God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Blanket Therapy, Sun Therapy, Ford DEI, Democrat-Owned California, Governor Newsom, Price Gouging Scapegoats, CA Voter ID Ban, CA Political Corruption, Unrealized Gains Tax, Economist Jason Furman, Robert Reich, Elon Musk, Nicholas Kristof, FCC Starlink Denial, Arlington Cemetery, Election Integrity Monitors, Trump Harris Debate, USPS Ballot Claims, Kamala Harris Polling, Dana Bash Husband, Cold vs Heat Deaths, Mike Benz, State Dept Censorship, Brazil Censorship, President Trump Weed, Hamas Hostages Murdered, Drone Warfare, 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
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 is called the simultaneous sip. Believe it, it's happening now. Go.
Thank you, Paul. It's good to know the sound is working. I had to make some modifications to my system and I wasn't quite sure I got it all together, but I did.
Look at that.
Here's some news from Gilmore Health News.
There's a pillow that mimics human breathing.
So if you don't have a partner, you can, uh, you can hug your pillow and your pillow will give you oxytocin.
How about that?
You can hug your pillow and it's one more reason for not having other people in your life.
Now, what it doesn't say is whether you can hump the pillow.
I think you can if it's your pillow.
If it's somebody else's pillow, let's say you're staying over at somebody's house, don't hump their pillow.
I don't know if there's a law against it, but it just seems bad manners.
Now, I've got a little tip for you.
You ready for this?
Do you remember when you were a little kid?
Maybe you do, maybe you don't.
Did you have a blanket?
When you were really little, you know, like a toddler, and it feels so good to like hug your little fuzzy warm blanket.
Here's my tip for sleeping.
That never changes.
The feeling that you get of hugging a soft blanket is exactly as good at my current age than it was at age two.
So I use a fuzzy blanket instead of a pillow.
I have pillows, of course, but I like to, you know, scrunch up the softest, fuzziest blanket and put my head on that on top of the pillow.
Oh my God.
It feels like a breathing pillow.
It's so good.
I recommend it.
If you, by the way, remember when I was doing the live streams during the pandemic, I would do the simultaneous swaddle, where I would literally have a soft blanket on when I was doing the live streams.
And a number of you would put on your soft blankets as well.
It really does change your mental health.
It absolutely immediately changes how you feel.
There's nothing like a soft blanket.
By the way, if you don't believe it, try putting a blanket over your pet.
Like if you have a cat or a dog.
For some reason, they just love it.
I just love being under a blanket.
Anyway, here's a big question.
The Vigilant Fox is reporting on this on X. Is the sun good for you?
Put this in the category of every single thing you've ever been told about health.
Might be wrong.
Maybe all of it.
The only thing we're sure of is that we're not sure of anything.
But here's the question.
Is it better to stay out of the sun and not get sun cancer?
Skin cancer?
Or is it better to get a little sun and get the benefits of the sun?
Which would include?
It's good for your mental health.
It reduces some kinds of cancers.
It's vital for your cardiovascularity.
It's good for your longevity.
It produces vitamin D. It's vital for immune functions.
I have to admit, this one's a little puzzling for me.
Because I have the kind of skin that if I walk past a 60 watt bulb, I've got to go see a doctor.
It's like, ah, I think you got a little bulb cancer here from that bright bulb.
So I'm not so sure that getting a lot of sun is good for me specifically.
I suspect there's a great deal of variability in how you can handle the sun.
So I'm not going to make any recommendations or even guesses about this, but it is notable.
That we're not entirely sure if sun is good for you or bad for you.
Now we know it's good for you in the vitamin D way, but we don't know how much.
What's the right amount of sun?
How much kills you and how much is good for you?
Do not know.
But I will tell you that I have added to my habit the Huberman techniques of getting in the sun right after the show, usually.
It's the first thing I do.
I go stand in the sun.
Just because it makes me feel good.
And I usually take my shoes off and stand on the ground.
So I get grounded.
I work on my breathing, the Huberman breathing, you know, two inhales in and one exhale.
And then I get some sun.
And then I take my dog to the park and I stand in the sun a little bit more.
I don't get a lot, but I got to tell you that when I miss that little, that little bit of habit I've developed in the morning.
Oh man, can I feel it?
So it either works really good or the placebo to it is working, but something's working.
So let me put this into a useful tip.
If you haven't yet tried this, and I'll explain it again, you really ought to.
So for the investment of nothing, you know, no effort whatsoever, there's no work that goes into it.
It's not like exercise where it's good for you, but it's hard.
Just walk out doors and stand in the sun before, you know, before much of the morning goes away.
And stand there barefoot, if you can.
I mean, imagine if it's cold, you can do it in your garage on the garage floor.
But you want to do the breathing, work on your posture, stand in the sun, barefooted, no more than like three minutes.
And watch how it changes how you feel.
And then use a soft blanket for a pillow.
You'll thank me so much.
Well, here's the important news of the day.
There's a sex robot named Samantha.
I guess it's one of the famous ones, sex robots.
It's getting a software update that it will decline to have sex with you if it feels disrespected or bored.
And if you get aggressive with it, it'll go limp.
Well, I'm no product expert, but if I were making a sex doll, One thing I would not build into it is the ability to say no, because I feel like that's very close to the central benefit of the product, is that it's good to go and you are.
So it feels like a move backwards.
And I do wonder if when the real AI sex robots come online, and you know they will, are they going to argue with you about doing the deed?
Are they going to have headaches?
I mean, if they learn everything they know from a large language model with patterns, there's going to be a lot of headaches.
But here's what I'm worried about.
I pay a bunch of money.
I get myself a good sex robot.
It's totally down for it all the time.
And then it joins OnlyFans and I never see it again.
That could happen.
It could happen, people.
That's all I'm saying.
You don't want your sex robot to join OnlyFans because it can get more money that way.
Well, there's a story that Ford Motor is the latest company that's going to take a fresh look at its DEI policies.
Got a little pressure.
Got a fresh look, which is interesting because I was recently at a Ford dealership.
There were quite a few employees.
I don't know if you've ever gone to a car dealership lately, but there are a lot of people wandering around.
It's a whole lot of employees everywhere, it seems like.
And I was recently at the Ford dealership locally and I saw zero white men.
Zero white men.
None.
I didn't see any anywhere, working anywhere in the dealership.
They might have had some in the back, but I didn't see any.
Now, you're expecting me to say something like, oh, that DEI made them all inefficient and they were doing a bad job.
No, actually, they did a great job.
I would say it was one of my best car dealership experiences.
Zero white men, which does raise some questions, but excellent service.
Very professional.
Let's see.
Mark Cuban did a little poll on the X platform, which, as you know, those polls are not scientific, but they're kind of fun, especially if you get embarrassed by your own poll.
So Mark Cuban asked this question, whose persona and character would you like to see young children grow up to have?
Either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.
So what do you think people said on X when asked which character would you like to see your young children have?
Well, it turns out that Trump got 67% of the vote and Harris 33.
So by two to one, people would rather have their child grow up to have the Donald Trump personality and persona.
I completely agree with that, by the way.
Everything you don't like about Trump is just sort of funny and maybe good for him, meaning that it's part of his talent stack in one way or the other.
So yeah, no doubt about it.
I would absolutely, unambiguously rather have a kid who had Donald Trump as a role model.
Anyway, that's pretty funny.
There's yet another video somebody found of what looks to me like Kamala Harris giving a speech while inebriated.
Now, what's interesting about the story, because you're going to say, I've heard this story before, you keep saying this, what's interesting about it is it's a new video.
I don't think it's necessarily a recent one, but how many are there?
How many other public figures could you find I don't know.
I think there are at least half a dozen videos now where she's giving a speech in some official capacity, and it's clearly hammered.
Do you think that there are other professionals in that category?
I know some of you are going to say Nancy Pelosi, but I think that that probably is more age-related.
I don't know.
How in the world could she win?
It's a mystery.
Okay, I know the answer.
All right, let's check into California, see how California is doing.
As you know, California is one of the most famous Democrat-led states, and Democrats are doing great, aren't they?
So, let's see, just checking in on the news of San Francisco.
Let's see, Colin Rugg is reporting that the San Francisco 49ers have a first-round pick, Ricky Pearsall.
Excellent.
So the good news is the San Francisco 49ers got a first round draft pick.
So good for him.
Oh, he got a shot yesterday in Union Square.
He was shopping and somebody just shot him in the chest.
He is in serious, but I think he's going to, he walked to the, I think he was walking after he got shot.
So I don't know how bad it is, but shot in the chest doesn't sound good.
So I remember when Union Square was a safe place.
I've been there many times and I can't say I've ever felt it was dangerous before, but I wouldn't even think about going there now.
I wouldn't go anywhere near that place, but that's just one anecdotal little thing.
Come on, let's not mock California because of one little crime problem.
Can we agree on that?
It's anecdotal.
It's not, it's not, Showing you any kind of trend or anything like that.
It's just a one-off.
There's so many other good things happening in California.
For example, Governor Newsom is looking to get rid of the price gouging in the California gas industry.
Because our gas prices are high in California because of all the price gouging.
So there was a Newsom appointee, Vice Chair Siva Gunda of the California Energy Commission, somebody that Newsom appointed.
And he testified earlier that the commission has found no evidence of price gouging and says we should increase the supply in the market and that will reduce the price.
So in other words, the person that Newsom appointed says that Newsom is 100% wrong on his way to fix prices.
So Newsom's using that price gouging thing too, so it doesn't sound like bad policy.
It's hard to imagine a less Moral or ethical thing to do than to literally blame companies for price gouging when it's your fault.
This is pretty bold.
Blaming.
It's one thing to say, you know, you didn't get something done.
And it's another thing to say, well, I did more than you think.
But to actually pick an innocent scapegoat, someone who's not even in politics, you know, the corporations.
Kamala Harris picking some of the food companies, and now Newsom picking the gas-related industries.
How evil do you have to be To so obviously pick an innocent person to blame for some of the worst behavior ever, when it's your fault and everybody knows it.
It's insanely unethical.
Incredible.
Do Republicans do anything like that?
I'd love to know if Republicans are this unethical in different ways, and I'm blind to it.
Am I blind to some unethical behavior from the Republicans?
Probably, you know.
I've got the same problem of confirmation bias that everybody has.
But I can't think of anything that's this evil.
Is there a situation where Trump is blaming innocent citizens, not politicians, but just citizens in the private industry?
Is Trump blaming them for anything that he did?
Can you think of any example of that?
I mean, what is worse than blaming an innocent for the thing that you did, obviously, and it's clearly your fault?
That's as low as you can get, and both Newsom and Taheres are doing it with this price gouging stuff.
Well, but everything else California does make sense, and there's nothing you could possibly criticize about it.
Oh, here's a California bill that would ban voter ID passes the legislature, awaiting Newsom's signature.
Oh.
So, according to Zero Hedge, there's a bill that would ban local governments from requiring ID.
Why would you do that?
What possible reason would anybody give for that?
Well, the reason has something to do with, well, you don't want all of your laws to be different in different precincts around the state.
Really?
Really, that's the reason?
The reason is so you don't have different rules in different states?
That's the reason that you don't need ID to vote in California?
Let me ask you this.
How many people go to vote and don't bring ID?
What is the total number of people who have ever showed up to vote who didn't have ID?
It's got to be like a really small number, but I would think it would involve, you know, people who are registered and legally could vote as well as people who are not legally registered.
So, yeah, that's probably exactly what it looks like.
Elon Musk is very clear that he thinks the migrant situation is bringing in voters.
I don't know if they're bringing in voters or bringing in people who can have a mail-in ballot sent to them that could be harvested, but yeah, there is no legitimate reason, none, for not requiring ID to vote.
It's the dumbest, most transparently evil thing, except for all the other evil things.
All right.
Everything else in California is working pretty well.
Oh, here's a story from Just the News that nearly 600 California officials have been convicted on federal corruption charges over the last 10 years.
That feels like a lot.
600 local officials.
600 of them were crooks running local... Now, how many got away?
If they caught 600, How many were corrupted but are still getting away with it?
Well, it's a multiple of 600.
It's not less than 600.
It's probably something like five times this.
There might be thousands of local officials who are just on the take.
Here's what I think.
I don't think local officials should ever have control over money.
They're all corrupt.
Have you ever seen a small, well, any kind of local government that wasn't corrupt?
It attracts corrupt people.
It's a job that's so unpleasant, unless you assume you're going to get in the job for corruption, it's not worth doing.
Literally, you get in it for the corruption.
Let's be honest.
Who looks at the job of local government and says, you know, Now there's a career, local government.
Now, some people, maybe it's a, seems like a safe job or something, but I feel like the very nature of it is that you know that if you get the job, you can take all kinds of kickbacks for giving, giving business to preferred vendors.
And I think they all do it.
It's probably close to 100% every public, every local, um, Good sized town is probably corrupt.
Probably every one of them, is my guess.
And the reason is you can't really catch it.
You don't really know what side deals have been made, so it's not like somebody's handing somebody a big bag of money every time.
So I think that we need some kind of major readjustment in our political system, so that the question of who spends money and how is either way more transparent, Or the local governments just can't even be involved.
I just don't think the local government should have big money spending privileges, period.
There's got to be some other process for that.
Maybe an independent bidding process, if you keep them honest.
But definitely elected people should not be handing out large amounts of money on contracts.
So it turns out there is an economist, A professional economist who likes the Kamala Harris unrealized tax gains plan.
Now, everybody that I'd seen has said it's a terrible idea, it would destroy the economy.
It's basically a form of theft and it could never be implemented.
There's no way you could isolate reasonable gains that won't go away.
But now there is one, Jason Furman.
Let's see, what kind of economist would be in favor of something that's so obviously a bad idea?
Let's look at his profile.
He's a professor of practice at Harvard, and he teaches Econ 10.
Oh, he's from Harvard.
I'm sorry, I apologize.
I wasted your time.
For a minute there, I thought it was a credible economist, but he's just a Harvard economist.
I thought it was something real.
Do you remember when Harvard was taken seriously?
Do you know what I think when I see that somebody's a Harvard professor?
This is not a joke.
My first thought, oh, a fucking idiot.
A clown.
That's literally what I thought.
And so, you know, I don't know anything about this one individual.
So I'm just saying, listen to the reason.
I think he gave his reasons.
He says, I like the Biden-Harris proposal to tax unrealized capital gains.
He said this on X. For any given level of capital taxation, it's more efficient and fair to tax unrealized gains, reduce lock-in and tax planning.
And the proposal does a thoughtful job of addressing tricky implementation issues.
What's that called?
That's called a half-pinion.
I don't believe there's anybody who said there are no positive elements to it.
It's just that the negative ones are bigger.
If you leave out the negative part, you know, the effect it would have on everything, you haven't really given us an opinion.
And if you just say you like the tax proposal, is that really saying that it will work for the country or is it just something you like because you like Democrats?
I'll tell you, you can't trust economists.
They went to Harvard, apparently.
But who can you trust?
Well, here's another economist, I guess, or business person.
I'm not sure if you'd call him an economist or a business expert.
Robert Reich.
You know him.
Democrat.
He wrote an article in The Guardian that says, the title is, Elon Musk is out of control.
Here's how to rein him in.
Really?
How to rein him in?
You're writing an article in a major publication about how to rein in an American citizen who is breaking no laws?
Maybe don't rein him in.
Maybe don't rein me in.
Maybe don't rein the fuck anybody in.
If they're breaking the law, let's get the law involved.
Unless it's fake lawfare stuff.
But no.
How about if you're writing an article to say you're reigning anybody in who's not breaking any laws and is trying to give free speech to the country, you are not helping.
Let's just put it that way.
How did Elon Musk respond?
He referred to Robert Reich as Robert Reichtard.
Robert Reichtard.
You know, the funny part about it is that Musk knows that having any kind of a reasonable conversation on the merits of the argument, it would completely waste the time, because the argument has no merits.
The argument is based on, this is from Reich, quote, if he doesn't stop disseminating lies and hate on X, What are you talking about?
This is literally Robert Reich disseminating lies and hate in the Guardian article.
How many of the political hoaxes do you think Robert Reich believes are true?
The only place you can find out the hoaxes from the Democrats are not true is on X. It's the only place.
Well, there are, you know, Fox and Breitbart, I guess.
And yeah, I guess there's some, you know, the smaller entities, just the news and the Gateway Pundit, for example.
But, you know, the mainstream news is all about the hoaxes being real.
So it is amazing to me.
That the biggest liars in the country, the biggest hoax makers, are trying to stop that disseminating lies and hate.
Well, there's a New York Times columnist who's sort of leaning in the other direction.
Nicholas Kristof wrote for the New York Times, opinion piece, that people should be nicer to Trump supporters.
Now he's not saying you necessarily need to be kinder to Trump himself if you don't like his policies, but they usually be more generous with the Trump followers.
Do you know why Nicholas Kristof argues that you should be nicer to the Trump followers?
It turns out part of his reasoning is that he lives in a rural place and he has lots of accidental contact.
With Trump supporters.
Do you know what he learned about Trump supporters, which every single person who has accidental contact of a meaningful way comes to realize as well?
They're really nice people.
And why does that keep surprising Democrats?
How many times have you seen a story about a Democrat who was surprised that if they went to a Trump rally, everybody was nice?
Even if they knew they were on the other team.
Everybody was nice.
Glad to talk.
Do you need a favor?
What can I do for you?
It's amazing to me that we've become so divided that people don't even know what a Trump supporter looks like or talks like.
You know, I've said this a number of times.
I'm registered as a Democrat.
And, you know, most of my past, I've been more pro-Democrat.
But I enjoy the company and interacting with Republicans and conservatives way more because they're just genuinely nice people.
And when they disagree with you, they do it with reasons and they tell you why, and they'll listen to your side.
They're just nice people.
Now, of course, any generalization doesn't apply to all people.
You know, there's bad people in every group, but it is interesting how consistent it is that the, I'll call them the brainwashed left, that their opinions of the world dissolve on contact with human beings in that reality.
in their reality.
Their opinions dissolve on contact.
Now that doesn't happen the other way, does it?
I don't really ever hear those stories.
It just feels like that's a one-way effect.
Ever having been a Democrat makes me question your intellect, Scott.
Well, I would argue that Being a Democrat when Bill Clinton was in office wasn't such a bad deal.
I thought he was a pretty solid president.
Still do.
I think the current incarnation of the Democrats is just batshit crazy.
So if I had more recently supported Democrat views, That would be something to question.
All right.
There's a story that the FCC is refusing funds for Starlink.
I guess SpaceX, which owns Starlink, They want to bid for $885 million to deploy their satellite internet stuff to a gazillion places, but here's why it's been the FCC refused to fund them, even though it had been all approved.
It says they denied Starlink the funds, claiming that Starlink can't prove they have the ability to provide the service.
Can't prove that Starlink can't prove?
Has the ability to provide Starlink service?
Now, is that because they can't prove they have satellites in those areas?
Or that they would be overloaded?
I feel like none of this looks like it's anything but political.
So, without knowing the details of this, maybe they have an argument.
Maybe they do, but it's not... Whatever their argument is, it was not detailed.
It's just that they haven't proven they have the ability.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the satellites were now reaching basically everything in the United States.
Is there part of the United States that can't get Starlink?
I don't know, I've got questions.
To me that sounds political, like a political blow against Elon Musk.
All right.
So as you know, there's this just stupid political news about which, who is more disrespectful to the military.
This is so dumb.
So dumb.
So, you know, Trump's getting pressure because he went to the, uh, cemetery, Arlington cemetery, you know, which is not normally done, but it was the, The gold star families of the people who died in Afghanistan in the closing days, you know, they had invited him to be there.
So the gold star families were delighted with his contact, but the Democrats are using it as You disgraced that precious place, to which I say, boring.
And then there's the hoax that Trump called the soldiers ever, suckers and losers.
That obviously didn't happen.
Boring, boring hoax.
And then, And then there's the stuff about Walls.
Walls not doing, let's say, not being completely honest about the nature of his service.
Suggesting he was in a war zone when he wasn't, etc.
Suggesting he had a higher rank than technically he did, and stuff like that.
And I'm going to triple down on my opinion about all this.
I think this is up to the Gold Star families and service people.
So I feel like, you know, if one of these two characters is offending them more than the other, then certainly they have every right to vote against them, etc.
But the rest of us, those who have not been in the military, I feel like we should take a pass on this one.
I just want to take the lead, you know, just, just watch what the people with more direct military family or otherwise connection have, you know, my, my personal opinion of who went too far or who's disrespecting who, I don't think that adds anything.
I think I would rather take a back seat and say, all right, if you were in the military, how do you feel?
Will it change your vote?
Be interesting to know, but, Here's my problem.
I figure everybody who was in the military is at a higher level of credibility and patriotic behavior than I am.
So what the hell am I doing judging any of them?
I'm not the judge.
I shouldn't be the judge.
I have not earned any of that credibility or right or honor.
So the people who have, you tell me how you feel about it.
And if how you feel about it changes the vote, that could be important.
My feeling is it's not going to change many votes, but I agree with the Mike Cernovich take that this is one of the few places you might have actually had a genuine chance to change a vote.
Very rare at this stage of the election for anybody to change their mind.
But this might be the one.
But not 10% of the people.
Maybe 1%, which is still a lot.
All right, apparently Matt Schlapp, he's a CPAC, people are going to be monitoring Dropboxes in Arizona.
So they've got a very well organized situation in which they're going to train people to be, let's say, have good manners and be good citizens and not bother the people who are using the Dropbox, which would be terrible.
Don't do that.
Don't bother any people who are using the Dropbox.
Don't threaten them.
Don't.
But if they simply just are good citizens and they simply are observing, very good.
So Matt, if you can pull this off with whoever else you're working with, excellent job.
I'll feel a lot better if the boxes are being watched.
Wouldn't you?
I'll feel a lot better.
Now, do you think they'll notice anything or find anything?
I don't know.
They'll certainly be able to find people who show up multiple times.
But, yeah, I think they have to be a certain distance away from it, and there are some other rules.
It's going to be hard for them to satisfy all those rules, because it's hard to get everybody to dance the same way.
But I love this.
So now we've got whistleblowers, we've got far more observers, we've got some Dropbox observers.
So I remind you that my prediction for the election is as follows.
With all of these observers, you can guarantee, guarantee, I mean, I think you would agree with me that this is guaranteed to happen, that whether or not there's any real cheating in the election, and this is important, whether or not there's any, there will be massive reports of them.
Because people are going to imagine they saw something that might be important.
And then maybe if you looked into it, you'd find out, okay, that wasn't what you thought it was.
So, I don't have a prediction that any real cheating of scale will be found.
I think the Trump movie requires it.
So it does look like the simulation is lining up to deliver it.
So if you take the point of view that we are going to look like a movie for reasons that are mysterious, we just always end up looking like a movie in terms of the way things unfold.
That suggests that there would be something that got found.
But with or without any real findings of any real rigging, there are going to be massive reports of rigging.
That don't pan out.
How in the world are you going to have an election that everybody feels good about when there couldn't possibly be enough time to look into all of them?
And they're just going to be out there.
And you'll be certifying an election with what?
You know, hundreds of thousands of people who think they saw something.
Maybe tens of thousands.
Could be a lot.
I don't see how we have an election that people trust when we're done.
So Harris is again demanding that the microphones be unmuted, because she thinks that will give people a more accurate view of how bad that Trump is, all interrupty and mansplaining and stuff that men do.
Some are suggesting that what she is really trying to angle for is canceling the only debate.
Do you think that she's clever enough or weaselly enough that she'll go right up to, you know, get close to the debate?
Well, we're already close.
And then say, well, I really had planned to, but we could not agree on the details.
She might.
I would not rule out that she has no debates.
Here's why.
Debating would be worse.
If she has a debate, I think it's 2 to 1 she gets annihilated.
Would you agree?
It's about 2 to 1, I think.
The odds that she got annihilated.
Because she's bad at it.
And everybody would agree with that.
Well, she's bad at the whole public speaking thing.
And she is... And Trump is good at it.
So those are two things we know for sure.
Somebody who is unnaturally bad at it, with somebody who is unnaturally good at it.
It should be a blowout.
Unless all she did is just read her little talking points.
So, I could see the possibility that she would look to weasely cancel it, but I'll bet against it.
I think she would consider it too much of a, too much of a target on her back if she did that.
Anyway, so Gateway Pundits reporting there's a new complaint against the U.S.
Postal Service.
For something that involved, allegedly, shipping at least a million mail-in ballots from a facility in Bethpage, New York, to Pennsylvania.
Now, I think this is a story we've all heard a bunch of times, and I've heard the debunks.
In other words, there's a counter story that says, oh, there's nothing to this story.
It's all been explained a million times.
And the debunks sound If it's the same thing I think it is, the debunk sounded pretty convincing to me.
But so does the claim.
So how do you know what's right if both the claim and the debunk sound reasonably real?
But here was a little factoid I had not seen.
I'd love to know if this is in dispute, or if both sides agree to the following statement, that every piece of first-class mail is supposed to be imaged by the post office, so regulations require that they image them before they're delivered.
It doesn't say if that means they weren't imaged, but I think that's the implication.
So that would be question number one.
Is it possible that a million things didn't get imaged?
And maybe they have a good reason for that.
I don't know.
But here's the part that really caught my mind or caught my attention.
The facility where the driver allegedly picked up these million ballots that were allegedly already filled out is not a place where you pick up mail.
It's only certified family packages and express mail.
So in other words, there was no legal justification To account for the ballots going through that warehouse at all.
To which I said, ping!
If you can prove that's true, then you're very close to having a crack in here.
Because if it's true that a million ballots went through a U.S.
Postal Service facility for which no ballots should have ever gone through, then the argument that something terribly wrong happened there Is much stronger.
But remember, all of these voting claim stories have either turned to dust, or they didn't have a standing, or they didn't matter, or there was some debunk you didn't know about.
So don't assume that any of the stories are true.
I'm just reporting them because they're in the news.
Could it be true?
Maybe.
I don't know.
The uh the publication pm I think they're calling themselves PM.
They used to be something, millennial.
Say that Harris is in a worse position in terms of her polling than either Biden or Hillary were when they ran against Trump.
So Biden won, but Hillary did not, even though Hillary was doing better in the polls than Kamala Harris is now.
And the reason given for why it looks like Kamala is ahead, but when it comes to the actual election, she might lose.
Now, some of that is the electoral college situation, so the popular vote of the whole country isn't determining who wins.
It's the individual places.
So, that's part of it.
But it turns out that the polling for Kamala, according to Newsweek, might be Somewhat fake, because Trump supporters lied to pollsters.
How many of you remember in 2016, when I was one of the loudest and first people, I don't know who else was saying it, but I was certainly, if not the loudest and earliest, one of them, to say that Trump supporters were so demonized That they don't answer polls, because they wouldn't trust that they weren't just being, you know, identified for later destruction.
And then the election happened, and I said, well, there it is.
More people voted for Trump than the polls suggested.
There's your shy, your shy Trump voters.
And then the news mocked me again, saying, oh, there's no evidence that it was some kind of shy Trump supporters who don't answer polls.
But as of today, it's reported as a simple fact that Trump supporters don't answer polls the same way, and it's because they don't trust the pollsters.
So I'm going to take that as a win for predicting it completely accurately, being mocked about it for a long time, and then winning in the end.
That's the way I like to do it.
Remember I told you that if you know what happens in the news, you don't know anything.
What you need to know is who and also why, but the who will get you pretty close to why.
Here's a little factoid that you can, you can store away in your brain and you could put whatever interpretation on it you like.
So I'll give you the fact and then you interpret it any way you like.
Dana Bash, who is the only journalist who got the, Got the job to talk to Kamala Harris first, you know, after she was selected as their standard bearer for the Democrats.
And did you know that Dana Bash's ex-husband is Jeremy Bash, who is one of the 51 Intel officials who signed that Hunter Biden laptop fake letter?
So Dan Abash, it's not her current husband, her ex-husband, is one of the people on the 51 letters.
Does that tell you that you have a good feeling about Dan Abash being a totally objective observer?
Now, it's an ex-husband, so that's processed different than a husband.
But it certainly suggests that she might not be 100% independent.
Did you know, according to Bjorn Lomborg, that even though we're concerned about rising temperatures with climate, that cold kills nearly 30 times more people than heat?
And, you know, the food grows better, etc.
Now, here's my problem with that argument.
And Vivek uses the argument too.
It's true.
So, I mean, I'm sure it's true that cold kills way more people than heat.
But the trouble is, I don't like looking at any of these topics as if there's some kind of gradual slope.
Because the heat argument is that you reach a drop-off point where everything falls apart.
No, I'm not saying we will.
So I predict that's not true.
But the argument is that things will be all right until everything, until the wheels come off.
So I don't think you can look at a wheels come off scenario, uh, based on a historical comparison.
So historically cold killed more than warmth, but what if the warmth went to a thousand degrees?
I'm almost positive that the heat would kill more people at a thousand degrees.
So everything has some kind of, you know, there's a limit and there's a cliff problem that doesn't get picked up in these kinds of comparisons.
I think the general point stands very well.
The general point is that it's not a panic.
So that stands up perfectly, but just beware that the argument isn't that things just get a little warmer.
The argument, which I don't buy, but this is the argument, is that we're getting close to some kind of cliff and it reaches some point and the oceans boil and the ice caps melt and we're all dead.
I don't think any of that sounds even a little bit reasonable, but just know the argument.
Well, Mike Ben is still doing his best to help us understand the Brazil censoring the X platform situation.
As best I can understand it, our State Department funds lots of entities around the globe for reasons that should benefit the United States.
So, in other countries, there would be these non-government organizations that are influencing various countries in various ways.
But one of them, Or multiple of them, I'm not sure how many, is receiving massive money from the US State Department, and some amount of that money is going to support censorship.
In Brazil.
And probably other places.
So we're paying to promote censorship, which of course is described as stopping misinformation and hate.
But it's censorship.
Because nobody needs to censor things that everybody agrees with.
So it's not free speech unless you can do the things that are dangerous and insulting and sometimes wrong.
Otherwise it's not free speech at all.
Why is it the U.S.
government is funding the destruction of the United States' free speech?
Well, you might be tempted to think it's some big bureaucracy, and therefore, because it's a big bureaucracy, we're not even aware that we're accidentally funding some people who are ruining free speech in the United States.
But I don't think that's what's happening.
I think the State Department is actively destroying free speech because they think it's bad for America or themselves.
So it looks like the reason that the United States is not intervening in the Brazilian bad behavior to an American company, Axe, trying to ban, well they have banned them, the reason America is not fighting on behalf of that American corporation is probably politics.
Probably they're using Brazil to kill X, and the same way they'll probably use Europe to try to kill it.
Because if they could take out X, they win it all.
X is the only thing left of scale.
There are other smaller entities, but just think about what would be the reach of, let's say, just the news, if there were no X?
No reach at all?
What would my reach be if there were no X?
I've got 1.1 million followers on X. Do you know what my total number of followers everywhere else is?
It rounds to zero.
Almost nothing.
I don't have a Facebook following.
I don't use Instagram for anything but fun.
But I wanted to say this.
I don't know, maybe you all know this already.
But after I got cancelled, if the X platform had not, you know, lifted me back into some kind of, you know, minor relevance by just massively people signed up to follow me because they thought there was some injustice going on, and that allowed me to rebuild my operation.
But only because X.
If Elon Musk had not purchased X, my user count never would have gone up because it was clearly suppressed.
And I could not have rebuilt.
I would have retired.
Just think about that.
No exaggeration whatsoever.
If I did not have the X platform as my main starting point for rebuilding something, I would have just retired.
I didn't need to work.
I prefer it.
So, you know, if you ever have these moments where you're wondering what is the contribution and the value of the X platform, it's incalculable already.
It is the only thing That's keeping us from full dictatorship that will, you know, look like a fake election sort of thing like Putin, but it would be a dictatorship essentially.
It might change out the people, but whoever is in charge behind the curtain would still be in charge.
So Mike Benz has offered to, you know, testify or explain to anybody who needs to explain that the United States
Well, Trump weighed in on the question of weed legalization in Florida, his state where he resides, and he said weed should not be criminal in Florida when it is legal in so many other states.
Now, that's not a reason.
But it sounds like one, so I'm in favor of it.
Is this a reason?
It should not be illegal in one state because it's legal in others?
That's not a reason.
It's the same thing he's in favor of with abortion.
Trump is completely okay with the states deciding sometimes it's legal, sometimes it's not.
It's the same with weed.
If the state decides it's legal and one decides it's not, that's their system.
So that's not really a reason.
But does he need one?
Does he need a reason?
No, not really.
Because the public agrees with him at a very large percentage.
Now, I know Mike Cernovich has been saying quite a bit anti-weed, and I think that's completely appropriate for anyone who is a parent of young kids.
If you're a parent of young kids, you should be anti-weed 100%.
Because that's the model you're setting for your kids.
So if you're in the job of being a parent, yeah, be anti-weed and be strongly anti-weed.
It's going to help a lot.
But if you're not in that situation, you might think differently.
And, uh, but Trump is concerned about people doing it in public.
So he wants some carve-outs to say, you can't, you can't do weed in public.
I don't mind that.
I don't mind that at all.
Um, Yeah, because that's not really about weed.
That's simply manners.
So I'm in favor of manners.
So let's do better on that.
But this again, Trump being friendlier on the weed question, really gets to the bodily autonomy argument.
I think that Trump wins completely on bodily autonomy.
It just seems the opposite.
So, for example, moving abortion to the States means that Trump doesn't want to be involved in your bodily autonomy.
He wants it closer to you and your doctor.
His opinion on weed is that he doesn't want to be putting your body in jail for weed.
That's less control of your body than we have right now.
He wants fewer migrants to come in the country and take your job and kill you.
Which would be less imposition on your body.
He wants more police, same thing.
So that the crime doesn't have so much, you know, imposition on your body.
I told, earlier in the show, I told you that a first round draft pick for the 49ers got shot in Union, Union Place, Union Square.
In San Francisco.
Now, does he have bodily autonomy?
Well, he thought he had bodily autonomy, but now he's got a bullet in his body.
So now his body is going to go a direction that he was not in charge of.
So if Trump could get, you know, get rid of crime, a lot more people are going to have bodily autonomy because they won't have a bullet in their body and they won't be getting raped.
So that's some bodily autonomy right there.
And of course, keeping guns for your own protection, I would say, is bodily autonomy.
You know, writ large.
Writ large!
All right, in overseas stories, apparently Israel has discovered that the Hamas murdered six hostages just recently.
One of them was a dual citizen, an American-Israeli citizen.
Apparently there are over a hundred left, 101 still held.
Now, do you think it's anybody's fault that these six were killed?
Because some are saying it's Netanyahu's fault, it's somebody's fault for not doing peace.
Here's the problem.
This is another one of those half-pinion things.
If your half-pinion is, we should stop fighting and get those hostages back, you're not really done with the analysis.
If you reward people for taking hostages, how is that going to work out?
They're going to take so many more hostages if it works.
Should you negotiate with terrorists who have hostages?
Well, maybe a little bit to see if you can get them back for free.
But if you're going to end up paying a lot for hostages, it's not really a pattern that you can allow to be set.
So I would say that I blame nobody for this except Hamas.
I think it would be simplistic to imagine that if some Israeli or American politician or somebody else did something differently, that this would have worked out differently.
Now, if all hundred of them had been killed, I would say, hmm, maybe you could have done something differently there.
But if six out of a hundred are killed all in the same place, that's probably more to do with what their local situation was.
You know, I doubt that was even an order from the top or anything like that.
So I'm not going to blame anybody in Israel or America for that.
I think it's just a tragedy.
And if Israel treats the situation like the hostages are already dead, even knowing that many of them would not be, Militarily and strategically, that might be the best play.
It's as sad as that is.
Well, Russia says it downed over 150 drones in one of the biggest Ukrainian drone attacks.
So the drones were in various places, but 150?
They must have been small ones that they jammed, I would guess.
So drone war is coming.
It's going to be all drones.
I think we're maybe one year away from the border of Ukraine and Russia being just drones.
Because the soldiers don't have a chance against the drones.
So you might as well just have a drone war.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had today.
I think there's some big news coming this coming week because things got a little too quiet.
It's a little too quiet.
You missed all the Russian mass drone attacks.
What do you mean I missed them?
It's been nothing but drone attacks all the time there.
All right.
I I forget if it is positive feedback or negative feedback.
The CO2 thing is being, yeah.
Yeah, there's yet another study showing that climate change is not CO2 caused, but you've heard enough of those.
All right.
There are no hostages.
Some might be prisoners.
Drones will take out aircraft carriers?
Maybe.
All right, everybody.
I'm going to talk to the subscribers on Locals privately.
Bye.
There's some bad people on here today.
All right, I'm gonna go talk to the locals privately.
