wasn't asked for, but he offered it.
Now, you know what I like about that?
That I don't think he offered to apologize to Vivek.
Now, maybe I missed that.
But the Van Jones was acknowledging that there's a, you know, an extended family risk here that's going on.
But, you know, maybe he feels that his comments were accurate, but that they had an effect on the family and he wanted to make sure that that was unintended.
So here's what I wonder.
Will that make a difference?
I'd love to, I'd love to say that I thought that people would see that the danger of the rhetoric was too high.
And that maybe they just sort of let that happen accidentally and nobody had specific intention to cause any danger, but maybe pull that back a little bit.
So again, Vivek shows his value to the country by very clearly and publicly saying, here's a line, you just cross that line.
And Van Jones listening to it.
Now what he does, we don't know, but he listened to it and the message was very clear.
And the two of them were helping the country draw a line.
Now, I hope it makes a difference.
But boy, I love to see two credible people.
Now, if you don't like Van Jones, it's because he's a partisan, I'm a partisan, we're all partisans, so I don't mind the partisan part.
But he seems like a real person.
Like, you know, a genuine person who wants what's good for the country and his own view of what that is.
Well, Walser General points out that both candidates are a bit light on policy details.
I would say that's true.
Trump has a number of things he wants to do that he doesn't say how he's going to pay for it or pay for the debt or pay for any tax decreases or anything.
Totally true.
And so both of them are light on it.
But everybody seems to be understanding that policy isn't driving the ship.
It's not really a policy election.
It's a vibe.
All right.
Even Smirconish on CNN said that if the contests were about policy, Trump would win.
Or probably wins.
Now that would be based on our observation, we all have the same observation, that Trump is way ahead in the polls on the top three or so topics.
So that would suggest he would win, especially if he's ahead on the economy, which he is, and the border, which he is.
But it looks like it's going to be about personality and vibe.
Now, if you want to be impressed, At the quality of the persuasion coming out of the Democrats.
And I'm trying to be, to separate the skill level, which is looking really strong on the Democrats, from whether I like where they're persuading to be.
I don't like what they're persuading.
And I don't like their candidate.
But my God, they're good.
My God, I've never seen this since Obama, really.
Now, why is it that I haven't seen them this good?
And I'll talk about what I mean by that.
It's because I think they have the same guy.
So this guy, David Plouffe, he appears to be the main character behind the Harris campaign at the moment.
And he was an Obama guy.
So it looks like maybe some of the Obama magic comes from, or learned from, or picked up from, maybe he was the instigator, maybe he just learned it, I don't know.
But the strongest persuasion game we'd seen until Trump was Obama.
And it looks like his persuasion wizard is what's behind what we're watching.
Now, how good is he?
Let me give you an example of how good he is.
Do you remember the videos in which Kamala Harris said that young people are stupid?
And she makes it a punchline, so she really pushes the stupid part.
She says, young people want this or that.
And then she says, you know what young people are?
They're stupid.
Now she's completely right about that.
I'm not going to argue with the point.
Yes, every one of us is smarter than we were when we were in college or that age, right?
We're all smarter than we were at 18 if you're older than 18.
If you're 19, you're smarter than you when you were 18, right?
So it's not really an insult to young people to say young people are stupid because the young people are being compared to their own, to themselves.
You know, if I say a 20 year old is stupid, I'm comparing them to themselves at age 50.
It's not even going to be close.
Everybody knows that.
So I agree with her that young people are stupid, but imagine that she said that out loud and laughed at it, and that she's zooming ahead in the persuasion of the young people because she has good memes on social media.
All it took was good TikTok memes and she got the young, after calling them stupid.
So she calls him stupid, and then without any policies whatsoever, she just makes some good memes and brings some joy, and then all the persuaders say that she's the one who can protect you from the evil of Trump.
And the next thing you know, she's winning.
She's winning hard the young people.
Boy, was she right about how fucking stupid they are.
They don't even know her policies.
If you stop a young person and ask them two questions about politics, they won't know anything.
It would be the rarest person who can even answer a basic question about either candidate.
They would only know the hoaxes.
So, how good a persuader do you need to be to get all the dumbest people on your side, even though they've been called the dumbest people by the person they're backing now?
You gotta be pretty good!
And apparently, it's pretty good.
Now, it helps that the entire media is in the bag for the Democrats.
Now, give me a fact check.
I saw somebody on social media, I didn't see every minute of Kennedy's speech, but did he say that the media is an organ of the Democrats?
And that the media and the Democrat Party are basically one?
I think he did say that, right?
And I saw a comment here on social media saying, do you think that the media will fact check Kennedy on his accusation that they are in league with the Democrats?
You think that would be pretty important, right?
Of course they would, right?
Because that's like one of the main big stories of the day is that a presidential candidate said that the news is working hand in glove with one party.
I can't think of a bigger story than that.
That's just such a big accusation.
So are you seeing all the news talking about that this morning?
No.
Do you know why you won't see that in the news?
Because the news is an organ of the Democrat Party.
If I hadn't brought that up before.
So, it's kind of amazing to watch it.
Now, how many young people would know what I just said?
That first of all, the media is essentially just the Democrat Party, and that it's a persuasion game and the policies aren't even part of the process.
How many young people could even just say that most obvious Clearly transparent, inarguable point.
None.
Basically none.
And they're sporting errors.
All right.
Now, did you wonder why there were so many hoaxes at the DNC?
That every speaker got up there and said, find people hoax, and the drinking bleach hoax, and one hoax, and the suckers and losers hoax.
Did it seem to you like, wait a minute, it's like the media isn't even fact-checking them?
And they weren't.
I don't think a single one of their hoaxes, except for the Project 2025, I think Daniel Dale did call that out as a hoax.
Do you know why that one was safe to call out as a hoax?
Because it's the only one That even when you know it's a hoax, if you're a Democrat, that doesn't make much difference.
Because if you say, well, okay, Trump is not the author of it, but it's all these Trump supporters are the author of it, well, it's just not that much difference if you're a Democrat.
If you're a Republican, you say, well, Trump's going to do his own thing, and he's not going to do that document, which is what I believe.
But if you're a Democrat, it's actually a pretty strong case That a whole bunch of Republicans that were very pro-Trump have some suggestions that you don't like.
You know, because you can imagine that could bleed over into the actual policy.
I don't think it will, but you can imagine it would.
So, that's the only one that gets fact-checked.
Because the fact-check doesn't move the dial at all.
Imagine if Daniel Dale had fact-checked the drinking bleach, the fine people, and the losers and suckers thing.
Imagine if he just said they weren't true.
It's like the main messages of the whole thing.
We'll see that.
The only one he'll debunk is the one that doesn't matter if it's debunked or not, because the Democrats will feel the same about it if it's technically debunked, because it's just technically debunked.
It's basically directionally true, they would say.
So the fact check is fake.
But on top of that, once you know that this David Plouffe guy is the wizard behind the throne, it feels reasonable to assume that it's intentional that they're pushing extra hoaxes.
Why would they do that?
Why would the Democrats go really heavy on the hoaxes?
It's because Harris can't compete on policy, even smirconish.
I won't say even Smirconish.
I always give Smirconish the benefit of being an independent mind, even though he works for CNN sometimes.
He does seem independent, so I'm going to give him full respect for that.
It's exactly what it looks like.
The Democrats have decided they can keep the Republicans busy debunking things, and then they won't be talking about policy.
And if you could make people think about the hoaxes, they're thinking less about policy.
So every hoax you see is like a UFO sighting diversion from policy, because Harris can't work on it.
So just know that that's the play.
Now, is that ethical?
Of course not.
Is it moral?
Of course not.
Is it a really good effective strategy?
Yeah.
Yeah, it is.
Yep.
Frickin' David Bluth, he has the goods, right?
He has the goods, I hate to say it, but you should not be, don't feel comfortable about anything, no matter how, no matter even if the polls turn pro-Trump, do not get comfortable.
There is a persuasion wizard behind the scenes who is way more powerful than you think.
Anyway, Governor Youngkin in Virginia says his administration has removed about 80,000 dead voters from the state's voter rolls.
What?
80,000 dead people still on the voter rolls?
And more than 6,000 non-citizens.
What?
There were 6,000 people who could have gotten away with voting in the state they didn't live in?
This raises many questions.
Why does the governor waste his time fixing an election system that was flawless to begin with?
Governor Youngkin, couldn't you do something useful?
I'm pretty sure that the mainstream press, which is an organ of the Democrat Party, told me many, many, many times that these elections are so pristine and clean that there's no way anything could have gone wrong.
These were clean elections, my people.
So he's wasting his time getting rid of all these ineligible voters.
For what?
It was already perfect.
All right, well, but that was a one-off.
I mean, you know, a rare situation.
Let it go.
It's just a one-off.
Oh, maybe two-off.
The Ohio Secretary of State, they're going to prosecute I guess they had found that 597 non-citizens voted in Ohio.
So he's going to refer 597 people for possible prosecution.
138 non-citizens were found to have illegally cast ballots, while another 459 registered to vote but did not actually vote.
Why would you need to correct something that was already perfect?
Again, none of it makes sense.
I mean, I feel like I've seen maybe a dozen stories just this month of states that made major changes in their election process.
But why?
But why?
Oh, let me check the fake news.
Fake news, let's see, why would all these changes be necessary?
Uh, voter suppression.
Because the thing that those Republicans love, they love voter suppression.
One of the things they like to suppress is the votes of dead people, and the votes of people who don't live in that state, and the votes of people who are non-citizens.
That's called voter suppression, people.
Obviously, Trump is trying to steal your democracy.
I mean, you know, connect the dots!
I'll say it again in case you're slow.
Trump doesn't want non-citizens voting.
He doesn't want people who are from the wrong state voting.
He doesn't want dead people voting.
It's kind of racist against dead people and people who don't live in your state and non-citizens.
All right.
There's a video of Gavin Newsom and some podcast, must have been a friendly podcast, in which he was asked about the process for Kamala Harris, you know, being kind of quickly pushed to the top of the ticket.
And even Newsom mocked the openness of the system.
Gavin Newsom laughed out loud and mocked his own party For their lack of transparency and for basically a non-democratic process.
And then after he realized that he was being recorded, I think, I think that was just his honest reaction.
And you could imagine why.
I mean, if they'd had an actual contest to see who was going to be their new leader, Newsom had a really, really strong chance of being the candidate, which he would know.
And so even Newsom, He's looking like he's about five minutes away from registering as a Republican.
Now, I don't quite mean that.
Or do I?
You know what pushed R.F.K.
Jr.
over the line?
It was being denied the democratic process.
That's what took a Kennedy to join forces with a Republican.
A Kennedy!
Because his democratic process was stolen from him right in front of the world.
What happened to Newsom?
The democratic process was stolen from him right in front of the world.
If you tell me there's no chance he could become a Republican, you're wrong.
It would be wildly unlikely.
I'll give you that.
But you know what else he said recently?
Somebody asked him on a podcast, why was the homeless problem so bad in California?
Do you know what he said?
Because of our policies.
And he didn't misspeak.
He said, yeah, our policies.
That's what got us all the homeless.
What?
I mean, just think about that.
So Newsom gets totally nuked by his own party.
And then he throws his party under the bus by saying that their policies are what caused the problem.
Now, of course, it's in the context of changing the policies, so it'd be less problem.
But I don't know.
I think he sees what we see.
Maybe.
Maybe he'll become a supporter.
Who knows?
Highly unlikely.
All right.
Here's a new fun thing.
Apparently, Kennedy was suing the Biden administration over their censorship of him.
And there was some other case that had to be resolved in some way before his case could be looked at seriously.
I can't get into the legal details because I don't understand.
But the bottom line is that he has an active, still active case.
Quote, the court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed, likely to succeed, which is a requirement of a case going forward that there's some validity to it.
So the court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that suppression of content posted, in other words censorship, was caused by action of the government defendants, in other words that the Biden administration censored, and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future.
Wow.
So, on top of the fact that the evidence does suggest that it happened, you know, not in a court-proven way yet, but enough for something to go forward, but on top of that, the court acknowledges that there's nothing to stop them from doing it again and injuring Kennedy again.
What?
This is amazing.
That that's going to go forward.
Because think about just the disclosure that that would cause.
So, I'm not too interested in the ultimate, you know, outcome of the case.
What I'm very interested in is whether it changes the narrative as people understand it.
Because I don't think there's a single Democrat who knows that they were censoring things, except the ones who've already switched parties, like, you know, Bret Weinstein.
So, the ones who know that their party No longer approves of free speech, have probably already left the party.
Who's going to stay for that?
If you actually understood that your party was massively against free speech and had acted in huge, in huge ways, like just thousands, literally thousands, thousands of people associated with the government working on censoring speech, mostly on one side.
If you knew that, could you stay in that party?
I don't know how you could, unless you were blackmailed.
When Peter Thiel said on Joe Rogan's show that his feeling about how the country really runs is that the people with the most power All right.
Wait, I have to look at this joke.
mailable or nobody would let them have power in the first place.
That the real power wants to make sure that the politicians are blackmailable.
Short of that, they don't want them in office because they can't control them.
Is that an exaggeration?
I don't know. It might not be.
All right. Wait, I have to look at this joke.
I was applying for, somebody said I was applying for Australian citizenship and the interviewer asked, do you have a criminal record?
I said, no, is that still required?
Okay, that's funny.
Trying to get into Australia.
Well, here's the latest fake news from Jake Tapper.
So apparently Trump said, quote, recently Trump said, we had a border czar who was the border czar.
She loved the title, but she didn't want to do the work because she's lazy.
And probably more importantly than being lazy, she wants to have an open border.
And then Jake Tapper had Susan Rice on and he said that it was a racist trope about African-Americans that they're lazy.
Is it?
When I was a child in the 1960s, that was definitely a racist trope, that black people were lazy.
Is it today?
I would think it's not even close to a trope today.
Because what's the difference?
Between 60s and now, you got a black president, clearly a hard worker, You got Kobe Bryant famous for being like one of the hardest working athletes.
You got Michael Jordan, one of the hardest working athletes.
You got Oprah, one of the hardest working, you know, women you've ever seen.
You've got, um, I could go on all the athletes, all the musicians, Kanye.
Kanye, no matter what you say about him, he's a hard-working friggin guy.
Jay-Z, hard-working.
Beyonce, hard-working.
Except she was too lazy to go to the DNC.
No, I'm just joking.
She was never supposed to be there.
But I feel like Jake Tapper had to go back to the 60s to find something to bitch about Trump.
How about you don't go back to the 60s?
It's not a trope today.
I've never even heard it in 30 years.
Not a suggestion of it.
Nothing.
And here's what I would like to suggest for the millionth time.
How about we treat people like individuals?
Trump did.
When Trump calls somebody lazy, you know, I think it was a throwaway line he could have said about anybody, but I don't even think there's any slightest chance he had any racial, you know, subconscious or conscious thoughts about it.
I think it was purely a thing you say about somebody who was supposed to do a thing and they didn't do a thing.
You know, you just speculate why it was and let people figure it out themselves.
And nobody thinks that Kamala Harris is lazy.
It's just a political thing to say.
All right.
So, uh, let's stop, uh, Jake Tapper.
Maybe you should stop treating people like they're groups and averages and 60s tropes.
How about we treat each other like we're all individuals?
We're all individuals.
And by the way, if I had been the, if I had been the Borders are, and if I'd gotten as little done, now you could argue whether she was really a Borders are, but that's separate.
Um, and I've gotten as little done and somebody called me lazy.
I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't say it was racist.
I would say that, oh, that's something individually targeted at me because I didn't get this thing done.
So let's grow up a little bit.
Apparently Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are going to do some kind of a bus tour in Georgia.
A bus tour.
Do you think I'm going to let that go?
You think I'm just going to move on?
It's a bus tour.
Come on, I'm a professional humorist.
Is it a yellow bus?
Is it a yellow bus with Wi-Fi?
Because I want to see how excited Kamala is before she gets on the bus.
If it's a regular bus, I don't know how excited she'd be.
But we've seen how excited she gets about a yellow school bus that has Wi-Fi.
If I can do my impression of Kamala Harris seeing two different forms of transportation, it would go like this.
Miss Harris, here's your ride.
It's an Uber, it's a, or it's a, let's say it's not an Uber, let's say it's a limousine.
Here's your limousine. Thank you. No, no interest in that limousine. Now say, Miss Harris, your ride is here. It's a, it's a yellow school bus and you can charge your phone.
It's got wifi. What, what, what, what? It's got wifi. So Kamala Harris with a yellow school bus.
Awesome.
Bye.
So, yet another January 6-er.
By the way, if you're going to do jokes about the short bus, you have to do that without me.
I might laugh at them, but I find them inappropriate and not funny whatsoever.
All right.
So did you know That there's a group of people who are active.
I think they're not law enforcement, but maybe working with them.
They're hunting for the identities of January 6ers still, so that once they identify somebody who is there using their various mechanisms, then law enforcement can go pick them up.
And they're still picking up people from January 6.
And did you know that the group of people who are helping You know, identify the Republicans to be picked up.
Did you know what they're called?
They have a name for themselves, apparently.
So this isn't me calling them something, but they have an internal name.
They call themselves insurrection hunters.
Insurrection hunters.
Do you remember in 2020, I was mocked for saying that if Biden won, Republicans would be hunted?
And then I got mocked terribly?
Well, here we are.
They call themselves hunters, and they're literally hunting Republicans.
I was somebody, some fucking idiot who was important, I forget how, some notable public person came on board and mocked me for a prediction I made.
My prediction was that Kennedy, this was a year ago by the way, so a year ago I predicted on X that Kennedy was the one who would determine who won the election, because he could stay in the election if he liked how his impact was affecting it.
And if he didn't like that and wanted the other outcome, he could get out of the election.
So that's what he did.
So I was saying, you know, how did my prediction age?
And I got mocked by some stupid public figure, I can't remember his name, who said that my game, that I've got a grift, basically, that I make vague predictions and then I claim victory no matter what happens.
Was that a vague prediction?
In 2016, when I said that Trump would win, was that a vague prediction?
And I said he'd win because he's the most persuasive person alive?
Does anybody have any doubt about that?
That was pretty specific.
When the vaccinations were first announced and I predicted that they wouldn't work, was that a vague prediction?
That's pretty specific.
They won't work.
When I predicted that Fauci was lying about masks, we're independent from the question of whether they work or not.
I said he was lying because he wanted to save them for the professionals.
That's pretty specific.
Very specific.
And when I said that Republicans would be hunted, they're literally called insurrection hunters.
They're literally in jail.
Trump got shot.
I got cancelled.
Dozens of other Republicans got cancelled.
You don't think we got haunted?
I think that's pretty specific.
Anyway, so Ukraine has acknowledged using bombs the U.S.
provided inside Russia.
So some people say that's basically opening the door to World War III because Russia will not tolerate the U.S.
Weapons being used on their territory.
I could see why they would be so displeased But may I inject a little bit of optimism into the Ukraine situation?
Have you noticed that in in the real world?
Nothing gets fixed until it's the highest level of emergency Right when things are as bad as they could possibly be that's when people who get serious about fixing things until then Maybe not so serious.
Okay?
So, when I see that Ukraine is invading Russia, and that makes people think World War III is coming, and, you know, and Putin's getting, you know, maybe threatening more, it looks like it's like the end of the world.
But I would like to inject some optimism.
You ready for this?
Listen carefully.
It's always the darkest before the dawn.
That's right.
The situation, as dire as it is, is perfect for Trump to fix it.
Why is it perfect?
Because it's so bad.
If something is really, really, really bad—it looks like World War III is knocking on the door—suddenly, if somebody comes in and says, I can fix this, everybody listens.
But if it's not the end of the world, and it looks like maybe each side thinks they can get a little more advantage, it doesn't matter who's offering to fix it.
It would not matter who was offering to fix it if they both thought they could win some more by keeping it going.
At this point, I think it's really obvious that there's not any winning to be had on either side.
And they know it.
There's no winning to be had.
The intrusion into Russia is more of a negotiating situation to me.
I don't think it's as military as it is negotiating.
Create a little better situation so it doesn't look like Ukraine is doing nothing but losing.
But it has created a situation which is ideal for Donald Trump.
And so, it is always the darkest before the dawn.
Now, let me tell you another thing that Trump just did for the world.
Suppose you're Putin and you're thinking to yourself, oh my God, I've got to, you know, I've got to take this up a notch because Ukraine took it up a notch.
What do you think Putin is thinking when he knows that there's a real good chance that Trump is the one he can talk to in a few months?
If you're Putin, there is zero chance you're going to launch a nuclear war.
Do you know why?
Because you're pretty sure that if you just wait for dawn that you can get some kind of negotiated end that will not humiliate you and will not cripple you and will allow you maybe to have some kind of repair relationship in the future.
Trump has already made the odds of nuclear war basically zero.
There is no situation in which a rational player, and Putin, whether you like him or not, he's totally rational, no rational player would move nuclear between now and the time that Trump becomes the negotiator.
Nobody would.
It wouldn't make any sense.
How in the world could you possibly win under that condition?
There's no winning nuclear war, but If you just hold on the way things are for a few more months, you know you have somebody you can talk to.
So, let me say it again.
Between now and the time that we know who wins, there's no chance that Putin will go nuclear.
It just wouldn't make any sense at all.
Under any condition, it makes no sense.
Putin knows that.
Just wait.
Trump already made you safe.
That's real.
That is completely real.
I don't think Putin would have gone nuclear in any case, but I think the Trump possibility just makes there no chance at all he would think about it.
Well, there's a report that 90% of Gaza residents have been displaced.
Now, as you know, I don't like to take sides.
Obviously, it's a tragedy of immense proportions.
But my opinion doesn't have anything to do with what happens over there.
And I think that what happens over there is just who has the most power gets their way the most.
And that's all we're watching.
If the Palestinians had the most power, they would have already, you know, taken care of Israel in the worst possible way.
And at the moment, Israel has the most power, so they're, you know, kind of compensating for October 7th.
But here's the larger thing that I would like to point out.
You know, I always talk about half-pinions.
A half-pinion is only half of an opinion.
A half-pinion is, we need to spend a trillion dollars to fix climate change.
What's left out is, where are you going to get a trillion dollars?
Is it worth it to run up the debt another trillion?
So a half-pinion, Is when you look at either the costs or the benefits of something, but not both of them.
And of course it's fully irrational, because any decision should look at both the costs and the benefits.
And if your policy is only half of that, talking about the costs, or talking about only the benefits, that's a half pinion.
How dangerous is a half pinion?
Well, here's the best example you'll ever see.
The half-opinion of the Palestinians, as I understand it, I'll take a fact check if I'm wrong about this, is that they overwhelmingly backed the October 7th attack.
Does anybody have a fact check on that?
Now, I'm not sure that's true, but what I see every time I see interviews of actual Palestinians, they seem to be backing October 7th.
Am I wrong?
If I'm wrong, I'll change my opinion immediately, because I might be.
But everything I've seen suggests that the Palestinians were fully in favor of October 7th.
Do you know what that is?
That's a half-pinion.
The half-pinion is us, you know, them, attacking, or their people, the people they like, attacking Israel is half of the equation.
So they're really, really happy with the half.
The half that happened after that was 90% of Gaza residents being displaced.
And by the way, this would be a reasonable time to give some compliments to whoever is keeping those displaced people fed.
Because that's got to be a monstrously big job in the hardest possible conditions.
And although there were many risks of famine and starvation, I think the worst of it has been avoided.
So I don't, you know, I may be wrong, maybe there's more starvation going on, and of course it's tragic and it's a war zone and it's horrible.
So let me not, if you think I'm underplaying the tragedy of Gaza, I'm not.
It looks like the worst thing I've ever seen lately.
Which is not taking sides, I'm just, you know, describing it's a bad situation there.
So I think this is the danger of a half opinion.
You had an entire population who was convinced that if they do the half of it, that somehow they'd come out okay.
The other half is that Israel annihilates your entire country.
90% of it's already gone.
And the other 10% will go.
I mean, there's no chance it will ever be Gaza like it was.
It'll always be an Israeli-controlled entity of some kind.
So, half-pinions in America are just as dangerous.
And by the way, both Trump and Kamala Harris have plenty of half-pinions.
Trump wants to lower your taxes, but he hasn't told you how he's going to deal with the deficit.
That's the other part, right?
Now, I get that nobody likes higher taxes and, you know, if you can increase growth that might help, but it's not going to help enough to pay down the deficit.
I don't think anybody believes that.
So, beware the half pinions.
They will cause you to be 90% displaced from your home.
The Guardian publication had a headline I loved.
Never take health tips from the world's oldest people, say scientists.
Yes, you don't want to find out what the oldest people did and then copy them.
Because you so often find out, well, they ate candy every day and smoked 10 cigarettes.
And you'll be like, really?
Maybe I'll try that.
Well, it turns out that whatever it is that makes people live a long time, it might be luck.
It might be just genes.
And it turns out that if you have the right luck and the right genes, you can do a lot of things wrong and still live pretty to a long life.
So don't just look at old people to figure out what they did.
It's not going to tell you enough.
And then I'm going to close on my favorite story.
The U.S.
Navy has run out of pants. I feel like I don't need to talk about that.
It's just funny that the Navy ran out of pants.
Where do we begin?
If I were in some other branch of the military, which I'm not, I would be tempted to say, well, maybe they don't need pants as much.
You know what I mean?
But I wouldn't say that, because I respect all branches of the military.
But if I were in one of those disrespecting other branches who has fun with each other, I might say something like that.
But I'll tell you what it tells me.
It's like, we can't have our robot dogs fast enough.
Because you know what a robot dog doesn't need?
Pants.
Needs no pants.
So, although, and they don't pant either.
Oddly enough, because they're robots.
So our pants-less navy.
All right, that's just perfect.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is my prepared notes.
I'm going to go talk to the People on Locals, my subscribers there, they get a little extra because they're special.
And hope you enjoyed the show, and I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place, if you're on X or YouTube or Rumble.
