God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Kamala Harris Hinesville, Stephen King, Elon Musk, Flying Rescue Robot, Pavel Durov, Thomas Crooks Motivation, Judge Merchan's Daughter, National Debt Crisis, Citizen Debt, Postponing Retirement, Detail-Free Political Policies, Kamala Harris, Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr. Vaccine Policies, Autism, National Security DEI, 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
All right, we've got a new wrinkle in our technology.
So it looks like the video has ended.
Let's try that again.
We'll get this working any moment now.
Oh, that's weird.
So is this working on locals?
It looks like Locals is not working.
What's up with that?
If Locals doesn't come on, I'm going to have to turn it off so they can get on.
All right.
Well, it looks like I'm going to have to start a separate live stream.
All right.
Don't know why.
Don't know why.
I probably pushed the wrong button.
So I'm just going to start a separate stream.
Bye.
We got two streams going? One isn't enough.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, for some reason the locals did not load on my Rumble Studio.
I probably pushed the wrong button.
So you're going to be here on a separate feed.
Aren't you special?
Do-do-do-do-do-do.
All right, good morning everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel or just dine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join us now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It's going to happen now.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
That's good.
All right.
Here's something I've never done before.
I'm going to introduce you to the people on Locals.
All right.
Here's the Locals app.
Running and it's looking at the rest of you.
Hey locals, look at those other people in case you wondered what what are the comments look on the other side.
So we got two different streams.
Normally it's one stream.
I just, I think I pushed the wrong button this morning and excluded locals accidentally.
But let's talk about all the things.
There's a new video of Kamala Harris in Hinesville, Georgia.
It's one of the stops on her bus tour.
That's right.
She loves a bus.
It's not even a little yellow bus, but she loves it anyway.
And here's the only thing I have to say about the video of Kamala Harris in Hinesville, Georgia.
She looks drunk to me.
So take a look at it.
It's on my feed, but you can find it.
And you tell me if she doesn't look drunk.
Her gesticulations are unusually theatrical, and she's got kind of that face.
I'll tell you one thing, it's not her regular personality.
So if she doesn't have some kind of a substance problem, which to me looks kind of obvious, then we have a bigger problem, because it means she has two personalities.
So whatever personality she was showing, On that Hinesville stop.
It's not the normal one.
That's all I'm saying.
So you can judge for yourself.
Well, here's one of the reasons we love the X platform.
So Stephen King, who, as you know, is a big critic of Trump, which makes him a big critic of anybody who likes Trump, which would include Elon Musk.
So Stephen King thinks that this would be worth his time today.
This is a post he made.
He goes, oops, SpaceX launches are on hold after a booster rocket toppled over in flames while landing Wednesday.
Now, Stephen King is not ordinarily the person who's giving you news, breaking news updates.
Why would he pick this one story to highlight?
Remember, he's not just a general news guy.
Why?
Because it makes Elon Musk look bad.
He had one thing that didn't work, so he has to point that out.
What would you think of Stephen King if you were Elon Musk?
Well, you'd think he's kind of a dick, right?
Because there was no real reason he had to post that, and he didn't have to put it on the X platform, and it was basically just to embarrass Musk.
So here was Elon Musk's response to Stephen King.
Dick.
Not only does he call him a dick, and then Musk uses his grok AI to create a humorous image of Stephen King sitting in a pile of money with a clown behind him with a big eggplant in his mouth.
Yep, that actually happened.
How entertaining is that?
Very entertaining.
Very entertaining.
I continue to like the fact that Elon Musk refuses to act like everybody thinks people should act.
He only acts the way he thinks makes sense.
He just never just conforms to what you think he should do.
Yeah, let's just call him a dick and make a funny picture about him.
Good.
Now that is someone who understands the X platform from top to bottom, right there.
Here's the weirdest, creepiest news.
There's, according to New Atlas, there are some engineers who are building, it looks like some kind of Italian company, they're building, let's see, the Italian Institute of Technology, who I call the Instituto Italiano di Tecnologia, because I'm worldly and global and stuff.
So, you probably just say, you know, the Italian Institute of Technology, because you're so American.
Not worldly, like me, with my good accents and stuff.
Anyway, they've developed a flying toddler robot to rescue people.
Now, you might say to yourself, robot?
That's a good idea.
To go rescue people?
Yeah, a rescue robot, that's good.
Then, they made it better.
They made a flying robot.
Literally, they're going to put a jetpack on a robot.
And you say to yourself, now we're talking!
Are you kidding me?
A jetpack on a rescue robot?
Yes!
Robot man time!
Tony Stark!
Yes!
This is going to be the most awesome robot we've ever... Wait, what does it look like?
They've made it look like a child.
So it has the face of a toddler.
And it's smallish.
It's not toddler size, but it's smaller than an adult.
Why do they have to make it so creepy?
You should see this damn thing.
It's the creepiest looking robot you've ever seen.
I could just imagine myself trapped in a burning forest, broken leg.
I'm laying there.
Well, I guess this would be my arm, not my leg.
I'm laying there and I'm hoping for a rescue and all of a sudden in the sky I see I'm like, yes, yes, it's my rescue robot!
Come, come to me, rescue robot!
And the rescue robot comes.
Shhh!
Lands there.
And you see that it looks like a creepy toddler.
Well, I would get up and start running toward the flame.
Because that's a scary image.
A flying robot toddler with big eyes.
That looks like Adam Schiff just leaving the skiff.
No, thank you.
I'd rather burn in the forest fire.
No, I do want a flying robot very much.
All right, there's a story that you can't make me care about.
I'll just mention it.
So that you've all heard it, so you don't say, why don't you mention that story, Scott?
It's because I don't care about it.
It's the biggest fake political story.
I mean, it's probably based on some facts, but the story is that, you know, Trump went to do some event, some photo op at the Arlington National Cemetery, but the cemetery has some rules about Photography and who can be there.
So some people in charge were trying to prevent them from doing a big campaign photo op because you're not supposed to do political things at the cemetery.
I understand that.
I don't care.
I don't care that Arlington had some rules.
I don't care that the Trump campaign might have bent them or broke them.
I don't care that somebody took some photographs.
Nobody was trying to hurt anybody.
Can we agree on that?
Nobody had any bad intentions.
The visit to the Arlington Cemetery was about honoring fallen heroes.
Maybe somebody brought a camera.
You can't make me care about this.
No.
If people are showing their respect to fallen soldiers at a cemetery that is really designed to respect fallen soldiers, you can't make me care that one of them brought a camera.
I'm sorry.
I'm just not going to be involved in that story.
But I mentioned it just because it's going to be on the news.
Anyway, there's a study out of King's College London that says that people cannot anticipate opposing views, meaning That people know what they think, and they know what people who agree with them think, but if they try to guess what people who have different opinions think, not so good.
So it turns out that people are terrible at understanding how other people think.
Now, I've been saying that I think, at least in America, that Republicans have a better idea of what Democrats think, Then Democrats have what Republicans think, because the Democrat view of things is the universal one that everybody sees.
And then the Republican view is the one that usually only Republicans see.
So at least the Republicans see both sides.
It's a general thing, right?
Not every person.
But maybe it's worse than I think.
So I would love to know if I'm wrong about this.
I'd love to know if you could actually do a test.
And you tested Republicans and Democrats, you know, some randomly chosen group, and find out which one knows more about what the other team thinks.
My assumption and observation is that the Republicans would win that hands down.
But maybe not.
I'm open to the possibility that neither team would be even close.
Because there is a lot of mind reading that goes on on the Republican side.
A lot of it is, you know, they just want power and, you know, they're the WEF and they're in charge, but no, somebody else is in charge.
So Republicans have a lot of, you know, theories about who's in charge and what people are thinking that I don't always line up with.
But it does make me wonder if I could be wrong.
By the way, this is a good hygiene tip for your brain.
If you can't occasionally say to yourself, huh, I had a strong opinion this way, but what if it's completely wrong?
And then you just allow yourself to imagine that your opinion that you've held kind of strongly, and you've even said publicly, what if it's totally wrong?
So that's what I'm doing right now.
I'm modeling that.
So I think I'm right.
But I'm completely open to the fact that nobody knows what the other person thinks, just universally.
Could be.
I wouldn't rule it out.
All right.
Did you know that there are a lot of scientific papers that reference other papers?
Because that's very common.
In science, you say, well, this was true with this paper, and we're building on that, or we're extending it, or whatever.
Did you know that there are a whole bunch of papers that get referenced that got withdrawn, but the paper that references it doesn't update?
So you have a situation where there are lots of scientific papers that could be peer-reviewed to make reference to other studies that were also peer-reviewed at one point, but as those other studies get withdrawn, because it turns out they don't hold up, The paper that references them doesn't get updated.
So what we have is a situation where there are hoaxes.
They're referencing other hoaxes.
Now, I'm using the word hoax, you know, too hyperbolically.
It's just stuff that's wrong.
But, so science is now a nested, it's like the Russian eggs.
You know, it's like a hoax inside of a hoax.
It's like the original paper is a hoax, then there's a new paper that references the old hoax, and then other people reference them too.
So you have thousands of people referencing a thing that didn't happen.
And then the thing that didn't happen gets debunked, but the other stuff stays.
Now you can sort that out, but it's a big problem.
So I only like to point that out because when you say that science has decided something, maybe it hasn't.
We've got a little bit more skepticism about science coming up on this show.
All right.
The Telegram CEO, that Pavel Durov, So he's been officially indicted.
His bail has been set at an affordable price for him anyway.
And he's on a supervised release.
He's prohibited from leaving France.
What do you think a supervised release is?
What's that mean?
Supervised release.
Does that mean he has to check in?
Does that mean he's wearing an ankle bracelet?
Or does it mean that all of his communications are being monitored?
My guess is that all of his communications are being monitored, and he probably has to check in pretty often to make sure he didn't get it on the plane.
But the new wrinkle is that the UAE, who I believe is his country of residence at the moment, is pushing hard to get him released.
So it turns out he's good personal friends with, I think, the prince who might be the number two in the country or something.
And so he's got good friends at the top of the UAE and they're pushing to get him out.
Here's what I can tell you for sure about this big confusing situation.
We will never know why anything is happening.
We will know what happened in some cases, and we will know who's involved in some cases.
But we're never going to know what this is about.
Do you agree?
This is not the kind of story where it starts out foggy, but then later the details come into focus, and then we all understand the story.
We're not going to ever get close to this one.
We're just talking about these surface-y things they let us see.
We don't know what's going on at all.
The most logical... Oh yeah, the UAE is putting some financial pressure on France.
I think they had a big purchase of aircraft that they might put on hold.
So the UAE is pushing pretty hard.
But I do think that the thing that is most likely to be true Everybody wants to control the Telegram app, and that's probably the one thing you need to know, and then everything else starts to look like it makes sense.
All right.
So the FBI was talking to reporters yesterday, and the newest update is they have not yet determined the motivation for the 20-year-old Thomas Crooks, who took a shot at the president and nicked his ear.
They say they don't know the motivation, because they found he was not initially fixated on any one political figure.
And they also say that he learned bomb-making starting in 2019, so it wasn't a recent thing.
For years he's been studying bomb-making.
So, isn't that convenient?
Let's see.
The information comes from the FBI, and the two updates are suspiciously good for the FBI.
Because it would indicate that nothing has gone to well and good for Democrats, I suppose, because it would indicate that has nothing to do with the rhetoric of the Democrats.
But rather, there was just this one disturbed individual who really didn't care who he took a shot at.
Could have been a Democrat, could have been Trump.
So don't even think it's anything about what the media is saying that or anything like that.
Do you believe the FBI?
No, I think, you know, we all say the obvious thing.
Most of the people who work at the FBI are just good citizens and patriots and, you know, you'd love to have them as neighbors.
But we do have some questions about the leadership of the FBI from time to time.
And this is one of them.
Isn't it interesting that The two stories are just good for the FBI because it sort of absolves them and absolves the Democrats from any danger.
I'm going to say I don't believe anything about this report.
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
So I'm not saying they're lying.
I'm saying I wish I had a source that I could trust.
I totally don't trust the FBI on any of this at all.
So it's like nothing happened.
Meanwhile, Jim Jordan, he's asked for the CEO of that company that Judge Mershon's daughter works for.
As you know, Judge Mershon, one of the Trump Lawfare judges, and not too friendly to Trump, it seems, has a daughter that is a consultant To all the people who would like Trump to be in jail.
Democrats, in other words.
And so, Jim Jordan wonders if the judge had any conversations with the company that his daughter worked for that would tell you something like a conflict of interest was happening.
Now, I don't think that they have a smoking gun.
And the company laughed and said, uh, no, we don't communicate with the parents of our employees, which is actually a really good answer.
So they put it in the form of, you know, basically laughing that they would be communicating with the father of one of their employees.
And I have to say that's a good response.
No, I'm not saying that they're not, that they haven't communicated, but to answer Answer in the form of any company that would, you know, why would you ever have a conversation with some, one of your employees' fathers?
It's just not a normal thing.
So that's a good defense.
I don't expect anything's going to come out of it, even if they did have some conversations, probably nothing that they could find on paper.
So I don't think that'll come to anything, but I don't mind that Jim Jordan's looking into it.
Seems like it's more political than anything else.
Well, in Michigan, they're recommissioning another closed nuclear power plant.
They're still thinking that it's easier to spin one up, even though it's been closed a long time.
But Japan has the same problem.
Basically, all over the world, people are finding that we'd better get these nuclear power plants up and running as fast as possible.
So nuclear could not be hotter as a topic.
So I just like to bring that up so it doesn't sneak up on you.
We're really going to have a lot of nuclear in 20 years, it looks like.
It takes a while.
So the difference is if you try to recommission one that's closed, even if it's been closed a long time, you might be able to spin it up in, say, two years.
Whereas if you tried to build one, you're looking at 10 to 20 years.
So it makes sense to open them.
All right.
So, I believe maybe it's today that Kamala Harris and her emotional support mammal, also known as her vice president, Runnymate Walsh, will be talking to Dana Bash at CNN.
We don't know when it would be released, but we think the interview now would be taped.
Here's my favorite part.
You know, all the pundits are speculating that the reason for having the VP in the meeting is that he's there to keep Kamala Harris From saying something that would be embarrassing, or dumb, or otherwise take her out of the race.
Now, I'm trying to imagine what that would look like, because I can't—my brain can't come up with a scenario where he could help.
Imagine this.
Kamala Harris gets asked a question, and she's butchering it.
So she's like, um, well, we do the thing, and what—what is her vice president going to do?
He's sitting next to her, watching her die, answering a question wrong, and just like babbling through it.
What's he going to do?
You know what he's not going to do?
He's not going to mansplain.
He is not going to jump in.
So I think people were assuming that he would sort of jump in and answer the question that's a hard question that maybe he could answer better than she could.
No way.
No frickin' way is that guy going to cut her off.
Nope.
And I think he'd have to be really, really, really careful.
Is it this Thursday or next Thursday?
I'm hoping it's today.
But there's no way he's going to mansplain the first potential woman president who's also a person of color.
How can he?
How could he possibly say, well, let me explain what Kamala is butchering with her explanation.
I'd like to say it in the white guy, good explanation way, so you can understand it for the first time.
So Kamala, do you just sit there quietly while I do your job and show that you're unqualified?
That's not going to happen.
So I don't know what exactly he's going to do.
But he's definitely not going to interrupt to give a better answer.
If he does, it's over.
It's over.
I'm going to introduce a new hypothesis that I think I said in my Man Cave livestream last night.
That we believe that Kamala doesn't want to do the interviews and stuff, At least a regular interview, you know, not one where she brings an emotional support animal with her.
But that Scott Jennings frame, by the way, the emotional support animal, that's one of the funniest reframes I've heard all year.
So Scott Jennings, home run.
Good job.
Anyway, here's my hypothesis.
I don't think that they're keeping her from talking to the press just because she's not ready.
Meaning that they need to solidify what their policies are and make sure she can talk to him and maybe practice a little.
It could be that.
So it could be just no real reason to talk to the press, getting ready, they'll do it later.
So it could be just completely ordinary reasons that everybody could understand.
I think it's something else.
I think that she has a real fear of ruining everything with one wrong word.
I think she has a little bit of, you know, social anxiety about speaking in public, but I think she's in a situation that we can't even imagine.
Imagine you're a Democrat, and you believe that Trump is Hitler, and that the only thing that would keep Hitler from rising Is you.
Let's say you're Kamala Harris.
You think it's now your job to stop Hiller.
And you've got one debate planned, and you know that if you do a good job in the debate, you might be able to stop Hiller.
But if you have one badly wrong moment that becomes the viral clip, you're the person Who let Hitler take over.
Now, of course, Trump is not Hitler.
But remember, they've all brainwashed each other into thinking they're stopping Hitler.
So put yourself in this position.
Let's say you're not the most comfortable public speaker, right?
That's something that wouldn't bother Trump.
But I do think Harris has a little bit of social anxiety, something she's obviously overcome in the course of her public work.
So she easily overcomes it.
She shows up at events, she talks to groups of people, so it's not like it's crippling.
But imagine you had the added pressure of being one of the worst public speakers, just in terms of making sense, and you knew that one wrong sentence during the debate Could change the world and just turn it into, like, darkness, according to the Democrat narrative, which is nowhere near real, but they believe it.
Think about that pressure.
I think that the pressure on Kamala Harris to get it right would be like no other president ever, because nobody's ever convinced themselves that they're trying to stop Hitler.
They're just trying to win an election.
If the other person wins, it's not going to be that different.
But that's not what they think now.
So I think that her anxiety about the debate is probably something that we can't even imagine.
It's just got to be through the roof.
I mean, it's basically her job to save civilization by not saying something wrong.
And she's kind of famous for not saying things elegantly.
So imagine, just imagine yourself in that situation.
It would be the scariest thing you could even imagine.
Anyway, that's my theory, that she's scared to death of getting it wrong.
So there's a new poll out of Fox News that basically all the battleground states, or the Sunbelt states, just the Sunbelt ones, the Harris's, you know, tied, but they're within the margin of error.
Okay.
Can somebody answer this question for me?
How is it that every single adult in the United States could have told you what the polling would look like today, no matter who ran?
What's up with that?
If I had asked you, all right, a year ago, all right, it's gonna be a few months before the election, and I don't even know who's gonna run.
Let's say I didn't.
What will the polling look like two months before the election?
You could answer that question.
You'd say it looks like a tie, right?
Or at least it'd be within the margin of error of the polling.
Wouldn't every one of you know that?
Why do we know that?
That's not even possible.
It's not possible that we could all know it.
Normally, somebody gets something wrong.
This is the only thing I've ever seen where 100% of adults would say, Oh, yeah, it's going to be basically a tie when the election happens.
How is that possible?
I mean, really, how is that possible?
Here's what I think.
Just a hypothesis.
I think that the news is now so good at brainwashing that even without planning to do it, they know when to dial things up and dial it down to make the race as close as possible.
So while it looks to us on the surface like it's two competing fields, you know, the right-leaning press versus the left-leaning press, and they just pick their champions and they're fighting each other.
I don't know if they are.
Maybe what they're doing is they're both turning their dials to make sure it's as close as possible, even not thinking of it intentionally.
It might be a completely subconscious process where they just sort of know.
That they gotta pull up the pressure, or take down the pressure, or they can coast this week.
But that they all are following money.
And following the money says it's gotta be close.
That's what keeps us interested.
Right?
So, I always tell you that the follow the money hypothesis just works all the time, even when it shouldn't.
That's the fun part.
That following the money, as in the money will tell you what the future is gonna bring, That it works, even when you're positive it shouldn't.
Here's one of those times.
I believe that the press, just following profits, subconsciously, if not consciously, is just turning the dials to guarantee that it's close, and they would have done it with any two candidates.
There is no correlation between policies and polling right now.
And we know that, because people are saying, What are Communist policies?
We don't even know.
But we're happy to vote for it, because I don't know why, I guess I got hypnotized.
So you're seeing a brainwashing operation work perfectly.
There is no fucking way this is organically tied.
It can't happen.
I mean, just statistically.
This couldn't happen on its own.
It just can't happen on its own.
It's got to be brainwashing.
Right?
You come up with another hypothesis of how 300 million people could have accurately guessed and advanced the polling without even knowing the policies and without even knowing the candidates, and we all would have nailed it.
What's the other explanation for that?
I don't know of one.
I mean, unless it's just the weirdest coincidence in the world.
All right.
According to the Daily Caller, there's a hiring process in the government called Schedule A. And you can use this.
It was designed to make sure that the government was giving you full, let's say, full consideration To some hard-to-hire groups.
So that would include people with intellectual disabilities, severe physical and psychiatric disabilities.
So just making sure that the government can maybe cut some corners if they're trying to make sure that everybody's got a shot at a job.
Makes sense.
But there was something in there that said that for specialists, If somebody has a special skill, then you can also use that Schedule A and it kind of bypasses some normal hiring processes and maybe some approvals.
And that the so the Daily Caller says that the Biden administration is using it to basically staff the Department of Justice with a bunch of Democrats.
Now, I hope that they're using the That these are the specialist positions and not that they all have intellectual disabilities.
But they have hired, for example, over a hundred immigration judges through a process where they wouldn't have a normal approval process.
So they're basically Rigging the government, rigging the Department of Justice, by using a trick to get people who wouldn't necessarily be hired otherwise.
So, that's terrible.
But not as terrible as this.
There are at least two places in the United States where Venezuelan gangs have captured and are holding territory.
One is Denver, and the other is California.
There's some kind of apartment housing area where the Venezuelan armed gangs just took it over.
And they're holding it.
It's not that they took it over, because you can imagine bad things happen until they get corrected.
They're holding the territory.
In Denver as well.
They've taken over some real estate, and they're holding it.
With armed people.
The United States is actually smaller.
Because whatever's happening within that territory that they hold, that's no longer the United States.
It's not like somebody just did a crime.
They're controlling territory.
They actually stole part of the United States.
Because there's no Department of Justice in there, in their held territory.
There's no America Police Force.
That's Venezuelan now.
We have two parts of America that are literally Venezuelan controlled.
Because we don't have, I don't know, the will or the resources to stop it, I guess.
Now, I like to think we will stop it, but I thought that when there was only one place that Venezuelans were capturing and holding.
Now they have two.
It's probably more than that.
Wow!
I think it'll get corrected, but let me go back to my prior point about the poll being that the polling says that race is a tie.
Just think about this.
The border is so open that armed Venezuelan criminals are holding territory in the United States and the election is a tie.
Really?
Really?
Foreign nationals have captured and are holding territory in the United States, and the election is a tie?
What?
How is this even a little bit possible?
Again, it's massive brainwashing.
It's the only way you can get here.
You couldn't get to this place Without massive brainwashing.
So that's the explanation for everything.
Well, as you know, the Biden administration has tried a bunch of things to cancel a bunch of student debts.
And conservatives and courts and America First and other groups have sued and tried to prevent these things.
And, you know, that story's getting a little boring for me, but I'm going to take it up a notch.
Instead of the government paying off Student debt, and that seems very unfair to all of us.
How about this?
How about the government pays off all consumer debt?
All of it.
Your car loan, your house loan, your entire mortgage, all of your credit cards.
All at once.
How much would that cost?
Well, the current debt of the entire United States is around 36 trillion dollars.
There's no way we'll ever be able to pay that back or survive.
If you were to pay off all the consumer debt, it would be another 17 trillion dollars on top.
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
If you can't pay it back and you're doomed, you might as well enjoy the ride.
So you might as well just remove all debt, Just do a, you know, one time ever kind of thing.
Make sure everybody knows that they can't run up some more debt because you're not going to ever do it again.
So it'd have to be, you know, very clear it's once, once only.
What would happen?
Well, imagine that the $17 trillion of debt was taken away from consumers.
What would they do?
They might upgrade their house.
They might Be able to consume more because they don't have to pay the banks?
You would have this massive growth that maybe would give you a better chance of paying off the debt than if you hadn't done it.
Here's what I know for sure.
We don't know anything about economics.
If you say to yourself, Scott, that's obviously a bad idea to pay off all consumer debt.
Is it?
Where's your study?
It would massively boost consumer spending, which is usually the driver of the economy.
Are you telling me it wouldn't work?
Why would it work to forgive student debt?
Why is that the special magical debt?
What makes that magic?
If taking debt away from people who are buried with debt is a good idea, Why is it just for students?
See, the thing is, if it pays for itself, and by the way, I think it might.
It might actually pay for itself.
I'm not sure anybody's smart enough to know.
If the government spends money to make money, I'm not, I don't hate that.
Let me give you another example.
You probably heard the story that California is gonna make money available for non-citizens to get homes.
And you said to yourself, what?
Non-citizens to get homes, this is crazy.
But then you look at the details.
And the details are, they're not giving you the money.
You have to pay it back when you sell the house.
So if you get into a house, and housing prices go up over time, and you're paying down your loan, you've built up some equity.
But if your equity gets to the point where it's the same amount that you were given, and you sell the house, you've got to pay back the loan.
So the government gives nothing because they're getting it back.
Now remember, these are only borrowers, they might be non-citizens, but they still have to qualify as qualified buyers who can pay back a loan just like everybody else.
So most of them would accept the money.
Someday when they sold the house, the government gets it back.
And I assume that would happen Even if they died and there was an estate situation.
But on top of that, the government would take some percentage of profit in the increase of the value of your home.
So if your house doubled in value, when you go to pay back the loan, I think you pay back twice as much as you got, because your house went up in value.
So it's some calculation in that neighborhood.
So the way it was designed, Is that if everything worked perfectly and the loan defaults were just sort of a normal 2% or whatever, that the government would probably make money.
It would actually legitimately be an investment.
Now it would take a long time for the money to come back.
So you gotta, you know, discount that and calculate it all.
But at least there's at least the model that suggests you could get some back.
So I do like anything that the government does.
That they've at least calculated they can make a profit.
I'm much less opposed to that kind of spending if it looks like, oh, that's got a good return on investment.
Not in the way that Kamala Harris does it.
So just think about it.
I say this more as a, by the way, this is more of a mental experiment.
If you can tell me why we shouldn't just get rid of all consumer debt, I'm open to that.
I'm not saying this is a great idea.
I'm saying that if the concept of getting rid of student debt makes sense, and we have no hope of paying back the debt anyway, why not give everybody a break and we'll enjoy the ride to doom?
Alright, so I'm not 100% serious about this.
It's just that if you don't understand why it's a good or bad idea, then you probably don't understand the whole topic.
And I don't.
I don't understand if it's a good or bad idea.
So I don't understand the whole topic, but I'm sure nobody else does.
That's my problem.
I don't think anybody does understand the national debt and what the real implications are and where that's going.
All right.
According to Newsmax, 82% of Americans are considering delaying retirement.
I don't even know how anybody would retire.
Here's why.
People who have good jobs, and they have the ability to not retire, are thinking to themselves some version of this.
Whatever I used to think I needed, I might need 10 times more.
So they're not going to quit.
Because the value of money might just decrease to the point that whatever you've saved, you'd better have a lot more.
So every year you work gets you more of what you want.
But on top of that, I think there are going to be so many people who can't work, either because robots take their jobs or one reason or another, that the people who can work, And can add to the economy, we're almost obligated to do it.
That's what I feel.
I feel that because I'm physically capable of working, and physically capable of adding to the economy, that retirement would be unethical in my case.
Does anybody feel that?
In theory, I have the wherewithal that I could just stop working and, you know, just do whatever I want all day.
In practice, I feel like if I just retired, I would become a drain on the system instead of a benefit.
And I can't do that.
My brain won't let me be a drain on the system if I have the physical ability to be the opposite of that and add to it.
Because we're going to need a lot more margin of safety than we have.
Because we've got some big stuff coming.
You know, that robot in AI age, we don't know what that's going to do.
So those of us who might have some, you know, extra resources, we're going to need extra, extra, extra resources, because there are going to be people who need it.
Whether you like it or not, whether it gets taken by taxes, or you're just helping your family who's not doing so well.
One way or another, the people who can make money, it feels like an obligation to do it.
So I'm just speaking personally that I feel like retiring just wouldn't be morally and ethically appropriate as long as I can still get up and do what I do.
So I guess I'll keep doing it for a while.
Well, I was impressed that some Democrats are making a good argument for why you don't need to see the policy details for Harris.
Are you ready for this?
What possible argument could you make that says you don't really need to see the policy details?
Do you think they can do it?
Before I tell you what the arguments are, do you think that you'll just laugh at them like, okay, that's just stupid?
Well, let's test it.
All right, here's the argument.
That the point of having detailed policies Now we all know that the details of any policy get worked out through Congress and lots of negotiating.
So even if a candidate had a specific policy, there's no reason to think that that is going to become law.
It's that everything gets negotiated.
So Democrats say that the purpose of having specific policies as a candidate, wait for this, is to highlight their values.
And I say, huh, okay.
So far I'm with you, that the reason to have detailed policies such as build a wall is so that you can understand the values.
So Trump says build a wall, and then I say, oh, his value is he wants to really protect the border.
The details?
Wall, no wall, whatever it is, but he wants to protect the border.
So I think, yeah, actually, That makes sense.
And you can see some Democrat policies where you say, all right, that's not exactly what's going to happen probably, but you can see that they're, you know, valuing this community or valuing this, this thing.
And I said to myself, I hate the fact that that makes complete sense.
So here's the second part of it.
The reason for detailed policies is just so everybody understands their values.
And we're already in a values race.
That's, that's the kill shot.
The point of individual specific policies is just to say where you're heading, but we're already past that.
We're already into the, it's very clear what Kamala Harris cares about.
It's very clear what Trump cares about.
We've already passed the need to have specific policies.
Now that's a little conceptual.
You have to sort of think about it for a minute, but if you think about it, I agree with that.
There's probably no reason for specific policies.
Do you know who wants specific policies?
The press.
The press wants specific policies so they have something to argue about and criticize.
But if you were to talk to the citizens, not the ones like me who are, you know, following the news and we're news nerds, but just an average person, And say, do you need details of Kamala Harris's policies, or do you feel like you generally know which way she's leaning?
I think 95% of Democrats would say, you know what?
I don't really need the details.
I know she wants to raise the taxes on the wealthy.
Check.
Right?
I know she wants to be a little kinder on the border, but still add some security.
Check.
I don't think they need the details.
I think it's just the press and the nerds like me who would care.
But the public doesn't care.
So here's another one.
Only a dozen podcasters care about the policy details.
So this is also Democrats defending the lack of details.
Yep, you're right.
Yep, it's the podcasters who care.
So we have something to talk about.
You're totally right.
If I were just voting, I'd feel like I knew enough.
But as somebody who talks about it every day, I was like, huh, give me something to talk about, bitches.
I want something to talk about.
But I don't need it.
I mean, it wouldn't change my vote.
So, I mean, and then you look at, say, the tax policy.
So Kamala Harris's tax policy probably just gave people reasons to not vote for her.
Because the people who were going to vote for her may have liked it, but they were going to vote for her.
There were certainly people who had a lot of wealth who don't want to see a wealth tax.
So every policy detail she gives is bad news for her.
It gives people a reason to say no, but doesn't really increase the reason to say yes.
Try to think of any policy that she could have that would make people say, oh, now I'm on that team.
I don't know what that would be.
I can't think of anything.
So really, they don't have much reason to give us policy details.
And they say that focusing on a vision of the future and their priorities is more important.
I agree.
I hate to say it.
Democrats have succeeded in convincing me in a perfectly reasonable, not dispersive, but my sense of reason agrees.
Yeah, they don't really need it.
It's just something that I want.
I wasn't really expecting there would be a good argument for not having policies.
But there it is.
It's pretty good.
Nicole Shanahan, as you know, she was RFK junior.
Well, I guess she still is.
RFK junior is running, mate.
Because technically his campaign is still active-ish.
He's just not campaigning.
Anyway, she said that the Democrats have lost their soul.
She said that during a Fox News interview.
They've lost their soul, they've lost their direction.
That's perfectly said.
Because, again, if you get into the details of stuff, you know, you could argue all day.
But the bigger picture is they do seem to have lost all interest in free speech and transparency and citizens picking their candidates and all those things that you think would be part of the historical Democrat soul.
They don't seem to be interested in anything but winning and keeping Trump out of office.
So, yeah, I think they went from, you know, who they are to who Trump is.
Oh, that's a good way to say it.
I often say that the things you do are what make you who you are.
It's not your thoughts.
It's what you do.
So you can have bad thoughts, but you're not a bad person if you don't do bad things.
If you have bad thoughts, but you only do good things that are good for other people, well, you're a good person.
That's how I see it.
And I think that Democrats, no matter what their internal thinking is, they've gone from Who are you?
Well, who do you want to be?
Well, I'd like to be a person who's in favor of peace and prosperity and, you know, everybody gets a shot and that's who you want to be.
But that's not what this race is.
This race is about Trump.
So if the race is about Trump, the Democrats have completely abandoned the question of who do you want to be?
Like, do you want to be a person who acts this way and supports these things and, you know, when you die you'll say, that's who I was?
Or do you want to die saying, I stopped Trump?
Because that's not exactly who you are.
It's more about him.
So yeah, it does feel like they've lost their soul in the sense that they've lost introspection.
There it is.
That's what I'm looking for.
I'm not one who believes in souls per se, but in terms of poetic language, it's perfect.
They've lost introspection, which is very close to what Nicole is saying, that they've lost their soul.
They're not really thinking about who they are and who they want to be.
They're just thinking that they've got to stop Trump because somebody told them he's the devil.
Well, did you know that there's a taxpayer-funded AI thing, according to Reclaim the Net, that they use AI to identify misinformation about vaccinations?
And so that they can inoculate you digitally and information-wise against any wrong think about physical inoculations.
That's right.
So you are now being inoculated against inoculations.
Literally.
You're being inoculated information-wise by them, you know, blocking or Essentially blocking.
Sources of information they would consider incorrect.
And that is for the purpose of you not being afraid to get a vaccination, which in theory would inoculate you from a disease.
So they're actually inoculating you from information to make sure they can inoculate your body.
That's a lot of inoculation.
Maybe too much.
Anyway.
So, I got curious because I was looking at an article in The Hill in which they had this sentence.
It wasn't about inoculations, but this is how The Hill describes Kennedy.
So, see if this rings true to you.
Quote, Kennedy, who has long peddled debunked anti-vaccine conspiracies.
Is that true?
Has Kennedy long peddled debunked anti-vaccine conspiracies?
Well, if you hear him tell it, He'll say, you know, it needs to be studied.
There's a correlation between especially autism and some vaccinations needs to be looked into.
The vaccines have not been tested sufficiently.
So that would be an obvious place you look to for making sure that they're safe.
Now, is that a claim that's debunked?
Well, I asked chat GPT to explain who debunked them.
Because I wasn't sure who did the debunking.
That matters, doesn't it?
So it turns out there's some big serious entities that have completely debunked the idea that childhood vaccinations would be more dangerous than good.
Now, notice how I said that.
What I didn't say is that Kennedy says the vaccinations give you autism.
I haven't heard him say that, but I think people are suggesting that he's too close to that line.
I think he just wants to know more, because there's a correlation that's really worrisome.
And there is.
There's a correlation that seems worrisome.
But did you know it's all been debunked?
And here's according to ChatGPT.
Who debunked it?
First of all, there's the CDC.
Oh, okay.
Well, we don't really trust the CDC, do we?
Are you with me so far?
I don't trust the CDC.
Do you?
So if the CDC says it's debunked, does that have any credibility with you whatsoever?
Not with me.
But they're not the only ones.
I mean, there's lots more.
So if you want to get more credible than them, it's also debunked by the World Health Organization.
The WHO.
Wait, what?
You don't trust them?
Why wouldn't you trust the World Health Organization?
What are they?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Not really credible, are they?
So you got the CDC you don't trust and the World Health Organization, but they're not the only ones.
You also have the National Institute of Health.
Hmm.
Who are they?
Do you trust them?
I don't.
No, but keep in mind, I'm not saying any of them are wrong.
I'm saying that Do I believe it's true because one of these groups said so?
Nope.
Nope.
We don't live in a world where you can believe it just because one of these groups said it was true.
We don't know, you know, what tentacles the pharmaceutical companies have with them.
We don't know if they're operating in a fear because they don't want to be treated as a conspiracy theorist like RFK Jr.
Maybe they just want to collect their royalties, collect their paychecks, and not cause any trouble, like everybody else in the world.
So, I don't really trust that.
But then, then there's, uh, all right, here's the good news.
There are also peer-reviewed studies that debunk him.
Oh, phew!
Peer-reviewed studies.
How often are peer-reviewed studies correct and reproducible?
Half the time?
If it's half the time, it's a coin flip.
If it's a coin flip, why do you need a study?
You see where I'm going with that?
If it's a 50% chance that the study doesn't tell you the truth, it's a coin flip.
And if it's a coin flip and you don't know which way it is, the study has no value.
Do you see what's missing?
A controlled, randomized, placebo study.
Where's that?
I've been told that you don't really know what the science is unless there are randomized, controlled studies.
Does that sound like a peer-reviewed study?
I mean, it could also be peer-reviewed.
But peer-reviewed is the lowest level of credibility in science.
It's literally just a coin flip.
And if the question is, does something work or not work, hurt you or not hurt you, it's kind of two choices.
Coin flip.
So their best science is a coin flip.
Now, of course, real scientists are going to say, that's not true.
We had lots of different observational studies.
Who funded them?
Right?
How often do we have a study and they just looked at the data wrong or did the stats wrong?
All the time.
I don't trust anything about peer-reviewed studies.
But then they say that there's this one individual who was discredited in his 1998 study.
So he's a person who came up with this idea.
And then he was thoroughly debunked.
It says Wakefield, Andrew Wakefield, lost his medical license due to ethical violations and falsification of data.
His claims have been rejected by the scientific community.
Okay, that could be totally true.
You know what else could be totally true?
That if 100% of everything he said was true, including his data, that big entities would discredit him until he was completely destroyed.
How do I know that?
Because I lived through the pandemic.
Did we not watch professional doctors be completely destroyed?
Because they disagreed with the mainstream media?
We did!
And were the people who were destroyed, were they wrong in everything they said?
Not so much.
Not so much.
So there doesn't seem to be a correlation when you've got big money involved.
You know, it'd be different if it was a different topic.
But where you've got the big money and the pharma company is involved, being discredited as an expert doesn't have any evidentiary value.
Would you agree?
In the old days, if you told me that all the big entities discredited an individual, I would have said, oh, that's a discredited individual.
But after watching the pandemic and knowing that, you know, money distorts everything, I look at it and I go, that doesn't actually mean anything.
No, I'm not, I'm not supporting what he said.
I'm saying that whoever debunked him, including saying his data was wrong and all these ethical violations they allege, doesn't really have credibility in today's world.
Could be true.
But how would I know?
So then I said to myself, all right, if there's not a single source that disagrees with Kennedy that I consider credible, then how do you explain what seems to be like a huge increase in autism?
How many of you think that there is a big increase in autism?
How many of you would say Well, that's a known, you know, everybody knows there's a huge increase in autism.
How many would you say that's true?
So I asked chat GPT and again, you have to be careful because chat GPT might be hallucinating.
It's not it's not reliable.
But I'll tell you what he said and then you can correct me if you see something wrong.
So apparently you don't have to think that the vaccinations are causing autism.
You don't need to think that because you have so many other explanations that are better explanations of why the autism is going up.
You want to hear the better explanations?
According to ChatGPT, number one, increased awareness and improved diagnosis.
Oh, so it's not that there are more.
It's just that the medical people are spotting it and labeling it.
So it's really just a identification problem.
Or there's broader diagnostic criteria.
Oh, wow.
So it's not just that they're spotting more of them, but the category of what you would call an autistic person has been widened, so it's a bigger net.
So really, it's just a data thing.
They're just picking up more of them because of the way they're measuring it.
There are changes in health care practices.
And if more people have access to health care, it's more likely they'll be identified as having any problem, including autism.
So that's part of it.
It's just better health care.
So we're spotting it.
Increased recognition of autism in different populations.
Okay.
So we didn't recognize it as easily in girls.
It was more obvious than boys.
But now that we know what to look for in girls, we go, Oh, wow.
It was probably always there, we just didn't notice it before.
How about genetic factors?
Well, research indicates, according to Chad GPT, that genes play a role, but do not alone account for the increase in cases.
So, it plays a role, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
What's missing?
What percentage of the story does it tell?
Does it tell 80% of the story?
Or 20% of the story?
Or 1% of the story?
If you don't know how much the genetic part is, you're kind of flying blind here, aren't you?
I used to believe, and by the way, this is still my operating hypothesis, there's some amount of the autism, and specifically Asperger's also, I don't know if you want to count that as just part of the same story, but I think it has to do with people who have a propensity to easily finding each other.
Meaning if two engineers, who aren't quite Asperger's, but they're both, you know, one toe over the line, if they have a kid, the odds of the kid getting it from both sides are better.
And we have a world where you can find somebody living on the other side of the country who's also a computer programmer like you, and you have lots in common, so you get married.
In the old days, you just married whoever was nearby.
So he had much more random mixing of genes.
But now the people who are, you know, right on the border of having, being on the spectrum, let's say, are more easily finding each other and finding things in common.
So I don't know how big the genetic factor is.
And then they say environmental factors, less well understood.
Prenatal exposure to substances could be just a pollution problem in the environment.
And Basically, the bottom line from ChatGPT is that we can't even be sure there's more autism because we're just diagnosing it.
All right.
Now, I have a one of my BS filters is when observation does not match science.
So let's say the science is saying there's no more autism than there ever was.
Does that match your observation?
You live in the world.
Are you observing that there's more autism, or are you not?
I'm observing that there's more.
It seems like it comes up all the time now.
Especially, you know, if you're on the spectrum, I'd say it comes up way more.
So, to me, the science here is not quite matching.
So, now that you've seen the whole thing, So the whole story is that their entities, none of which I consider credible, doesn't mean they're wrong, I just don't accept them on their word, are the ones who say that RFK Jr.
is wrong about vaccinations and at least the autism part.
But on top of the autism part, he has other claims about chronic illness.
Now that could be mostly diet, the chronic illness, But you certainly have to look at the vaccines too, just to make sure you've checked everything.
So I have no specific information that would suggest vaccines are dangerous.
I'm just saying that if you look at the world of how we know things, there are some really big questions to be answered in the how we know things about vaccines and whatever impact they might be having.
So don't trust anything According to Just the News, the news site Just the News, the Department of Defense is withholding documents on the question of whether DEI hiring improves national security.
Hmm.
I wonder if DEI improves or decreases national security.
How could we possibly fund the study to find that out?
You can just ask me.
No, it's no good.
Again, for anybody who's new, when I criticize DEI as a system, it has nothing to do with any groups, genes, or capabilities.
It has nothing to do with culture.
It's just a system that on paper can't possibly be good, because it requires an artificial shortage of enough diversity, because everybody's going to look for it at the same time.
If everybody's looking for the same diversity and there's not enough people in the pipeline, they will not sit with empty jobs.
They will just keep going down the capability list until they can hit the diversity target.
It guarantees you're hiring less qualified people, again, not because of their genders or their genes or their culture.
It's just a system problem.
There's just not enough of the people you want to hire, so you lower your standards.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, in the real world, nobody's going to lower their standards to the point where it would make the country unsafe.
To which I say, have you ever lived in the real world?
No, in the real world, it happens every time, every time, every fucking time in the real world.
So if you haven't lived any minutes in the real world, you think, oh, the managers will Obviously, just try harder until they can get diversity and the highest qualifications you could ever get, because why wouldn't they?
Yeah, that works great if you're Apple or Microsoft and, you know, people are fighting to work there.
You can get the best of everything, including diversity.
What about the rest of everybody else?
What about the government?
Do you think the government is getting the best of the diverse candidates?
Or do you think if you were diverse, you were part of the diversity world, and you were qualified for any job, wouldn't you go to Apple?
Why would you work in the government at all?
Why wouldn't you go for the big money, and the cushy job, and the better respect?
So, the government in particular, Should be the place where there's the most emphasis on DEI and the fewest number of applicants who are diverse, who would be willing to work for the government when they could just go get a, you know, twice the pay somewhere else.
On paper, it should guarantee that we're less safe.
That's the design.
If you just look at the design and you say, where is this going to lead us?
It's easy.
Now, like I said, if it's Apple Computer, it might look different.
Because, you know, in the limited pool of diverse candidates who have the right technical skills, maybe Apple can get most of them.
Because it's such a cool place to work.
So there might be big companies, and maybe even Mark Cuban.
You know, he's big on DEI.
Maybe Mark Cuban, because he's a celebrity and, you know, he's got resources, etc.
Maybe he can just try harder and get a fully diverse workforce without giving up a single thing.
But not everybody else can do that, and certainly the government can't.
The government's going to go for diversity real fast, and they're going to worry about meritocracy last.
That's your government.
How's the government doing?
Since 2021, our border control and our border patrol agents have apprehended 1,746 known or suspected terrorists at the border.
1,746 known or suspected terrorists.
What?
But here's the kill shot.
border. 1,746 known or suspected terrorists. What? But here's the kill shot. The majority of them, 1,089, came across the Canadian border and they were caught at points of entry.
So these are just the ones who thought it was worth taking a chance to go across the border at a port of entry, when I'm pretty sure that people can get across the Canadian border to the United States without a port of entry.
I mean, I don't know the details, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to do that.
So when you say known or suspected terrorists, I would like to know the ratio of known to suspected.
Wouldn't you?
What exactly makes you a suspected terrorist?
My assumption is, if you're a young male who doesn't have a lot of records, and you come from a country that isn't friendly to the United States, and maybe you're part of a culture that isn't, at least in that part of the country, or that part of the world, does that make you a suspected terrorist?
Even if you've done nothing, you've done nothing in that domain, Are you still a suspected terrorist?
Do they check your social media to see if you've said suspected terrorist things?
So the first question I'd ask is, uh, how many of them are known terrorists?
Cause they're the ones I'm worried about.
I'm way less bothered by suspected.
Um, but obviously you have to worry about them too.
So, We're letting in terrorists by the gazillions.
The debt is unpayable.
But for now, life goes on today anyway.
Just wait for your flying baby robots to come rescue you.
Now, I've got this feeling today that something big is about to happen.
Because it's way too quiet.
You know, even though there's lots of Chat, chat, chat on politics.
None of it's really important.
Like, I was looking at all the news stories today and I thought, yeah, J.D.
Vance said some things.
I don't care.
Yeah, somebody brought a camera to Arlington, not to disrespect anybody, literally for the purpose of respecting them.
Yeah, I don't care.
There's a new Democrat who's Going to endorse Trump that I never heard of?
I don't care.
There's a bunch of staffers for ex-GOP never-Trumpers, 200 of them who are now pro-Harris.
I never heard of them.
I don't care.
So there's way too much news that doesn't even look like news.
Something's about to happen.
California is going to ban voter ID for local elections.
I think we knew that was going to happen.
I don't know.
Does anybody else feel it?
Because my feeling is that news is generally fake.
And when it gets quiet, it's because the people who make fake news are ready to land a big one.
And they don't want a bunch of competing, you know, almost as big stories that are bubbling at the same time.
So as soon as I see the bubble rate go down and stay there for a day, I say, oh, I got something coming.
I don't know that that's, you know, that there's any way to detect it that way.
It just feels that way.
So it's just a feeling.
Scott doesn't do a real job Why would he retire?
Well, that's what I'm saying.
You're not disagreeing with me.
I'm saying that as long as I can do the job and that I don't mind doing the job, It would seem unethical to stop because I'm contributing to the system in some way that feels meaningful to me.
Tomorrow wouldn't be the day to drop it.
If there's something big, you think it'd be a Friday thing?
Depends how big it is.
So some of you think that there's a rumor that Biden will step down so that Kamala can run as an incumbent.
Here, let me give you the argument against it.
You ready?
The argument against it is if Kamala had to take over the reins, I don't know how she could handle that transition at the same time as running for office.
I think that would overwhelm her.
Or anybody, really.
So, the only way she could take over the presidency, because there's also the, you know, the turnover of, you gotta pick a staff, and, you know, I don't think you just automatically take your vice president's staff.
So, to me, it seems like they would be putting too much on her 60 days before the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if Biden steps down if she wins after the election.
Because even I would say there's not like, well, let me put the question to you.
If you know Biden is toast, and let's say hypothetically Kamala Harris won in a way that you thought was legitimate enough, wouldn't you be just as happy if she took over immediately instead of waiting until January?
I wouldn't have any reason to make her wait.
I'd say, let's just get in there.
You might as well just take over.
I'd rather have a human in the job.
So I think they'd wait till after the election.
That's what I think.
And if they were going to do something before that, I think they would be signaling it harder.
So it wasn't a surprise.
So I'm going to guess that Biden stays in office through the election, but if Harris wins, he would reasonably soon step down, spend Christmas with his family, and just be out of all the January nonsense.
And that would make sense for an elderly man who's got some issues.
That would be the best way to treat him, I think.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
I'm going to go do some other things.
Go enjoy your day.
It's going to be amazing.
And I'll see you all later.
I'm going to say goodbye to everybody on the Rumble Studio.
I've got a separate device running the locals peoples, so they're going to stay with me.
