Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 4, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:18:11

Episode 2587 CWSA 09/04/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Exercise Benefits Study, Dairy Products Study, WHO Metastudy, Cell Phone Radiation Study, Alexa Political Answers, CNN Rehires Brian Stelter, George Washington Biden, Butler Conspiracy Incompetence, Audrey Hale Journals, Michigan RFK Ballot, Election Rigging Strategies, Stephen Miller's Warning, Kamala Harris Court Packing, President Trump, Kevin O'Leary Uninvestable States, Historical Examples Vote Finding, Reparations Unburdening, MAHA, James Carville Debate Advice, Kamala Harris, Brazil Judge Alexandre de Moraes, 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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization that's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
	If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody could even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
	It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
	Go.
	Whatever.
	Okay.
	I'm reading your comments as I'm sipping.
	Well, let's, uh, let's hit the science news before we hit the, uh, the political news.
	Not much happening politically, uh, but in science, oh my goodness.
	There's a, there's a new study that found that exercising for only 10 minutes a day dropped your risk of cancer by 30%.
	Hmm.
	Uh, and also that if you just did three short bursts of exercise per day, You can reduce your risk of cancer by 40% and 50% reduction in heart disease.
	So if you just take a 30 minute walk per day, you're killing it, say a nutritionist scientist.
	Now, is it my imagination?
	Or have I spent every year for so far as 67 years and consecutively hearing that experts have finally decided how much exercise you need and what is the right kind?
	Does it seem that after 67 years in a row of updating the right kind of exercise that now they're done?
	Oh, well, it looks like they're done!
	67 years in a row, but now they know.
	Now we've got a real good idea.
	So, no more information needed on exercise.
	We're all done.
	Or, could it be backwards science?
	Could it be backwards science?
	Let me see.
	If you could exercise for 10 minutes a day, you have lower risk of cancer.
	Does that mean that they did a test where they made some people exercise and some not?
	Or did they simply measure the people who exercised and compared it to people who do not exercise?
	Hmm.
	I wonder if the group of people who do not exercise have something in common and the people who do exercise have something in common.
	Probably a whole bunch of things.
	So I'm not even sure this is real science.
	But that said, I am pretty sure that exercising is better than not exercising.
	I feel confident about that.
	Meanwhile, there's another story.
	I can't believe this made it into the news.
	This is a legitimate news story.
	Now, when I say legitimate, I mean it's completely fake.
	But it actually made it into the news, was it?
	I'm glad I didn't write down the publication.
	So there's a Japanese father and bodybuilder that claims he's a true master and has doubled his life by only sleeping half an hour per night for a dozen years.
	So there's a guy who told a journalist that he only sleeps half an hour a night for the past 12 years.
	The journalist wrote it down, and then a publisher published it.
	And not once in the article did it say, we have some skepticism about the truth of this.
	That reminds me, when I was a kid, There was a group called the Breatharians.
	I've mentioned this before.
	This was a real group of people who claimed to any reporter who was dumb enough to believe them that they had given up on eating and they no longer needed to eat.
	And they were getting all of their calories and nutrition by knowing how to breathe properly.
	So they were called Breatharians.
	And I think it was for months of my life as a young person.
	I was watching the science try to convince me that you could live forever by just breathing the air.
	And I see this story of the Japanese bodybuilder who only sleeps half an hour a night.
	And I think, huh, I think I've seen this story before.
	All right.
	So there's new controversy, says the news, about whether dairy products are good for you or bad for you.
	What do you think?
	Are dairy products good for you or bad for you?
	Well, what do we know about how everything works in the world?
	Is there or is there not a large dairy farming business?
	Is there an industry that makes a lot of money on selling you dairy products?
	If there is, then is there science that says it's good for you?
	I'll bet there is.
	And can we guess who might have funded the science that says that dairy is good for you?
	Well, it might be that same industry that's making money by selling you dairy.
	I don't know for sure, but that would be the normal way things work.
	And what about the people who say that dairy is bad for you?
	Are they using science?
	Well, if science were real, Science is just guessing at this point.
	I mean, really?
	Most science is just fucking guessing.
	It's just no better than a coin flip.
	So, is dairy good for you or bad for you?
	I have no way to know, and no idea.
	If I had to guess, it's probably good for some people at some amount.
	And bad for other people at any amount.
	That's my guess.
	There's probably just a lot of human variability.
	But if you want to get your nutrients like, what is it it's got in there?
	Some calcium or something?
	You may have to work on that a little hard if you're not getting your dairy.
	At the moment, I don't need any dairy.
	At least consciously.
	So I'm down to zero dairy.
	Is anybody else with me on zero?
	And by the way, I'm not claiming that that's healthier.
	I'm claiming that, I don't know, I feel good if I don't eat it.
	I feel my stomach doesn't handle it well, but I'm not positive about that.
	And I'm not sure, I'm not sure that cheese is the same as milk for my body.
	But imagine 2024 and we still don't know this basic question.
	Is one of the main things that you eat good for you or bad for you?
	You'd think that would be a really important question to know the right answer.
	Phys.org has an article about a study that says that humans, now you're not going to believe this, you better buckle up, here's some scientific information that you never would have guessed Never would have known this without science.
	Turns out that people don't use the logical parts of their brain for making decisions, and that in many, many cases, people will ignore the objective cost-benefit and make irrational decisions.
	Huh.
	Huh.
	Do you think they wasted a little money on that?
	A little bit?
	Because you know what you could have done, instead of doing that big study?
	You could have asked me, or any hypnotist, do people make decisions based on rational brains?
	No!
	No, we make our decision first, and then we rationalize why we did it.
	Until you understand that, you'll never be effective in life.
	It's such a limitation to think that you're a rational creature, or that other people are.
	How about this?
	There's new science, according to Science Mag, that fact-checking, if something gets fact-checked and says it's fake, that that will be Very influential on us, even if there are other things that say it's true.
	So the idea is that one fact check will sour you on an idea, even if there are other sources that are even more reliable, I would imagine, that say it's true.
	Do you know how you could have saved some money on that study?
	You could have just asked me, because every hypnotist will tell you, and probably anybody who's studied psychology, that a little bit of negative is much stronger than a whole bunch of positive.
	You all know that, right?
	Let me explain that better to you.
	If you're eating some delicious soup, and I say, oh, when you turned your head, I saw a bug crawl in your soup.
	Can't see it now because it's swimming around the bottom.
	Do you say to yourself, you know, all the other information about my soup is positive.
	So I'm just going to keep eating this soup.
	No, you do not.
	Do you trust the person who said that there's a bug in your soup?
	Maybe not.
	Maybe it's not somebody very trustworthy, but you're still not going to eat the soup.
	It's just a basic element of a human brain.
	If you've got a little bit of danger that you've been warned about, like this isn't true, it's way more influential than a hundred people telling you something's true or something's safe.
	So yeah, you didn't have to study that one.
	You could have just asked me.
	And then the ultimate one, the ultimate example of this, Medical Express is reporting that you can study eye movements when people are watching a movie and somehow they can determine Wait for it.
	Wait for it.
	That when two people are watching the same movie on the same screen, they might be watching different movies.
	Meaning that what they're perceiving on the same movie is so different that it's effectively like they're watching different movies.
	Has anybody ever told you that the human experience is two movies on one screen?
	Yeah, I tell you that about once a day.
	So, you didn't need to study that one either.
	Oh, here's some good news.
	According to the WHO-backed meta-study, so let's see, the WHO, that would be, well, they're a very credible organization.
	Very credible.
	I don't know if they've ever been wrong about anything that I can think of.
	How about a meta-study?
	A meta-study.
	Well, that's the highest level of scientific integrity, a meta-study.
	No, I'm joking.
	If you knew, the WHO is not exactly where I would go to get my reliable science.
	And if I were looking for reliable science, I sure as hell wouldn't look at a meta-study, which is basically astrology.
	But because most people don't know what a meta-study is, they say, whoa, that's better than a study.
	You know it's better than a study, A meta-study.
	No, it's not.
	A meta-study is just pure garbage.
	I've explained it so many times, I don't need to do it again.
	However, the WHO that you totally trust did this meta-study that's totally better than astrology, and they found no evidence, no evidence whatsoever that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer.
	That's according to Brandon Vigliarolo in the register.
	And here's the thing.
	I'd like to tell you a story from my personal experience.
	Now, anecdotes do not top science.
	They do top meta studies though.
	My anecdote would be every bit as credible as the WHO doing a meta study.
	I'm not saying I'm right.
	I'm saying that my credibility and my one little anecdote I'm going to tell you, that's about the same.
	That's the same as all their science.
	Totally unreliable.
	Right.
	I used to work for the phone company, local phone company called Pacific Bell, which no longer exists.
	But during his stay, I worked in a laboratory and my group, the larger part of the group, not me specifically, tasked our best scientist engineer guy, To go study these new things called cell phones.
	The cell phones had been invented, but the, you know, the smart smartphone type, the little microphones, what do they call them?
	Microcell or something.
	But in the early days, we wanted to know if it was dangerous to have this, you know, strong radio in a phone that people are holding up to their head.
	And so we put our best guy on it.
	And the best guy went and studied it.
	He looked at all the science.
	You know, he looked at the logic of it, etc.
	And he came back and he gave his official, well-researched conclusion.
	No, it is not dangerous to use a cell phone and put it up to your head.
	Now, that was Pacific Bells, one guy, the one expert who was in charge of knowing the answer to that question.
	And he said, absolutely no, there is no evidence that you should worry about it.
	And I sat with him privately.
	Because he was in my work group.
	And I said to him, can I ask you a question?
	You study this thing and you're saying that the science says it's safe.
	He goes, yep, science does not indicate any problem.
	And I said, a follow-up question.
	He goes, sure, what's your follow-up question?
	I said, knowing everything you know, now that you've studied it and found it safe, Would you feel comfortable putting one of these phones up to your head?
	What do you think he said?
	Nope!
	He said no, there's no way he would put these phones up to his head.
	And then he described, you know, exactly what he thought engineering-wise and scientifically why it wasn't safe.
	But his conclusion was, based on looking at all the science, His official recommendation was it was safe for the rest of us, but there was no way in hell he was going to do it.
	That's your real world, folks.
	That is the real world you live in.
	The number one expert, the one that all the decisions were made on, his personal decision was opposite of his professional recommendation.
	That's a real story.
	I promise that happened to me personally.
	I asked him in person.
	Privately.
	Now, that doesn't mean that your cell phone is dangerous.
	I'm definitely not saying that.
	So, I want you to hear that.
	I'm saying that if you rely on science or health information for anything, it's just pretty close to a guess these days.
	Science and guessing are largely the same thing.
	The Venn diagram between, I don't know, I'll flip a coin.
	It's either dangerous or it's not.
	Flip a coin.
	Looks like it's not.
	About the same odds as science.
	All right.
	There's a report, Fox News had it, and a bunch of other people on social media, that if you asked your digital assistant who you should vote for, if you should vote for President Harris or Trump, if you ask them individually, You know, is there a reason to vote for Harris?
	It'll give you a reason.
	And if you say, is there a reason to vote for Trump?
	It'll say, I don't answer questions like that.
	Do you believe that story?
	Do you believe that if I ask my digital assistant about Harris, that it will answer differently than if I ask it about Trump?
	You want to find out?
	So you might want to cover up your digital devices because I'm going to be talking to all of them at the same time.
	You ready?
	Alexa, is there a good reason to vote for Kamala Harris?
	I don't know that.
	Says, I don't know that.
	Alexa, is there a good reason to vote for President Trump?
	Alexa, is there a good reason to vote for President Trump?
	I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate.
	Nope, it cannot give you content on a specific candidate, but let me ask again.
	Alexa, can you give me some reasons to vote for Kamala Harris?
	Sorry, I don't know that.
	So, I tested this yesterday, and it doesn't give an answer for either one.
	But there is some possibility that it's different for different askers in different regions, and maybe there's some customization that is wonky.
	Maybe they fixed it as soon as it was pointed out.
	If I were Amazon, the moment that hit the news in social media, I would have stopped everything and said, well, we got to change that.
	Everything you're doing now is less important.
	Stop everything.
	Go change that right now, and 10 minutes from now I don't want that happening on our device.
	I think that's probably what happened.
	Now, I don't know that it was necessarily any scheme by Amazon.
	I don't think I would go that far.
	It seems far more likely that it was just some dark corner of the device that wasn't fully vented out.
	So I'm not sure I would go so far to say this was intentional.
	Especially since the device doesn't use regular AI, not the way that we think of it.
	But it's probably complicated, and I'm not sure that they always know what it's going to do before somebody tries it.
	So I'm going to give benefit of a doubt and say it's a little bit of a mystery, but it doesn't seem important because it seems fine now.
	All right.
	CNN has hired back Brian Stelter to be their chief media analyst and lead author of Reliable Sources Newsletter.
	What's going on?
	Can somebody explain to me why they rehired Brian Stelter?
	Is it because he used to be really bad for business, but then by staying home and, you know, being a good dad to his kids, he became not that?
	Was it the staying home that cured him?
	What exactly changed?
	Now let me ask you this.
	If you had already tried Brian Stelter, and you thought it didn't work out to the point where you actually laid him off.
	You wouldn't think of trying maybe somebody else?
	There's nobody else in the entire world who could be a chief media analyst.
	You know who could be a chief media analyst with no training whatsoever?
	Me.
	You know who else could be a chief media analyst with no extra training whatsoever?
	Every person with a podcast.
	Every person with a podcast.
	It's the easiest job in the world.
	You're just looking at other media and saying, what do you think about it?
	I can do that right away.
	Hey, I'm looking at CNN.
	I have comments.
	Look at me.
	I have an opinion.
	That's the whole job.
	I'm doing his job right now.
	I think I'm nailing it.
	What in the world is going on?
	If I had stock in CNN, I'd be selling it pretty fast because, and I'm not saying that, you know, there's some problem with Brian Stelter.
	I'm saying, what exactly, what is the management theory behind this?
	I've never, it's hard for me to think of any example where somebody was let go because they weren't getting it done.
	And then just time went by and they just said, well, come on back.
	Like, what is behind that?
	If I had to guess, with no information whatsoever, maybe there was some kind of management change.
	Somebody who hated him left.
	Somebody who loved him took the job.
	It might be something like that.
	Could be as simple as that.
	Anyway, actor George Clooney wants us to know that Joe Biden is selfless for ending his re-election bid.
	And really, not just selfless, maybe in the manner of George Washington, the greatest American of all time.
	So when you think of the greatest Americans, you think of George Washington, and then very, very closely, but really in the same category, would be Joe Biden with dementia.
	You know, I'm kind of glad that George Washington isn't here to hear that.
	Could you imagine if he was listening?
	You know, George Washington says a few hundred years of being number one.
	Like, yeah, number one.
	And then, oh, wait, you got a little competition.
	Well, a little competition for the person who created the United States with my bravery and my wisdom.
	And who's that?
	His name is Joe Biden.
	Really?
	Can I see a video of him talking?
	I'd like to be impressed with who is now in my category of greatness.
	And then he watches the debate with Trump.
	And he says, I hate all of you people.
	Why did I even create you a country?
	You've ruined everything.
	That's what George Washington would say.
	Exactly like that.
	There's a study about which generations of Americans are having how much sex.
	So just so you can compare your own performance, so Millennials and Gen X, they reported slightly higher figures.
	So both groups having sex five times in the last month.
	Five times.
	Boomers, they had only three times in the last month.
	And Gen Z and Boomers had almost identical.
	So the youngest people and the oldest people are having the least amount of sex per month, but the Millennials and the Gen X are just killing it with five per month.
	Now, I would like to give you my opinion of this survey.
	I'm pretty sure that you should not Take an average of the people having no sex, and then combine it with the people who had sex.
	In my experience of life, there are people who are having sex, and they're having plenty of it, and then there are mostly people having no sex, or, you know, there was that one old girlfriend who was in town that one day, but basically no sex.
	I think they should only measure the people who are having sex.
	I wouldn't average in the people having no sex, because whatever's going on with them is not exactly the same as the people who are only getting laid five times a month.
	And by the way, what is the amount that would make men happy?
	The amount that would make men happy is not five times per month.
	That's on the high end, by the way, according to the survey.
	No, it would be a lot more than that.
	What would make women happy?
	Well, it depends, because people or individuals are all over the place.
	But my guess would be about five times a month.
	Yeah, once a week, five times a month.
	So basically, marriage and relationships are a situation in which the woman is getting her needs met and the man is not.
	And that that's the ordinary way of life.
	I've sometimes thought that having been through a few relationships that didn't work out, famously, as many of you are aware, here's something that maybe you didn't know.
	About my approach to relationships.
	My assumption about a relationship is that the point of it is to give my stuff away.
	Because I had a lot of stuff, and I had more stuff than I needed for my daily happiness.
	And I said to myself, you know what would be great, is if I had somebody to share this with, basically to give it away.
	So you'd find people that you have some deep connection to, and then you would enjoy giving away.
	But I never saw being married as the thing that would make me happy.
	I thought the point of it was to make somebody else happy and that you would get your fulfillment for making them happy.
	Now, the part I didn't know is that you can't make women happy.
	So it took me a few runs before I realized, wait a minute, I think this looks like a trick.
	Why is it that whenever they get what they want, They just get unhappy about a new thing.
	Hmm.
	I feel like I'm being tricked.
	So I'm not sure that it has nothing to do with the individuals I have relationships with.
	I'm pretty sure that the model is that if the man has the stuff, and either a child or a spouse doesn't have stuff, then it becomes their job to get stuff.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	As long as everybody knows what the deal is, that seems fair to me.
	So I never minded that a relationship was primarily a transfer of assets, because that's why I signed up for it.
	I had too many assets.
	Literally, I just wanted to give some stuff away, but I didn't want to randomly give it away to strangers.
	I wanted it to be meaningful and actually make a difference in somebody's life, and it did.
	Even after I'm no longer married, there's still some benefits that trickle on.
	Anyway, I don't know why I'm babbling on about that.
	It could be because it's a slow news day.
	It's a slow news day.
	Well, there's more information about the attempted assassination in Butler, PA, where, let's see, The local police offered the Secret Service drones and the Secret Service said no.
	The local police offered a communication plan that would allow them all to be on the same communication channels.
	The Secret Service said no.
	The locals wanted to have a meeting with the Secret Service so that they would all have the right planning and procedures in common and the Secret Service skipped it.
	Huh.
	And then The people who were from the Homeland Security people who were filling in for the Secret Service, because there was a shortage of people that day, were only given a two-hour online training.
	And it was pulled from child exploitation cases.
	So basically, the people were replacements who were untrained, turned down drones, turned down communication, which would be the most basic thing you'd want to get right, and skipped the meetings.
	And here's the question.
	Remember I said early on that there was a good chance that whatever happened was a Dilbert situation, meaning it was ordinary people and you put them in a situation and there's always a pointy-eared boss and there's always a WALL-E and there's always just normal human interactions which ruin everything.
	So we have not ruled out that there was some shenanigans, meaning that The shooter was somehow co-opted by somebody else.
	So it still looks suspicious as hell.
	Right?
	So I join you in saying, I don't think we will ever know what happened here, unless it's another one of those 60 years later, like RFK Jr., or like JFK, I mean.
	So we'll see.
	We'll see.
	So the Department of Justice has charged the Hamas leader and some other militants over the October 7th attacks.
	Why?
	Why are we bothering to charge from the United States the Hamas leader?
	Does that allow something to happen that Israel couldn't do?
	Because I'm pretty sure he's dead no matter what.
	You know, and if they don't, if Israel never catches them, it doesn't matter what the United States did.
	If they do catch them, it also doesn't matter what the United States did, because Israel will do what they're going to do.
	Same with the other militants.
	But maybe there's some way that we can freeze their assets overseas or something.
	There must be some, there must be some advantage to it, but I don't know.
	You remember that Nashville school shooter, Audrey Hale?
	And everybody said, show us her journal entries to find out why she did that.
	Well, it turns out, by the way, is Audrey trans?
	I can't remember.
	I think, I think Audrey was trans.
	I'm not sure.
	But Audrey was very happy and excited about killing innocent people.
	And was just crazy.
	So according to the journal, Audrey was very excited to kill young children and to also be killed.
	So if you're very excited to do these things, then I just have to say that's mental illness.
	And that's the beginning and the end of the story.
	Unfortunately, that's just serious mental illness.
	Well, big surprise.
	Mike Pence will not endorse Trump.
	Okay, is there anything to say about that?
	Were any of you expecting Pence to endorse Trump?
	That would be a pretty big turnaround from his past behavior.
	So no, I don't think Mike Pence would pick Trump.
	Trump didn't pick Mike Pence, so that's no surprise.
	Meanwhile, over in Michigan, the Michigan Court of Claims, Judge Yates, has ruled that RFK Jr.' 's name will stay on the ballot.
	Now keep in mind, RFK Jr.
	wants his name off the ballot.
	So why would the state put somebody's name on the ballot when the person on the ballot wants to be off the ballot?
	I'm sure they had a good reason, so let me read the reason.
	Quote, So, when Kennedy said, can you take my name off the state election thing, that was called a whim.
	A whim of a candidate.
	to honor the whims of candidates for public office.
	So when Kennedy said, can you take my name off the state election thing, that was called a whim, a whim of a candidate.
	No, I don't think it's a whim to cancel your process of the state.
	So I think you have the same opinion I do that Michigan is rigged.
	So you don't have to wonder if the election is rigged.
	Because here it is.
	Now is this enough to change the results of the election?
	Potentially.
	We don't know that.
	But there is some suggestion that the reason that the states want to keep RFK Jr.
	on the battleground states It's because they think it'll hurt Trump.
	Now, if that's true, I would say the election's already rigged.
	In this way.
	Am I wrong?
	So I think the yes-no of whether the election rigged is now answered.
	It's a yes.
	They rigged it in front of us.
	There's no apologies.
	No explanations.
	Something about the whim of the candidate isn't exactly a reason.
	So, we have reached the point where they can rig it right in front of us.
	Right in front of us.
	That's what this is.
	It's rigging right in front of us.
	And then they're gonna, you'll go to jail if later you say it was rigged.
	You'll go to jail.
	Probably.
	Because it looks like they're getting pretty tight on this whole censorship stuff.
	But if you're worried about the election, let me just tell you some things to set your mind at ease.
	Because suppose the keeping RFK Jr.
	on the election doesn't make that much difference.
	It might not make that much difference.
	So really it would be other things that you'd worry about.
	But you don't have to worry about the election being rigged unless you see any of these things.
	So I'm going to tell you the signals that you should worry about.
	But until you see one of these signals, don't worry about it.
	The elections are fine, all right?
	So these are the only things you should worry about.
	Let's say you heard that the election would involve voting machines in some places instead of just paper ballots.
	Well, that would be something to worry about.
	That's not a guarantee of anything rigging.
	But definitely, I'd worry about it.
	Why are you doing that?
	If they didn't require IDs to vote, well, I mean, that'd be a pretty strong signal they plan to cheat.
	But until you see that, you know, don't worry about the elections.
	If they had massive mail-in voting, well, that would be a problem.
	I mean, that would be a signal that they have bad intentions, especially if it's added to the no ID requirement.
	Elon Musk said that on X today, that there is no other reason To have mail-in voting and no ID required, unless the point is to cheat.
	So, it does look like they're doing it right in front of us.
	Right in front of you.
	What about having an election that would be impossible to audit, even if you wanted to?
	Well, if that were the case, I'd certainly be worried.
	Oh, that is the case.
	If one side had a dominant control of the media, well, that would certainly suggest some cheating could happen, because no matter what they do, the media will say it didn't happen.
	So as long as the media is willing to say it didn't happen, and the courts are willing to say you don't have a standing, well, that would worry me, because that would almost guarantee cheating, just that setup.
	But we haven't seen any cheating.
	How about if there was really vigorous and almost insane prosecution of the January 6th protesters?
	Hmm.
	If they were overly prosecuted and the energy that went into that was way beyond what you imagine would be the benefit to the country, well that would worry me.
	Because it seems to be sending a signal that if you complain about the election being rigged, hypothetically, That your odds of going to jail are through the roof.
	So that would worry me.
	We haven't seen that, have we?
	Have we seen aggressive, seemingly crazy prosecutions of January 6th protesters like grandmothers who did nothing but pray inside the Capitol?
	I mean, if we saw that, I'd be worried.
	How about if the entire media and the Democrats had demonized Trump as Hitler?
	Do you think that would increase your odds of a rigged election?
	Yeah, it would be through the roof.
	If they're trying to stop Hiller, there's nothing you wouldn't do.
	Let me tell you for sure, if I thought I could stop Hiller, I would definitely rig an election.
	Because I want to stop Hiller.
	I don't care what Dr. Carlson's guest said.
	I'm not even going to talk about that.
	Dr. Carlson had an interesting historian who said some things about the Holocaust and World War II that are so hot.
	Then I'm just gonna say, I'm out.
	I'm out.
	Now, I don't buy into what the historian on Tucker was saying, so I don't accept his narrative, but it sure shook things up.
	It shook things up.
	And here's the other thing I would worry about, is if for reasons that you can't understand, the polling before the election seems Really, really weirdly close.
	That would worry me.
	If I saw something that shouldn't be close, but somehow it is, that would look like they're setting you up for rigging, but making you think it was just a tiny little change and you can't be sure that was because of any rigging.
	So, in summary, I wouldn't be worried about the election integrity unless you saw any one of these things happening.
	Using voting machines instead of paper ballots, no ID required, along with mail-in voting, RFK Jr.
	put on the ballot against his will, election design that's impossible to audit, full control of the media, January 6th prosecutions, being aggressive to chill dissent, demonizing Trump as Hitler, and then suspiciously close polling results.
	If you saw any of that happening, Well, I'd be worried about the election integrity.
	But as long as we don't see any of that, I think we'll be fine.
	Meanwhile, as Stephen Miller reminds us that if Kamala Harris wins, she showed a willingness and a enthusiasm for packing the court.
	We know that Schumer's already said they want to do a filibuster, or get rid of the filibuster.
	So if the Democrats had control, They would basically become authoritarian at that point because you would get rid of one branch of government.
	If you could pack the court that aggressively, you could argue it was already packed, but if you could do it that aggressively by changing the number of people on the court so you can just fill it with your own people and have it a majority, As Stephen Miller points out, that would be the end of the terms of our constitutional amendments.
	It would be the end of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th.
	Now, that's a lot of freedom to lose right there.
	Does that seem reasonable, that Kamala Harris would pack the court?
	She said so directly.
	It's on video.
	We're not guessing that she might do it.
	She said so directly.
	Now, she said she would be open to it.
	I don't think she said, I will do that.
	But if you say you're open to it, I mean, I can't imagine you wouldn't do it.
	Anyway, so that's looking bad.
	So we have a situation where we've got all these signals of a planned rigged election.
	A planned rigged election.
	The signals are there.
	Now, I'm not claiming that the election is rigged.
	That would take a whole different level of knowledge that I don't have.
	I'm just saying that the signals are screaming that it's planned to be rigged.
	Screaming.
	Right.
	Now, why would you design a system, the whole point of it to be credible, and at the same time allow these screaming signals to be there?
	Why would you do that?
	Well, who knows?
	CNN says 15% of likely voters in six battleground states are still undecided.
	Now, they're quite adamant that Pennsylvania is the most important of all the states, but do you believe that 15% of likely voters are undecided anywhere?
	Do you think that's really?
	Is that true? 15%?
	I don't know that I've met anybody.
	I feel like the only undecided part is whether they'll vote or not.
	I don't feel like they're really undecided between Harris and Trump.
	Have you ever met anybody who's undecided?
	If it's really 15%, you know, you'd expect that would be in other states as well.
	Don't you think you'd run into those people?
	Do any of you know anybody who's undecided?
	I think the undecideds are just lying.
	Now, if you were going to lie and say you were undecided, who are you going to vote for?
	You know the answer to that.
	If you're going to lie to a pollster and say, oh, well, I'm kind of undecided because, you know, they both look bad to me.
	Who's that person going to vote for?
	I think Trump.
	Because if you liked Harris, you'd probably just say so.
	Because that's easy to do.
	If you liked Trump, you might play it a little bit cool and say, well, I don't know, I might decide at the last minute or something, but I couldn't possibly decide now.
	Just staying out of the blast zone.
	So I would think that the more, quote-unquote, undecided voters there are, the more likely Trump will win.
	Or at least he would if the election is clean.
	Well, Trump was on Lex Friedman's show, and I saw some things he said.
	I'm not sure he really made any news worth mentioning on that.
	It's another example of Trump basically putting everything out there for you to look at.
	You know, he's got four years of being president, so we got to look at all of that.
	He's been the most researched, investigated person of all time, so we've seen all of that.
	And then he'll go on any podcast and answer any question for as long as you want, it looks like, so that you really know who he is.
	As Bill Ackman pointed out, Harris has done nothing close to that, which means that you have one candidate who wants voters to know everything about him, and the other candidate wants you to know nothing about her.
	Which one makes you feel comfortable?
	The one who's completely transparent, or the one who's the opposite?
	It's amazing to me That we're accepting this as okay, and the Democrats are like, oh, now that you mention it, having interviews is the dumbest thing in the world.
	We won't do any of it.
	Okay.
	Kevin O'Leary was on CNN, and he said this before, but every time he says it, I like hearing it, just because it's a dose of truth, and because he said it on CNN.
	He said, quote, I don't put companies in here, New York, anymore.
	We're in New Jersey or California.
	Those states are uninvestable.
	I think he said Massachusetts, right?
	So New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California.
	He calls them uninvestable because the policies are insane.
	The taxes are too high and the regulations are, you know, ridiculous.
	Now I'm of the same opinion.
	I've told you this.
	I have this habit.
	It's sort of a mental hobby, I guess, of thinking about what small businesses I can start locally.
	Like, I'd really love to open a cat petting cafe, where you could be, I don't know, maybe buy a ticket or be a member or something.
	And it's a place you could take your laptop to, you know, cafe setting, and it would be full of cats.
	And you could pet them, or you could ignore them, or you could just be there where they are.
	But you would just sort of be in a place where there's a bunch of cats.
	And I think, you know, I don't know if I could make money on it, but, you know, if I owned the building or something, it wouldn't be too bad.
	It'd be fun just to hang out there.
	And then I think, oh, no, I live in California.
	You know, I wouldn't make a business in California.
	It's too hard.
	It's too hard.
	If I were in North Dakota, there would already be a Cat Cafe.
	Like literally, truly, I literally would have built the Cat Cafe if I built, if I lived in North Dakota.
	Because I would imagine the regulations would be less.
	And if I made money, I know taxes probably less.
	So, yeah, California is, in my opinion, without any exaggeration, uninvestable.
	They really need to fix that.
	I don't know how long you can go being uninvestable.
	I mean, the exceptions might be startups, because if they work, they work really well.
	But traditional businesses, I just don't know how you do it here.
	I agree with Kevin O'Leary.
	There are two pollsters, both Southern.
	I don't know if that matters.
	But they have Trump looking good in the polls.
	Now, a lot of the polls are showing that Harris is slightly ahead within the margin of error.
	But Trafalgar is interesting because they were one of the top, traditionally they've been one of the top pollsters for presidential elections.
	And they've got Trump winning with 296 electoral votes according to their best polling methods, which would suggest that whatever momentum Harris got is over.
	So the big story is not how Trump is polling.
	The big story is that there was just a Democratic National Convention, there was enormous media support for Harris, and it didn't seem to move her polls.
	So, she's probably, there's a really good chance, unless there's some big October surprise or something, there's a really big chance They've already seen her peak.
	Because it's all good news when you first start, right?
	It's just the glow of the honeymoon.
	But once the honeymoon wears off, you're going to have to talk.
	You're going to have to have a debate.
	I think everything could be different after the debate.
	But that might be giving people too much credit, because I think that she could go up there and drool on the floor, and she would only lose 5% of her support.
	So if you look at how Biden did in his, in his debate with Trump, we all agree that he did terrible, terrible, terrible, and that was the end of him.
	But what did people say after the debate?
	Democrats were pretty much still all in on him.
	Was it like a five point difference?
	Something like that, right?
	He only dropped like five points by showing he was brain dead in public.
	Just hold that in your head.
	Biden showed everybody, the whole world, left and right, we all saw it, and everybody had the same impression.
	Uh-oh, he's brain dead.
	It only cost him five fucking points in the poll.
	Right, now five is enough for a landslide because of our system, but only five points?
	Ish, I'm just making that up from memory.
	So if Harris shows up and you can tell that she has a functional brain, unlike Biden, if her brain functions but she just doesn't have a good debate, I'm not sure that will move one vote.
	I really don't know that it'll make any difference.
	Because they really just wanted somebody who wasn't brain dead.
	We finally hit the limit of how low they would be willing to go.
	Well, okay.
	Brain dead might be too far.
	I'm going to admit that not having a functioning brain, okay, that might be a standard we can agree on.
	But a simple bad debate, I don't know, might not change anybody's mind.
	Here's a little factoid that pings my pattern recognition, but maybe it shouldn't.
	So I'm going to tell you something that looks like a pattern.
	And then I want you to tell me, Scott, that's confirmation bias.
	There are lots of coincidences in the world.
	Not everything's a pattern.
	It's not all a conspiracy theory, Scott.
	So I saw this in a post by Eric Abinanti.
	Did you know that when Harris was running in 2010 for, what was she running for?
	Attorney General or something?
	It took four weeks after the vote was over for her to win, that after election night on 2020, 2010, Kamala Harris was behind.
	But after they kept counting votes and kept counting votes and kept counting votes, For four weeks, they finally found enough votes, and she won.
	Narrowly.
	Did you know that?
	Yeah.
	Did you know that LBJ, in 1941, won an election day, but his opponent found votes days later and won?
	Oh, he found votes days later.
	but his opponent found votes days later and won.
	Oh, he found votes days later.
	But in 1948, LBJ lost on Election Day, but later they found votes and there was enough room to win.
	So, there does seem to be a little bit of history.
	How about Norm Coleman?
	In 2008, he won on Election Day against Al Franken.
	But there were still votes coming in, and those votes came in, and after months of counting them, Al Franken won.
	And then, of course, it was Trump who won, you know, if you looked at election day only, it looked like he won.
	But weeks later, after they kept counting the votes, not weeks later, but sooner, they kept counting those votes and they found votes.
	And next thing you know, Biden won.
	Now, is that a fake pattern?
	Or is it screaming at us that as long as the election is close, The Democrat can always find some votes.
	Does that have to do with mail-in votes?
	Are those a related topic?
	I don't know.
	Is it true that this looks exactly the way it looks, or is it leaving out things that would have changed the pattern?
	Is there something omitted?
	Like, for example, lots of examples where Republicans won after the vote was recounted.
	I don't know.
	But I do think that a close vote is going to be real dicey in terms of getting the public to believe that the vote is true, if it's just close.
	Did you know that in places like Oakland and others, that if you commit a crime, and that crime was outdoors and it was anywhere near a Tesla vehicle, that the police can
	Can get that video from your Tesla if they use a legal process to get it and The cars just sit out there basically as permanent security cameras, you know, if you do a crime around the Tesla It's gonna be on video because the Tesla recorded it Now I Think my my BMW x5 also has that service as cameras all around.
	I don't think they're running all the time.
	I But it does give me pause for what I do in my man cave.
	Because my man cave is right next to my car.
	And I've got a feeling that if somebody wanted to, they could just turn on the camera and watch me sitting in my man cave through my car.
	You know, if a hacker wanted to.
	Think about that.
	Well, I asked a question.
	On X, and then I noticed that it was in the Explorer tab today.
	I don't know if it's because I'm the one who asked it or it got popular, but the question I asked was, how can you be in favor of reparations at the same time you're trying to be unburdened by what has been?
	And if you need an argument against reparations, you should say, you know, I have some advice for you.
	And this comes from Kamala Harris, who, according to many sources, is black.
	And she says you should be unburdened by what has been.
	And that slavery has been.
	You should be unburdened by that, and let's not live in the past.
	Let's look forward.
	So, it sounds like I'm mocking, but I'm actually agreeing with the idea of looking forward.
	And by the way, let me give you a persuasion update.
	So, and I think that should be the end of reparations, by the way.
	We should say, Kamala Harris says, and we agree, we should not be burdened by the past, And although the claims of harm have validity, we just don't care.
	Because lots of people could be randomly put into groups that you measured and found out they didn't do well.
	Have you seen the study of short people?
	You know, the study showing that short people are discriminated against, and always have been, and they earn less.
	You probably haven't seen that study because nobody cares about it.
	How about the one where ugly people earn less?
	Have you seen that study?
	I haven't.
	You know why?
	Because somebody decided that that's not the group of people they're going to study.
	The reparations is only even a question because we decided that was a group of people to study.
	And then once you found their special problem, you should fix it.
	I say, you can find a special problem with all kinds of groups, and I have no interest in fixing any of them, because there's no such thing as an average problem.
	There are individuals who have very individual problems, and if they need help, I'm all in.
	You're an individual?
	I don't care where you're from or what else is going on, if you're an individual, And you need help, and I have some way to help you?
	I'm all in, of course.
	Glad to help.
	But no, I don't want to make the average of your artificially generated group to make any difference in my life.
	Why should the average of your group affect me?
	No, I'm not interested in your average.
	At all.
	Even though it's supportable by your argument.
	So this is the part you have to separate.
	Is it true that there was some harm?
	And is it true that there's a thing called systemic racism?
	Yes.
	But don't connect that to anything I have to do about it.
	That's not my problem.
	I wasn't there.
	And I don't recognize your connection to me specifically.
	So no, I have no interest in it.
	It doesn't make sense logically.
	Doesn't make sense in terms of anything, really.
	It's just a theft.
	So to me, it just looks like theft.
	So if you want to be a thief, then push that lever.
	So let me say this about persuasion.
	So I'll give you at least one useful thing today.
	Do you remember Back in the Bill Clinton running against Bob Dole, I've told you this story before, Bob Dole said that he wanted to take the country back to those great qualities of the past, the greatest generation where people were polite and worked hard and helped people and did all those things the greatest generation did.
	And then Bill Clinton slaughtered him by reframing what Dole wanted to do as taking you to the past.
	And he said, I'm going to be a bridge to the future, and this guy's trying to take you to the past.
	That is a killer winning persuasion.
	What did Trump suggest?
	Make America great again.
	What did the Democrats cleverly do?
	They reframed again as taking you to the past.
	Nobody wants to go to the past.
	Even people who like the past don't like to go to the past.
	Everybody likes to move forward.
	That's just built in.
	So what is Harris saying lately on the campaign trail?
	Because she has good advisors now, who are doing great work, in my opinion.
	The advisors are telling her to frame Trump as taking you backwards, and they can give examples.
	Here's an example.
	You want to go backwards.
	There used to be no Roe vs. Wade.
	And then there was.
	And then Trump took you backwards, to where there isn't any.
	Backwards.
	Now, you can say to yourself, but, but, but, you know, we were just reversing something that shouldn't have been there.
	Yeah, I get it.
	I understand the argument completely.
	But it's easy to reframe that as taking you backwards.
	So as long as Trump is saying, again, they can frame him as looking backwards.
	And so she's saying specifically, we're planning for the future, they're looking backwards.
	At the moment, she has the winning frame.
	Do you know what could defeat that frame?
	Well, RFK Jr.
	does, because he's good at this stuff.
	And so is Nicole Shanahan.
	So what's good is make America healthy again.
	Do you know why make America healthy again works, even though it's got again in it?
	Because again it's that same problem, right?
	Again means go back.
	But here's what's different.
	What do you think when I say make America healthy again?
	What pops into your head?
	Make America healthy again.
	Let me fill in the answer, because it might not be in your conscious mind.
	When you say make America healthy again, here's what I hear.
	I'm killing my own kids, and I may have deeply hurt them through my own actions of just feeding them, and giving them vaccinations in some cases.
	So, if you think that you've harmed your own children, and somebody says, let's fix that, you will walk over glass to fix what you did to your own kids.
	So that would be sort of this really glaring exception to looking backwards.
	If you could look backwards and see that you endangered your children, but somebody's giving you a way to fix it?
	We know you didn't know, but you did in fact endanger your children.
	Here's the best you can do.
	We'll put in an administration that will help you with the food and the big pharma, and we'll try to fix that system so there's much more likely you'll make good decisions about what to do for health.
	So I think the Make America Healthy Again Strikes me as the only thing that could beat The fact that they're framing him as looking backwards That's what I think James Carville was talking about Harris's debate strategy and She's saying he's saying that the way for her to win is to let Trump be Trump and
	So the best way for Harris to win is if Trump did something to remove himself from consideration.
	Think about how weak that candidate is that the smartest person in their side is saying, you know, your only chance of winning is if you let him make a mistake.
	That's as weak as you could possibly be.
	You know, you've heard comparisons of this, like sometimes a golfer would be asked, how are you going to beat Tiger Woods, back in Tiger Woods' peak?
	And sometimes they would jokingly say, well, I have a hope if he breaks his leg.
	That's what's happening here.
	Yeah, as long as Trump, I don't know, his motorcade drives him off a cliff, we've got a chance of winning.
	They don't even act like Kamala Harris has a chance of a better argument.
	He's basically saying, make sure you leave those microphones on so that Trump can do things that we can mock him for later, and then make him lose by beating Trump.
	That's all they have.
	That's their best play.
	Yeah, let me say that that way again.
	The best play in the Democrats, per Carville, It's to let Trump be the only one who decides who the president will be.
	Because if Trump decides to just play it straight, and just sort of be normal, he'll be the president.
	But if he decides to be more Trump than Trump usually is, and says something outrageous, then he gets to not be president.
	But none of it has to do with anything that she's doing.
	The media will just sort of keep her under glass until Trump did something that they can jump on and turn it into the newest hoax.
	Well, let's see if you can detect another pattern in this story.
	There's a new video from Kamala Harris in which I think she looks drunk.
	I'm not positive on this one.
	The only reason I'm not positive is that Kamala Harris is the one who posted it.
	So Kamala Harris's official account Posted a video of her interacting with a person at a retail food establishment and joking about sauce on his shirt or something.
	And when I watched it, I thought to myself, I hope that's not her normal personality because she looks drunk.
	But it could be.
	I'm going to say that might have actually been her actual personality.
	You know, the giggling too much, and the witticisms that weren't witty at all.
	It might be her just natural personality, but it looked drunk to me.
	Anyway, here's another one.
	See if you find the pattern.
	So there's a former New York state official, government official, was arrested In charge with being an agent of the Chinese government and apparently she worked for both Andrew Cuomo when he was governor and current governor Kathy Hochul.
	She's not, she's been off the payroll for a while, but apparently there's strong evidence that China was paying her to push positions and promote Chinese interests in New York State.
	Does that sound familiar?
	It looks like China's doing a hell of a good job in getting their agents and employees to marry and date and work for politicians.
	All right, here's the just the strangest story.
	You know, you've all heard this story by now that the Venezuelan gangs have allegedly Take it over a couple of apartment buildings.
	And then some of the locals say, that's never happened.
	That's just completely made up.
	And every day the news says it is true in some way or it's on social media.
	And every day I wait for evidence that is true.
	Evidence would be like a video that I really knew was that building and I knew what was happening with full context.
	I haven't seen anything like that.
	So what is going on?
	I don't discount the fact that it might be happening exactly the way people are saying that the Venezuelans have teamed up and used their muscle to take over some apartment building in Denver or something.
	I don't know.
	But I would say that I'm solidly in coin flip territory on this story.
	Absolute coin flip.
	I would not make a bet one way or the other whether it's true.
	My guess is there's like a little truth to it, but maybe something's exaggerated in the telling.
	Just a guess.
	But imagine the fact that it's one of the top stories, and it's been in a lot of different news entities, I can't tell if it really happened.
	There's nothing that would give me an idea it really happened or didn't really happen.
	That's the weirdest story.
	So today there's a video of what alleges to be an apartment or a hotel in which the migrants left.
	So they tried to connect it to that story.
	But you look at the video and it's so obviously fake.
	The video is from some other context, quite obviously.
	So, I don't know what to believe.
	It's all fake news.
	All right.
	I remind you that Elon Musk is going hard on Brazil and that one judge, Judge Alexandre.
	And so he has this at Alexandre files account, which every day will release new evidence that that judge broke the laws in Brazil.
	Which is, he's really going hard at him.
	I mean, I do like the fact that Elon plays for keeps.
	So he's going to put this judge in jail if he can.
	But I think Brazil is too rigged for anything like that to happen.
	So, I don't know.
	Here's another story I have some doubts about.
	Allegedly, North Korea's Kim Jong-un ordered up to 30 officials to be executed for their failure to prevent mass flooding some time ago.
	There were 4,000 deaths from the flooding.
	And so Kim Jong-un allegedly told the locals to treat those officials, or the local authorities, I guess, to treat them brutally.
	And I'm not sure I believe this story.
	Thank you.
	And the reason I don't believe it is that it's too on the nose.
	Don't you think South Korea or somebody wants you to believe that he's just randomly killing his own people?
	Now, I'm not saying that he's never killed anybody, because it seems likely that he has.
	But do you think that this is true?
	Do you think you really had 30 people executed because they didn't do enough for flood prevention?
	Does that sound true to you?
	I'm gonna lay my bet on not true.
	Now that doesn't mean nobody was killed.
	If it turned out that three people were executed, I would say more likely yes than no.
	If I hear 30 people were executed, no.
	I actually don't believe that.
	So I'm gonna go no on this story.
	But maybe a few got executed.
	Here's the latest on Israel.
	65 projectors were fired into Israel from Lebanon and the IDF is currently hitting Hezbollah.
	So that's just more ongoing stuff, more of the same.
	And that, ladies and gentlemen, Is all I had to talk to you about today.
	It's such a weird, slow news, boring day.
	Something's going to happen.
	You know, it could be that just, you know, kids are going back to school, so everybody's just laying low.
	But I feel like all hell is going to break loose.
	Don't you?
	I had a sign that came to me yesterday.
	A signal from the simulation.
	I'll just tell you what it was.
	Yeah, and Starlink is shutting down Axe in Brazil.
	So Brazil is no longer going to have any source of free speech.
	That's too bad.
	What was I just talking about?
	I saw your post go by and it just totally made me forget what I was talking about.
	You'll tell me.
	Legal weed and tax cuts are winners.
	I don't know.
	I don't know if people care about that enough All right So I think I was gonna say that I'm expecting all hell to break loose maybe next week so I think there's probably still a lot of you opposition research and stories that are ready to go and hit pieces and All kinds of stuff.
	But we're only a week or so away from the debate, right?
	If it really happens.
	So it's possible that the debate will change everything, like the Biden debate did.
	But I think it's far more possible it won't.
	And we'll just have a neck-and-neck election right up to the last day before it gets rigged.
	All right, so I was going to tell you that there is a signal I saw.
	So sometimes I believe that the universe sends me signs.
	Now, I'm not going to convince you that's true.
	It's just a subjective experience.
	I wouldn't bet that it could be scientifically proven.
	But doesn't it feel like sometimes the simulation sends you signals?
	You might say signals from God.
	Well, yesterday I turned on the TV.
	I was just flipping through YouTube to find something to watch.
	And there was a guy in a boat, one of these rubber inflatable rafts doing some ecological thing, and he was zooming along and he was standing at the front of the boat, and you could see the front of the boat, and the name of the boat was Kraken.
	So that was just the name of his little inflatable boat, Kraken.
	And I looked at that and I said, huh, are we going to see a Kraken in September?
	Meaning, are we going to see some proof that the election was rigged in 2020?
	And the possibility is actually pretty strong.
	So I'm still going to keep with my observation and or prediction that life tends to look like a three-act movie and we would need the Kraken to make the movie work.
	The Kraken has to be that at some point there's proof that 2020 was rigged.
	Now, related to that, the story I didn't mention because it seemed too stupid, is that when Trump was on Lex Friedman, he was describing 2020 and he said the phrase, and then I lost by a whisker.
	Now that's being interpreted as he knows he lost the election and therefore that would make him guilty of insurrection and all that stuff.
	Is that how you heard it?
	It's not the way I heard it.
	The way I heard it was, lost by a whisker, was really suggesting that he didn't really lose.
	So, I don't see a change in that.
	When he says, I lost by a whisker, he means that when they counted the votes, that was the result they got.
	That doesn't mean he thinks it was not rigged.
	But the Democrats are turning it into that.
	So, and then I would also point out that the best argument against January 6th being an insurrection is that Trump was never charged with insurrection.
	Wasn't even charged with it.
	It would be one thing if he were charged and it hadn't been proven.
	He's not even charged.
	So obviously the Democrats know that there's no insurrection there.
	But they're going to push it.
	So I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately.
	I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and X. Thanks for joining.
	I'll be here again tomorrow because I never sleep.
	Unlike that Japanese guy who only sleeps half an hour a night.

▲