Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 27, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:17:03

Episode 2579 CWSA 08/28/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Civilization.
	It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
	It's going to be extra good today, I promise.
	And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even comprehend with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice or sty, and a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
	Go.
	Oh, I pity the beverage-less.
	Peace.
	Bye.
	Well, a little bit of science and a little bit of politics.
	Yeah, we'll get to the chainsaw whale head stories, you know, the important stuff.
	But first, there's a new study that says you can use brain stimulation to block traumatic memories.
	That's right.
	They'll find the place in your brain where your traumatic memories are stored and they'll zap it with some stimulant and whack it.
	So, uh, how does that work though?
	Hmm.
	I've got questions.
	I'm trying to reconcile.
	How could it be that you have free will, but that it's also true that if you stimulate the brain with electricity in a certain way, it can change how you think?
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	Seems like two things in conflict.
	I'd like to give you one factoid that you can research on your own.
	There's no such thing as a brain surgeon who believes in free will.
	I'm just gonna leave that there.
	That's your key to unlocking the next level of awareness.
	You gotta use the key yourself.
	I gave you the key.
	Now you have the key.
	That there's no brain surgeon who believes in free will.
	Now you have to do the rest.
	Well, there's a study, Science Direct is talking about it, that says a high High-carbohydrate diet, if you have a high ratio of carbs, it's associated with an increased risk of depression.
	Hmm.
	Eating a lot of carbs is associated with depression.
	Huh.
	Is there any way they could have saved some money on that study?
	Oh yeah, they could have asked Scott.
	Next time, Next time I could save you probably several weeks and maybe tens of thousands of dollars.
	You just have to ask me, Scott, what do depressed people do when they're depressed?
	Well, they probably eat because eating gives you a little boost.
	What do you think they eat?
	Well, probably something that boosts their mood pretty quickly.
	Like a steak?
	Well, I mean, they might like a steak, but what would really give you like a little, you know, like you got a little shot of heroin in your arm, but it's not heroin.
	A carb.
	A good carb will do that.
	One of the reasons I don't eat carbs is it's practically a cycle, you know, a hallucinogenic thing for me.
	If I ate just a bunch of carbs, I would just sit there in a coma after a while, but I'd be happier first.
	So does it make sense that if you eat carbs you'll be happy in the short run?
	Yes.
	Will eating a lot of carbs make you happy in the long run?
	Everybody knows the answer to that is no, because you're going to get heavy and it's not going to be good for your brain.
	So yeah, you could have skipped the science there.
	Just ask me.
	Yeah, eating ice cream makes me happy in the short run.
	How does it work in the long run?
	Not so good.
	Here's what I call ironic science.
	And we'll get to the politics in a minute.
	Ironic science, where the thing you didn't see coming.
	Turns out that you can use a giant bubble of CO2 to store renewable energy.
	According to Clean Technica.
	So apparently they have this way that they can compress CO2 And then decompress it and somehow they can store energy and then release it through the decompression.
	Now imagine if that becomes a real thing and that we're using excess CO2 to store electricity from green energy.
	Now I wouldn't bet very much that this will become a big thing, but how cool is it that what at least some people think is our biggest problem, the CO2, Could be our biggest solution.
	I have long wondered if we will have an industry where sucking CO2 out of the air and turning it into products, in this case a battery, is going to be a thing.
	So much so that people are sucking too much CO2 out of the atmosphere.
	I think there might be a point when humans are, just for their own economic reasons, they're sucking CO2 out of the air and turning it into stuff that they can sell.
	Could be a problem someday.
	Well, here's something cool.
	New Atlas is reporting that there's a new design, hasn't been tested yet.
	It's a startup called Deep Fission.
	And the idea is they would use regular nuclear energy technology, not the Generation 4, you know, not the new stuff, but rather the stuff that you would be afraid of if it melted down.
	But what they would do is they would drill this ginormous 30-inch hole, 30 inches wide, a mile deep, and they would put some kind of mechanism, nuclear mechanism, a mile into your hole, so to speak, and Somehow they would need no mechanical parts, just two pipes.
	I'm not sure how this works.
	They put some water into it and the water heats up.
	The pressure of the water is enough to keep things pressurized, so you don't need mechanical pressure.
	Just the weight of the water, because there's a mile of water.
	And then I guess the nuke cooks it up and then shoots it back up as, I don't know, hot water or steam or something.
	But the point is, you could actually have Nuclear power in a hole, and then if the thing melted down, you just close the hole.
	Because it would be below the water table.
	So it would never need to be, you know, continually cooled because it would be below the water table.
	And if anything went wrong, you just leave it there.
	Apparently you could just cover the hole and walk away.
	Now, will that ever become a thing?
	I don't know.
	But how cool would it be if it did?
	We'd just drill gigantic holes and put non-mechanical stuff in there, things that don't need to be revised too much because it's not mechanical, and just have all kinds of power.
	Well, remember that CEO of Telegram, the messaging app, got picked up in France?
	There's talk of, you know, he's got looking at 20 years of charges that look suspicious to all of us.
	The French are going to extend how long they're going to hold him.
	Let me tell you everything about this story that you need to know.
	You will never know what this story is about.
	I don't think there's the slightest chance that you and I will ever know what this guy was up to and who wanted him arrested.
	Or any of that.
	Probably the real story is something you've never even heard, right?
	It could be anything.
	So, here's the scary part.
	The Telegram CEO being picked up is more proof that any government, whether a democracy or not, can arrest you, make up a bunch of bullshit, and hold you forever.
	So if you think that, oh, it's a good thing I've got this justice system and all that, you really don't.
	We're at a point where the government can make up any story and hold you as long as they want.
	And, you know, this has the Tate brothers written all over it.
	Meaning, you know, maybe the Tate brothers did something that the law doesn't like, but I'm not sure that's why they were arrested.
	I feel like whatever the reason was, we'll never know.
	You know, it's some other deep, dark reason.
	We'll just never know.
	So to speculate on this story seems like a waste of time because we'd just be guessing.
	But the one thing that is the takeaway is that any government can arrest any person for any reason and just make up shit and keep them in jail forever.
	That's, I think that's guaranteed and evident and obvious at this point.
	So it's a scary world.
	Here's a story that shouldn't bother you a bit.
	Over 1 million ineligible voters were removed from the Texas voter logs.
	According to the governor, Abbott, And he was bragging about his election integrity efforts.
	So, thank goodness.
	Thank goodness, right?
	Imagine if there had been a million ineligible voters.
	A million.
	Now, that doesn't mean that they would all vote, but the speculation that some people have is that the ineligible voters, maybe they get a ballot or maybe somebody pretends to be them, but that in some way somebody is Voting those names without being them.
	That's not something you have to worry about, is it?
	I mean, we would obviously know, with our tight election security, you would know if a million people were gonna, you know, illegally vote, or even any big number.
	10,000.
	10,000 would move a lot of races.
	But you wouldn't know if 10,000 people had voted who were not legal voters, right?
	Because our elections are so secure.
	There's no way you wouldn't know that.
	Right?
	And there's no kraken that's ever been found.
	Am I wrong?
	Nobody ever found a kraken.
	So there's no reason to believe that large amounts of, you know, illegal voters are voting in the United States.
	That'd be crazy.
	Crazy people.
	Who believes that?
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Well, here's the next story.
	There's a claim that there are a thousand ways to commit election fraud.
	Elizabeth Nixon's writing about this.
	So there's an engineer and data scientist.
	By the way, I don't know the validity of anything that's going to be in the following story.
	I'm going to report that it's being reported.
	I can't tell you it's true.
	But here's the report.
	See if it would answer all of your remaining questions.
	Because it would mine.
	If this is true, and I don't know that it's true.
	I'm not selling it as true.
	I'm selling it as something that's reported.
	If it's true, it answers all of my questions.
	Now that's the first time that would have ever happened.
	Because I do say, if there were massive cheating, how in the world would we not know about it?
	How could you really get away with that?
	Well, here's a theory.
	I'm just going to read it to you.
	But again, I'm not telling you it's true.
	I'm just saying, well, I got a lot of questions now.
	So this engineer and data scientist, Kim Brooks, she was working on cleaning the voter rolls in Georgia.
	So isn't that great?
	We got all these volunteers who are helping, making sure the voter rolls do not include dead people, or people moved away, or people who are not, can't vote for one reason or another.
	So she cleaned it up and she'd clear a name, let's say there was a specific name, she'd clear it, either because they're dead or whatever, takes it off, and then she's pretty happy.
	It's off, it's off.
	But then It would be back within a month.
	What?
	She would remove it from the election log, meaning eligible to vote, and it would be gone.
	But then it would be back in a month.
	Huh.
	Now remember, I'm not claiming any of these reports are true.
	I'm claiming that there is a report.
	Huh, how could that happen?
	How could you take it off and then it would come back?
	And so it says, at that juncture, she realized that a program within the Georgia voter registration database was methodically adding back fake names.
	Hmm.
	So reportedly, again, I'm not saying this is true.
	I'm just saying it's reported.
	Reportedly, she looked deeper.
	For new registrants, the culprit was, principally, driver services, creating new registrations, and in this case, the manufacturer was a person or persons.
	In other words, there was a person doing it, using a program.
	Within the government office, someone was stealing names and duplicating, even tripling that person's vote, And then forging their signature.
	Sometimes it was someone who just died, or a teacher who had no voting record.
	In the case of a nurse who died in 2022, with three registrations.
	She was registered to vote in two counties, and all three of her voted in the 2022 election and the 2024 primary.
	Each signature was slightly different, and even spelled different.
	Even in the signature, they spelled their own name three different ways.
	Allegedly, and again, I'm not saying it's true.
	I'm just saying it's reported.
	The operation works under AVR, or Automatic Voter Registration, is being used to register migrants.
	They will not vote.
	But their names have been entered into the voter registration database when they apply for a driver's license and their vote will be voted for them.
	I imagine that this is repeating something everyone knows.
	So the allegation is that's why the border is open to get more of these non-voters illegally on the voter rolls.
	How many states do you think use this This system, this automatic voter registration system, in which one database would be populating the other database, and massively illegally if the claim is true.
	How many?
	Well, the claim is that in the year 2020, there are 20 states who use this system that would allegedly, I'm just saying what is reported, I don't know what's true, Allegedly take names from one system that were not eligible to vote, the driver's license databases, and put those names onto the other system.
	But in the case of people who are registered two or three times, there must have been something beyond just taking new people and putting them on the rolls.
	Must have been something beyond that.
	So how many states use that system?
	The one that's suspected of being the culprit in these elections? 20.
	There were 20 states who allegedly used these systems.
	How many of those did Trump lose?
	And of 20 states that used that same system, how many did Trump lose?
	18.
	Trump lost 18 of 20 states that used this same system.
	Allegedly.
	Now the claim is that there are these registration fraud rings, as identified in the Arabella document, I don't know what that is, in the work of Omega for America.
	So there must have been somebody who looked into this.
	And the idea is that each of these states has a dozen or more NGOs which do nothing but fill out ballots for fake registrants.
	And Peter Bernegger, whoever that is, his team in Wisconsin has video of NGO functionaries doing just that.
	What?
	At 1 a.m.
	early morning after Election Day.
	What?
	I don't know that that's confirmed.
	And Porter reports multiple schemes using the deceased, non-voting, and felons, blah, blah, blah.
	They steal an individual's driver's license number, Social Security, The only thing that changes is the address and the signature.
	Generally, they use people who don't vote.
	They change a street number, a county, a signature.
	Huh.
	Well, what do you think?
	Now, let's put this in context.
	All right.
	The first context is that when the original 2020 suspicions were coming out, and there were lots of different claims, I said, That whether or not any of these election rigging claims are true, the one thing you could know for sure is that at least 95% of the claims would be debunked.
	Was I right?
	Yeah.
	Probably 95% of the claims were debunked.
	Some of them are not debunked, but not confirmed or not found by a court or not big enough, or somebody didn't have a standing.
	So, you know, there's some gray area stuff, but 95% of the stuff you could check, Turned out to be you know, not conclusive Now does so what would you say about this new claim about this one database that's feeding the other database?
	Is that in the 95%?
	Well, you don't know But the caution is that every claim has a 95% chance of not being true.
	That's my claim So this is another claim that you might say has a 95% chance of not being true.
	But let me tell you what's different about it.
	This is the first time that all of my questions could be answered.
	Which is, how can they do this at a scale and get away with it?
	If it's done, if there's massive cheating, how can you get away with it?
	Now I had been thinking That's something to do with, you know, the computer code after the vote is given.
	And maybe there is something like that, but I don't have any proof of that.
	But this would make way more sense if it's true that there are NGOs who are dedicated to putting together these fake voter lists.
	That gets me to my next point.
	We have a world in which it would take One whistleblower, just one, to change the entire freaking world.
	Because America would be completely changed by one whistleblower who actually had the goods, you know, say a video or, you know, said, yes, I personally did this.
	This is what we did to the database.
	If you could get just one, everything's changed.
	The entire power structure of the United States would be altered forever.
	And of course, the United States affects the rest of the world in a big way.
	It's a world-changing event.
	One whistleblower.
	And that one whistleblower would get rich.
	Because there are going to be some big rewards.
	And if I were a whistleblower, I would say, how big is the reward?
	And they might say something like, we'll give you $10,000.
	And then you say, if you really have the goods.
	Nope.
	$10,000 doesn't even get me interested.
	All right.
	We'll give you $50,000.
	Nope.
	Not interested.
	A hundred.
	Nope.
	We'll give you a million dollars.
	Pre-tax.
	Or after tax?
	Pre-tax?
	No.
	We'll give you two million dollars, so after taxes, unless Harris gets elected, you'll still have a million left over.
	Well, now we're talking.
	For one million dollars, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I worked on a team that rigged the election.
	And that I know where the other NGOs are doing the same thing.
	If that's true, again, I don't know that it's true.
	It's an allegation.
	So, how would you like to be one of those cheaters?
	Knowing that all of your co-workers, all of your people complicit?
	Allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	We don't know that that's true.
	Every one of them could get a million dollars for turning your ass in.
	Oh, it's getting interesting now, people.
	Have I been telling you forever That this movie, this reality we're living in that's way too much like a movie, there is something required that hasn't happened.
	The movie cannot be completed until the Kraken is found.
	Every part of this movie requires the Kraken to be found after we're sure that it can't be found.
	That's what an Act 3 looks like.
	That's a real Act 3.
	So I'm going to double down and say that I don't believe that given the current setup, the design of our election going forward, and part of the design is now the whistleblower rewards, right?
	So the whistleblower rewards are now part of the design of the system.
	Here's things that you could guarantee without knowing anything.
	If somebody drew a system on paper, And brought it to you and said, all right, here's, here's what we're going to do.
	We're going to give a hundred dollars.
	No questions asked to everybody who rings your doorbell.
	What do you think will happen?
	And I'd say, well, once word gets out, I would imagine it'd be this huge line of people ringing my doorbell.
	Correct.
	Now, did you have to test it?
	Did you have to actually run a test?
	No, it would be so obvious from the design.
	That people are going to knock on your door forever trying to get their $300.
	Very easy to predict.
	Now let's do it with the election.
	If you had an election system that was super complicated, then it would be really hard to know if anybody was doing anything like what was suggested.
	And the stakes are gigantic.
	I mean, it's practically life and death, fortune or no fortune.
	I mean, really, really high stakes.
	And it's possible.
	So it's possible, and the incentive to do it is through the roof.
	It's the biggest incentive you could ever have.
	If you showed me that on paper and said, what do you think will happen?
	There's lots of ways to cheat, and the benefit of doing it, the upside is gigantic.
	Well, I would say, well, on paper, there's going to be massive cheating.
	There can't really be any other way this goes.
	Now, we were told that there really was no way to cheat without getting caught.
	If that's true, well, then I revise everything I've said.
	But we know it's not true.
	If anybody involved in the election wanted to have a fair election, they would just say, hey, let's just do paper ballots and then everybody will stop bitching.
	Right?
	You do the paper ballots.
	Everybody looks at them.
	You can double count them if you need.
	Not double count, but you can recount them if you want to.
	Everybody's happy.
	And we know exactly what to do to get to that point.
	We know that we want to clean the voter rolls.
	It's really easy to know how to do it legally.
	Is that what's happening?
	No.
	No.
	Every sign that we're seeing, especially in Georgia, there's a new movement by the Democrats to resist cleaning up the voter rolls.
	Why in the world would they want to resist cleaning up the voter rolls and removing ineligible voters?
	Only one reason.
	There are not two reasons for that.
	The only reason is that they plan to use those dead voters and ineligible voters to vote.
	What else could it be?
	Give me the other reason.
	No, if you read the reason, it'll just look like nonsense words put together.
	No, there's only one reason.
	So, on paper, the design of the system pretty much guarantees massive fraud.
	That doesn't mean I have proof of it.
	It's just that the system design guarantees it.
	And now there's a tweak to the system design.
	Now the system design includes this new element that wasn't there before, which is knowing in advance That there will be a whistleblower reward, and probably a big one.
	Because remember, the whistleblower doesn't have to accept the offered award.
	The whistleblower can negotiate.
	If you have the negotiating, which by the way, if you're a whistleblower, you should negotiate.
	Don't take the first offer, because you've got the strong hand there.
	So negotiate.
	So if you add negotiating and whistleblowing, To the current system, what does the design tell you will happen?
	Again, I'm not being magic or guessing.
	I'm saying if you design a system that very clearly will give you one outcome, what are you going to get?
	Well, you're going to get that one outcome.
	It's designed to give it to you.
	All right?
	Our design in 2020, almost guaranteed, A rigged election.
	Because it was possible.
	And the stakes were high.
	Now I don't have proof of that.
	I'm just saying that the design guaranteed that there would be an effort.
	Now we have a design that pretty much guarantees that at least one whistleblower will try to get rich.
	Right?
	It's hard to imagine that all those people who would be willing to do this illegal thing, they're all criminals.
	Every one of them is a criminal.
	Do you think you can trust a criminal not to take a million dollars to sell you?
	You can't trust a criminal!
	So, if I take this design and just fast forward it, the design should give us a result that we don't trust at the end of the election.
	It should create a situation where the government is not willing to certify it.
	That's our design.
	Now, I'm not saying magic will happen.
	I'm saying our current design guarantees it.
	Right?
	The current design guarantees rigging.
	It guarantees it by design.
	And now that we've got the whistleblowing thing with enough money behind it, that's a design.
	That design guarantees a whistleblower, even if they're making it up.
	You know, somebody's going to take a run at it.
	So the current design pretty much guarantees we're not going to have a result.
	By design.
	Again, I'm not saying if this happens or if this... No, by design, we can't get a result this time.
	Because there will be evidence of massive cheating beyond the margin that would determine the outcome.
	So, my prediction for the race is no outcome.
	Now, what happens after that is a big black box in my head.
	I have no idea.
	Maybe redo it?
	I don't know.
	Do you keep the old president in charge long enough to fix something?
	Does the House pick a new president and then nobody's happy?
	I mean, the whole country would fall apart if they just said, oh, Trump's the president.
	So, I don't know what happens.
	But my prediction is no election.
	No election certification.
	So we'll see.
	Harris got community noted because she said that Biden and I believe that women should make decisions about their own health care and their bodies, not the government.
	And the community noted and said, you required health care workers and big companies in the military to get COVID vaccination or lose their job.
	That is the opposite of bodily freedom.
	So now I'm fantasizing that the debate happens between Harris and Trump.
	Harris, of course, is going to bring up this, you bad Republicans, you want to take away the bodily autonomy.
	And then Trump says, well, you know, everything that I did was to take the decision away from me and the federal government and move it closer to the individuals in the state.
	And women are the majority voters in those states.
	So if you can convince each other, What to do with your bodily autonomy.
	I'm sure the rest of the world would go along with it.
	But women, you need to decide.
	You need to decide what it is, and I'm sure the system will support you.
	I know I do.
	Takes the whole abortion thing off the table, and then you do the kill shot.
	But if we're talking about bodily autonomy, your team is the one who had mandatory vaccinations, and I would never do that.
	You know, I was in charge of making sure you have the option.
	But I would never make them mandatory because I would not want mandatory constraints on your body.
	But you might.
	I mean, you might want to do it on your own in your states, but it's out of my control.
	And I think you're both happy.
	Everybody's happy that I don't have anything to control your body.
	Everybody good with that?
	That'd be a pretty strong argument.
	So I fantasize about it.
	There's a new drunk Kamala video where she's talking to somebody in an airport where she looks totally sloshed.
	And I'm thinking about Jason from the All In pod said that there wasn't evidence.
	You know, it was a dark MAGA claim that she was drinking too much and there's no evidence of it.
	Well, I don't know if he's seen the compilation clips yet, but we'll add this to the evidence.
	However, I'm going to fool you by saying this one, I don't think should be part of the compilation.
	And the reason is it looked like she was just flying in an airport somewhere, you know, either on her way or on the way back.
	And it wasn't official business.
	I have one feeling if she's drunk, giving a speech in her official capacity, if she was off duty and had a few drinks on the plane, I can't imagine that would be too different from presidents we've had before.
	My concern is if she can't control it enough that she can do it on her off time versus work time.
	Now, I get that if you're president, you still need to be coherent if you get the 3 a.m.
	call, but realistically, we've had drinking presidents for a long time.
	I just want it not to be during the job.
	And if she was just flying around, I have a different feeling about that, even if she was drunk.
	Well, the author of White Fragility, one of those books that made wokeness a big thing, who is herself a white woman, has been accused of plagiarizing for minority scholars.
	That's the whole story.
	The whole story is that white people are bad, apparently.
	She proved it.
	Anyway, META's CEO Zuckerberg put out a statement, and he basically admitted that the Biden administration pressured them to censor COVID stuff, and also the Hunter's laptop stuff, and maybe some other stuff.
	And he said it was wrong, and he wished he pushed back, and he's not going to be as political or spend his money the way he did before, you know, shoring up election integrity, he thought, but it probably worked the other way.
	Um, so he's not going to do that kind of funding and he's not going to endorse anybody because he's not going to get political.
	What's that sound like to you?
	That's a Trump endorsement.
	I'm sorry, it's a Trump endorsement.
	He's not going to spend money to help the Democrats alter elections the way they had.
	He said that Trump did the most badass thing he'd ever seen when he did the fight fight after he got shot.
	He's seen that the Democrats are the enemy, trying to censor him, and his entire game is free communication.
	And they were trying to ruin the most basic thing about his platform, which is some of it's honest.
	And I think, you know, Zuckerberg He's one of those people that I love the fact that you don't have to wonder if he's being dumb.
	You can just rule that out.
	You know, lots of times when you see somebody doing something that maybe isn't what you would do, you say, oh my, maybe they're dumb.
	You know, maybe they have some clever thing I don't know about, but maybe they're dumb.
	You don't have to worry about that.
	Zuckerberg isn't dumb.
	We all agree on that, right?
	So I think not endorsing anybody In the current environment, you're endorsing Trump.
	That's what it feels like.
	Now, I'm not going to put words in his mind, I'm not going to read his mind, so I don't know that.
	I'm telling you how I feel it.
	What I feel is that it's no longer necessary to oppose Hitler.
	You know what I mean?
	If you thought Trump was Hitler and the other side are the good guys, you kind of have an obligation to be against them.
	Or at least say the words, even if you don't do things.
	But if you're not willing to say the words and you're not willing to do things, at the very least, he doesn't think Trump is Hitler.
	That's a big deal, because I suspect maybe he did think that, because he was acting like he did.
	Anyway, so Harris now has changed her Why in the world would Kamala Harris want to invite Trump interrupting?
	during the debate.
	So in other words, Trump's microphone would still be on while she's doing her talking, and that makes interrupting possible.
	Why in the world would Kamala Harris want to invite Trump interrupting?
	Well, here's what I think.
	Remember I keep telling you that she's got this David Plouffe guy working for her, and I think he might be a genius for all this stuff, because he keeps doing non-standard things that work, such as, why don't we just have her give no interviews?
	I mean, who comes up with that idea in the first place?
	Like, who would even come up with that idea of just not having her in public?
	And it works.
	It works.
	So every time you see somebody come up with a very non-standard idea and then it just totally works, you're probably looking at genius if it happens more than once.
	So now this little bit feels a little like genius, but maybe desperation too, because you could have them at the same time.
	I think it's obvious that Harris cannot win a debate against Trump.
	And I would think that the Democrats know that.
	But what they could do is make Trump look like a bully.
	What they could do is give Kamala a whole bunch of cool one-liners to say when she gets interrupted.
	Like, sorry, I'm talking now.
	You know, that thing.
	So I agree with the people who say that it's a trap and that Trump Trump won easily over Biden by not having his microphone on.
	I think that works for Trump.
	When I, when the first time I heard that the microphones would be off during the Biden thing, I said to myself, Oh my God, there's no way, there's no way Trump loses.
	The only way Trump can lose is being so unpleasant, you know, by interrupting that people go, I don't even care what your policies are.
	You're just being a jerk now.
	I hate you.
	So since it's a viable election, If Trump wants to get the right vibe, he wants to, you know, visit the Vietnamese restaurant and show everybody loves him, which he did.
	Go to a black barbershop, see that everybody's fine with him.
	He hasn't done that, but he should.
	But being the nicest Trump is really his best play.
	So, yeah, I think he would be wise to do what he was doing, which is say, well, you know, we'd already agreed there would be no microphone, so let's stick to it.
	We'll see what happens.
	So there was a hearing in Congress on the Trump assassination attempt, and it featured three really interesting people.
	So you had Navy SEAL Eric Prince, who used to run his own private army for sale, and you had Dan Bongino, and Ben Schaefer, he was a Washington regional SWAT operator who was on site that day.
	Now those would be three, in my opinion, seemingly highly qualified voices that would tell it the way it is.
	You know, they wouldn't make something up.
	And it was fascinating.
	So there were, you know, massive evidence of incompetence, which I call the Dilbert filter.
	You know, every organization is incompetent at this point.
	And probably there was a bunch of stuff that just looks like incompetence.
	But on top of that, Unambiguously, there was incompetence.
	But on top of that, there were questions which don't have an answer, such as cleaning off the roof prematurely, cremating the body before anybody knew.
	What's up with the encrypted apps that that guy's got?
	How did he learn to make a bomb with a remote that's just made for that?
	Just a whole bunch of questions that the three of them We're very clear that these are super important questions and unanswered.
	So, I don't know what it all means, but when the smartest people in the game tell you there's something that doesn't smell right, I would definitely trust that, right?
	Normally, you don't trust doesn't smell right.
	But from these three?
	If Dan Bianchino tells you something doesn't smell right in the domain he knows about, I'm sure listening to that.
	So, and I think it's like the Telegram CEO story.
	You'll never know.
	I don't think there's much, any chance at all that we'll ever know the truth of what happened with that guy, that Thomas Crooks assassin guy.
	Well, James Carville was on, I think it was CNN, and it was talking about RFK Jr.
	And he said that RFK Jr.
	should be locked up in a menstrual institution.
	He has no business being on the street.
	What is that?
	That would be called projection and gaslighting.
	RFK Jr.
	doesn't have any mental problems.
	Are you kidding me?
	He's the most, like, reasonable person you'll ever hear.
	Why would Carville have to say that?
	Well, because he's part of a party that has a massive mental health problem.
	And some of us have noticed that the real problem doesn't seem to be politics.
	There is a massive mental health problem.
	And the specific mental health problem appears to be related to this dark triad, you know, narcissism and some other things.
	And what they love to do if they have that particular mental situation is to project, which is blame other people for what they are or what they're doing.
	And to gaslight, which is different from lying.
	I like to explain this a lot.
	Gaslighting is telling you that something you're looking at directly isn't happening.
	That's not just saying that yesterday when you weren't there I did something.
	That lie you can't tell if it's true or not.
	That's just a lie.
	But if somebody's looking at something directly and you say it's not there, and it's just obviously it's there, That's gaslighting, because it makes them feel like, am I crazy?
	If you pull it off.
	So this is gaslighting.
	And I think that's pretty much all they have left, is accusing Republicans of doing what Democrats are doing and vice versa.
	So that's an example of that.
	Kamala Harris has also once compared policing, just policing, to lynching and Jim Crow.
	And now she can't stop bragging about how strong she is on law enforcement.
	That would be gaslighting.
	Because we know for sure that she's not super strong about policing.
	And she's telling you it's the opposite.
	So when you know something's true, that she's not the one who's really for policing, and then she tells you, but I'm the one who's really for policing.
	That's gaslighting.
	All right.
	And it will work because Democrats don't get real news.
	They only see the fake news that's in their silo.
	Here's some news.
	Well, Kennedy was talking to Tucker Carlson and it made quite a bit of news here.
	So he said he was asked to be on the president's transition team.
	They would be the ones who select the people who become part of the administration.
	I kind of love this, but I know it's going to cause some trouble within the Republican Party.
	Cause Republicans are going to say, wait a minute, why are you picking these people who are not lifelong Republicans that we can trust?
	And then Kennedy will say, but, but they're really smart and capable and they're not super political.
	So these are the ones you want.
	And then the Republicans will say, I don't know that one person when they were in college once said something that I don't like.
	So I'm leaning toward this because I do think that Kennedy could be Important in finding people who are brave and not political and have the right priorities.
	That would be kind of fun.
	So I don't see Kennedy being the one who does the vetting.
	I see him being, you know, part of a vetting system in which, you know, he might pick a ex-Democrat or a current Democrat for a few things.
	I wouldn't worry about that.
	Looks positive to me.
	Tucker asked RFK Jr.
	if he would ever be willing, if asked, to become Trump's CIA director.
	I love that question.
	And he said, yes, I would.
	What?
	Yes, I would.
	But I would never get a Senate confirmation.
	He said he would never get a Senate confirmation because the intelligence agencies would just force the Senate not to confirm him.
	Do you believe that?
	I do.
	I believe that even if you were asked to be the CIA director, the CIA people would contact their Congress people they own and say, don't vote for this.
	And then they wouldn't.
	And there's no way that he could become the head of the CIA.
	I believe that's true.
	I totally believe that.
	Kennedy says that the reason the Democrats now hate free speech, or at least it looks like it because they're trying to suppress free speech in every possible way they can, he says it's because the party does not believe in the people.
	And that they're making Elon Musk a villain because he's providing free speech.
	And he says, quote, if you don't believe in free speech, it means because you don't trust the people.
	I disagree with that.
	I don't think that's what's going on.
	I don't think that the Democrat leadership even thinks about the people.
	I'm not even sure that's one of the variables on their top ten.
	I think it's purely about people keeping their power and staying in their jobs and making money.
	I think all the free speech stuff is purely a power play.
	It has nothing to do with trusting the people.
	But I like the fact that Kennedy puts his trust in the people.
	I just hope that he doesn't lose sight of his practical, you know, his evil sensing part of his brain.
	Anyway, so the DNC has apparently filed a lawsuit against the Georgia election board To block their new rule.
	So the Democrats don't want Georgia to clean up the accuracy of their voter rolls.
	I mentioned that before.
	What would be their reason?
	Only one reason.
	There's only one reason you would vote against cleaning up your voting rolls.
	There's not a second reason.
	Would you all agree?
	There's not even a second reason that's offered.
	Because it's probably just word soup.
	You know, nothing that even makes sense.
	So there's that.
	Here's something else RFK Jr.
	said in the Tucker interview.
	He said he was originally not interested in working with Trump, but his wife Cheryl asked him to hear Trump out.
	Now, I saw Rahim Kassam saying that on X. I haven't seen the news story itself.
	But do you think that's true?
	Do you think it was Cheryl who asked him to hear Trump out?
	So, you know, weren't you wondering, like, how that marriage works?
	Weren't you?
	You were, right?
	You're like, how does that work?
	It seems like they're just too different.
	I don't see how in the world they can reconcile that.
	But if this is true, and by the way, RFK Jr.
	has shown No propensity to lie about anything that I've seen, so the fact that he says it's true seems very likely it's true.
	Just the fact he's credible.
	If that is true, then that suddenly puts his wife in a whole different frame, and a positive one.
	Not because she might, you know, be a I just got a message from Zuby.
	That's interesting.
	I'll have to contact him a little later.
	Yeah, anyway, so it makes me think that his wife Cheryl is maybe a more complicated person than the news had indicated, and more supportive, and maybe more wise.
	But clearly she's supportive and wise, if this is right, and I think it is.
	Nicole Shanahan, you know, RFK Jr.' 's VP running mate while he was running, put on a Venn diagram, which is funny, because, you know, Venn diagrams, but it showed a Venn diagram of Occupy Wall Street, that would be the Democrats who didn't like large corporations, and the Tea Party, which was Republicans who didn't like big government, and she says that That her movement, if you can call it that, is the intersection.
	So the intersection of people who don't like big government and the people who don't like big corporations is when the big government and the big corporations are colluding with each other.
	And I thought, wow, that just, that hits it perfectly.
	You know, you could call it fascism, but then nobody knows what that word means.
	But if you show it in the Venn diagram, you're like, oh yeah, the big corporations have too much power, but Some like that, the big government has too much power, but other people are happy with that.
	But when you look at the intersection, when the two of them are working together, that the big corporations are bribing the government and the government's doing stuff for the big corporations that you don't like, it is when they work together that it's a problem.
	And that's where we can all come together.
	How about less of that?
	Well, you heard the story about RFK Jr.
	Allegedly, I think it's true.
	He used a chainsaw to cut off the head of a dead whale.
	He put it on his car and he tried to take it home.
	It was oozing whale juice.
	And I guess he had some fascination with skulls and he was going to do something to get a whale skull, which I kind of love because I mean, the whale was dead and a huge whale skull.
	Like if you could, you know, get a whale skull and clean it up and, you know, put it on a display in your house.
	How cool would that be?
	I mean, seriously, if you had a giant whale skull and you had some way to display it, it'd be kind of cool.
	So I don't know what he was up to, but it doesn't matter.
	It was just something he wanted to do.
	So Axios is reporting that there's now this environmental advocacy group That wants them investigated because it might be illegal to transport a dead mammal's skull.
	So there must be some law that says you can't transport a marine mammal's skull.
	Come on!
	Come on!
	Who even knew that was a law?
	Come on.
	So, I think it's not only fascinating that somebody tried to transport a dead whale's head, I find it fascinating that there's a law that covers that specific situation.
	But even more ironic, here it comes.
	Here it comes.
	Remember this was an environmental advocacy group that was going after him?
	So is it ironic that an environmental Advocacy group would turn themselves into garbage.
	I don't even think you could recycle that kind of garbage.
	No, these are garbage people.
	Because if they decided that they looked at the whole world and all of the environmental problems and they said, you know what?
	If we could solve this aquatic mammal skull transportation problem, Well, then we'd have a better world to live to or leave to our children, wouldn't we?
	No, they are garbage.
	And so the very thing that they're trying to have less of, they became.
	Meanwhile, Harris has a tax plan that would absolutely rape the rich.
	Top rate for individuals would climb to 44.6, which if you add your California tax on, gets well over 50%.
	The other rates are just through the roof.
	If you're a wealthy person and you're supporting Democrats, you're a fucking idiot.
	You're a fucking idiot.
	Mark Cuban, if you support this, you're a fucking idiot.
	And I don't think he does.
	I mean, I don't know what's going on with him.
	He's playing some kind of strategy that I don't fully understand, so it's hard to judge it.
	But nobody's in favor of this who has money.
	Nobody.
	I don't think you could find one wealthy Democrat who would be down for this.
	And let me tell you where my red line is.
	I pay roughly 50% in taxes.
	If you've never experienced that, and much more if you throw on property taxes and sales tax and stuff.
	So, maybe 60% of my money goes to taxes if you put it all together.
	It's too much.
	You know, there's some point where I say, you know what?
	My taxes are outrageous, but I get that people doing well pay more.
	I mean, the concept itself doesn't stress me too much.
	But at some point, it's just abuse.
	And it just feels like punishment.
	Because I don't think it's for the benefit of the country.
	It just feels like punishing people who made money.
	And here's my deal.
	I already made this money with the old rules.
	If you're just going to fucking take it from me, which is what this is, it's just confiscation.
	They're actually talking about just taking the money that you have.
	If you have too much, just take it.
	This is move out of the country stuff.
	This is literally sell the house, move to Costa Rica.
	I'm not going to pay more than 50% in taxes.
	And, you know, the billionaires would be crazy to stay here.
	Crazy.
	So we'll see what happens.
	I don't think most of it's likely to happen, but it's probably a good solid 30 to 40 percent likely.
	It's just horrible.
	Anyway, I would think it would bring a few more prominent Democrats to Trump, because it's crazy.
	Trump says he wants to create a Space National Guard and build an Iron Dome missile system around the U.S.
	Yes, we need that for sure.
	I think I saw Elon say it was time to start a Starfleet Academy.
	Literally.
	We're going to have a Starfleet.
	I mean, it won't be the whole world in Starfleet like the real Star Trek.
	But yeah, we need a Starfleet Academy for our space army that's coming.
	Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard apparently has endorsed Trump.
	I thought she'd already done it, so I kind of missed that story, but I guess she had not officially endorsed him.
	And now I would say that the royal flush is complete.
	Remember I was telling you that it feels like Trump is assembling a poker hand of a royal flush, and he needed a queen?
	Right after I said he needed a queen.
	Chelsea Gabbard endorsed him.
	I guess he got his queen.
	So now he has the full royal flush.
	Now you could argue, you know, who's the king and who's the ace?
	You know, Trump's the ace, of course.
	But maybe Trump's the king and RFK's the ace, because the ace is sometimes one, but sometimes 11.
	Well, that's only if you're playing a different game.
	So, uh, yeah, he's got a royal flush.
	And, uh, or the other way to look at it is he's, uh, his pirate ship is nearly staffed.
	Um, I saw, uh, Greg Gutfeld mentioned the pirate ship analogy.
	It was nice enough to credit me on that.
	And, uh, Which, by the way, I don't require.
	I like it when my ideas get used by anybody.
	I don't know if I've ever told you that directly.
	So anybody who wants to take anything I've said and say it with or without credit, I'm okay with that.
	I'm not in it for the credit.
	I don't work that way.
	So, anyway, the pirate ship is about staff.
	Yeah, what I love about the pirate ship is that it forgives a lot of rough edges.
	Because there could be a lot of people on the same team who've got their own rough edges.
	And if you call them pirates and you say, well, we're at least on this pirate ship on the same mission together, it sounds a lot better than it's a whole bunch of people with flaws.
	So there's something about the pirate ship analogy that just totally works for me.
	I think it's that bad boy thing.
	And now a bad girl, because we got Tulsi's on board.
	I also love the framing that RFK Jr.
	has done with Make America Healthy Again.
	Make America Great Again, you can see why the left bristled at it, because they're like, great again?
	Why are you saying it was so great back when there was slavery?
	Now that's not what anybody was thinking, but it was easy to twist that into something bad, so they did.
	So personally, I've never been an embracer of MAGA.
	I talk about it, and I like the people who are part of it.
	But I didn't like it associated with me personally, even though the press likes to associate me.
	It's just I didn't like the word.
	I don't like how it sounds.
	It sounds too much like a maggot, too easy to turn it into something negative.
	So I was never on board with MAGA since the beginning, although I would acknowledge it became a gigantic, successful branding thing.
	So you could argue that Trump got it right because it was so successful.
	However, when you hear Make America Healthy Again, oh my God, does that hit.
	Make America Healthy Again refers to not just our systems and our election process and how we select people and, you know, what we do in the world.
	I mean, we need way more health in our systems.
	But physically, we're dying.
	We're just physically less healthy.
	And it's a big, big, big problem.
	And I think RFK Jr.
	with Make America Healthy Again found a way that everybody can agree.
	Because not everybody's going to want to make America great again, because they think that's moving backwards.
	Which, by the way, Kamala Harris is cleverly—and again, this has to be Plouffe, I guarantee you this is David Plouffe—she's saying that Trump is taking you backwards and she wants to take you forwards.
	How good is that as persuasion?
	Well, it's so good that I once Taught Bill Clinton how to do it, because remember how he took, he might not know I was behind it.
	But the idea that Bob Dole was taking you to the past, because he was saying, hey, I'm the great generation, let's get back to those old ideals.
	It made it easy for Clinton to say, well, you're taking us to the past.
	I'm going to take you to the future.
	That is always the winning play.
	I'll take you to the future always beats I'll take you to the past, even if the past looked pretty good.
	Nobody wants to go back to the past.
	It's just nobody.
	So Kamala Harris once again has a perfect frame, which is that they're about the future and Trump wants to make you this again guy.
	Oh, you want to do again?
	You mean the past?
	Ah, I see.
	So you're taking us back to when You know, nobody can have an abortion and, you know, there was slavery and Jim Crow.
	Oh, you want that again?
	Too easy to mock.
	But what do you do with Make America Healthy Again?
	Oh, I'd like to go back to when we were less healthy.
	No, that's one direction.
	You know, even though you say again, you know that we're less healthy.
	So nobody argues that we were healthier in the past.
	Nobody has that feeling.
	So that's good.
	R.F.K.
	Jr.
	on climate change, because I know this is where a lot of Republicans are going to say, wait a minute, I disagree with you, R.F.K.
	Jr., because you're pro-climate change.
	But I didn't know exactly what his nuanced thinking was.
	But here's something that would make you a little bit happier.
	You said Democrats have become subsumed in this carbon orthodox.
	Meaning that the only issue is carbon and it's the thing that they're gonna measure for everything.
	So if you're measuring carbon, that's what you'll manage to.
	Have I told you a million times that you can only manage to things you measure?
	So if let's say there were three things you thought were good ideas, but one of them you could measure and you did measure, that's where all your attention would go.
	Because you can measure it.
	As soon as you can measure a thing, It just sucks all the energy to it because, okay, you can tell if I make a difference.
	So he's saying that the concentration on that may be diverting from some better things you could do, you know, to just make the environment cleaner that may have nothing to do with CO2.
	But then he goes further.
	So I can't follow him on this part of the journey, but I appreciate it.
	He said, The reason that we protect the environment is because there's a spiritual connection.
	So it's not just the CO2 stuff.
	He says there's a spiritual connection.
	and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine.
	I love the way you put it.
	So in terms of poetry and, you know, verbal capability, it's through the roof.
	You know, it's a standard Kennedy, how the hell did you say this so well stuff?
	So it's impressive in that way.
	And probably hits people just where they want.
	I'll give you the less religious version of this, that we don't feel complete until we can go outside in a nice environment that's outdoors.
	And I completely agree with humans can't be humans until they can experience a clean environment.
	And I would argue that maybe, you know, a lot of inner city problems might have to do with not having access to nature.
	Let me ask you this.
	If I said you could never go into nature again, you'd only be in an inner city that's sort of dirty and squalid.
	What would that do to your brain?
	It would kill you.
	Yeah.
	The best part of my day, every day, is even though my dog's got three good legs and one limpy one, I take her to the park.
	And I simply stand in this park under these trees.
	It's a, just the greatest park, tiny little park.
	It's only just a few acres.
	You can see the whole park from any part of the park, but it's extraordinarily nourishing.
	I simply stand there and I feel like, like these needles just went into my arm and they're giving me like happiness instantly.
	I get out of the car, I walk 10 feet and my entire body just goes and stays that way until I get back in the car.
	And then there's some, you know, lasting benefit for that during the day.
	Imagine if you never had that.
	That would probably explain a whole bunch of people in inner cities.
	Never.
	They just never see the beach, you know, or maybe once every, you know, three months or something.
	Um, that would make you crazy.
	So I don't think you have to call on the divine.
	You can simply say that what makes a human a human and a complete human absolutely requires some kind of commune with nature on a regular basis, and you can't get around it.
	So I'm completely with him, you know, with a tweak.
	Well, let me compliment President Trump.
	I've been wishing he would do something in a specific way for the longest time.
	I think I've said it a number of times.
	And finally, he did it.
	Now, I hope you understand how powerful this is.
	So he was on a podcast.
	I wish I remembered the name of the host.
	He's somebody who does a really good job.
	But he was asked about the hoax that he had once said that the military are suckers and losers.
	Now, as you know, there was one general who claims he said that, and as Trump said, there were 26 people who said it didn't happen.
	But, if somebody says that you did something, and you say, no, I didn't, are they convinced?
	No, they're not.
	The argument it didn't happen, it just sounds like a lie.
	Because if people want to think you did it, No, I didn't.
	Well, there's somebody who says you did.
	And it's a general.
	So, right.
	So here's how he answered it.
	He said, who would say it?
	A stupid, uh, he, I think he said that three, three times.
	Who would say it?
	Yeah.
	Who would say that?
	Who would say that?
	And then he answered his own question, a stupid person or one who was mentally ill.
	That's it.
	That's the one.
	That's the one.
	That's the one I wanted to hear.
	Who would do this?
	That works with the fine people hoax?
	Who would stand in front of the country as the president in prepared remarks, at least mentally prepared remarks, and say that neo-Nazis are fine people?
	The answer is no one.
	No one.
	That's how you should have known it was a hoax without needing to check that the video was in fact edited.
	Who would stand in front of the world and say maybe you should drink bleach or inject bleach or inject a household disinfectant into your body?
	No one.
	No one.
	Not Trump.
	Not anybody.
	Unless they were, quote, stupid or mentally ill.
	Who would say in front of a general that soldiers were suckers and losers?
	No one.
	No one would say it.
	But, putting it in the form of a question is the stronger form of persuasion.
	If you just say, no one would say it, it's not nearly as good as, who would say that?
	I'm just thinking about it.
	Just use your common sense.
	Who would ever say that in public?
	First of all, who would believe it?
	Yeah, who would believe it?
	But that even if somebody believed it, who would say that?
	That who would say it is the one that unlocks the brain of the brainwashed?
	Okay, you do have a good point there.
	Because it's not a statement, it's a question.
	And if you can't answer the question, You're gonna have to figure out why you can't answer it.
	Who would say that?
	Exactly.
	Once you see the pattern, that three of the biggest hoaxes, I would argue the three most powerful hoaxes, were from Trump, were about things that nobody would say.
	So, yes.
	President Trump?
	You are powering up for this debate in a way that is making me very happy.
	I feel like, again, I'll say it, whoever is advising Trump right now, doing a good job.
	There's something good happening there.
	All right.
	Here's a little story that is just interesting.
	Apparently we used to think that old trees couldn't absorb any CO2, so old growth forests weren't going to help too much for fighting climate change.
	But now there's new information that says that the old forests actually grow new woody biomass and do absorb.
	So my question is this, when you're putting together those climate models and you get wrong the fact that existing old forests can in fact absorb CO2, how much did that change your model?
	Did they go and revise all their models?
	Well, probably not, because, you know, this is one, maybe one study.
	Maybe they need to see some more before they're convinced.
	But I remind you that when you have a model that has, you know, I don't know, hundreds of variables or whatever there are, that it doesn't take much change to even one of those variables to get a wildly wrong answer.
	And that's why people who have never done any kind of predicting or modeling Don't really understand how bad the models are.
	Models are not real.
	They're all fake.
	And the way they do it is they throw away the ones that don't work this year, they add another one, and then they tell you models work.
	No, what works is if you throw away the ones that don't work and replace them with a new one, It will always look like the models are working.
	It's literally nothing but a trick.
	And the entire scientific community are fucking idiots when it comes to any kind of magic tricks or how they get fooled.
	They're brilliant people.
	I mean, it's hard to be a scientist without being brilliant.
	But they're notoriously easy to fool.
	In some cases, because they're a little bit too literal, I guess.
	There may be something to it, but scientists tend to be easy to fool.
	With scams.
	So there's a report that the U.S.
	is helping Israel hunt down the head of Hamas, that Yahya Sinwar guy.
	The most simulation-sounding name in the world.
	Sinwar.
	War.
	And did you know that we have a technology that's this deep penetrating radar or sonar?
	I forget what it is.
	That they can map out the tunnels.
	So apparently the U.S.
	has some kind of tech where they can actually just map the tunnels.
	Did you know that was true?
	I wish I knew about that a long time ago.
	So if they've got complete control of the territory, which they seem to, and they can map out the tunnels, it's only a matter of time before they get everybody they need to get.
	But apparently we're doing a lot and the story is that the U.S.
	wants to find Sinwar and take him out because they think that would be the administration, American administration, Biden, believes that that would give Israel a reason to say the war is over.
	So the war doesn't have an over point.
	There's just sort of more of what you're doing.
	Like it would be hard to identify, well, what would be the end of the war?
	What's the end?
	And so you could sort of artificially have a fake because, I've told you that.
	If people want to do something, but they can't come up with a reason, but they want to do it.
	And that's this.
	People want to have an end to the war, but they don't have a reason.
	They're going to need a reason to end the war.
	So from a persuasion perspective, The fake because, the reason that you used to do your thing because you wanted to do it anyway, but you needed something that sounded like a reason, would be the sin war gets captured or killed.
	Now, in my view, that makes no difference to anything because I just replace him with number two and go on.
	But, In the fake-because persuasion world, it might be a strong argument that the public thinks, well, you got the head guy, it's time to wrap things up.
	So I'm not entirely sure that that's what the U.S.
	is thinking.
	It's just reported that that's what they're thinking.
	Maybe a lot of people thinking different things in the administration.
	But just know that we now have the tech to pretty much capture all of those tunnels, or most of them, or a lot of them.
	All right.
	That's what I got for you today.
	That is the end of my prepared remarks.
	I'm going to talk privately.
	To the wonderful, sexy, good-looking people on Locals.
	Subscribers.
	And for those of you on X and YouTube and Rumble, thanks for joining.
	And I got lots of fun coming up in the next few weeks.
	I'll let you know about lots of things happening.
	But until then, I'll see you tomorrow, the rest of you, but Locals, hang in there with me.

▲