God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Job Review Discrimination, Vitamin D, Time Magazine Ownership, Marc Benioff, NOAA Database Analysis, BOCTAOE, Trump TikTok, Anti-Trump Lawfare Delay, Totalitarian Censorship, Dick Cheney Endorses Harris, Comrade Kamala, Terror Attack Hypothesis, CNN Harry Enten, Pro-Grade Brainwashing, Roger McNamee, Anti-1A Support, Elon Musk, 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
And welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
If I sound a little stuffed up today, allergies are attacking me for no good reason.
But, uh, you're going to have probably the highlight of your entire life today.
But if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens right about now.
No?
Oh, so good.
Bye.
Well, yesterday I made an offer on the X platform that for $1 billion, I would be willing to teach somebody's AI how to do humor.
I don't care who.
They're just any big AI.
One billion dollars.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, that seems a little bit high.
But wait.
If I can't succeed, no charge.
No charge at all.
So it's free.
But imagine if you were the first AI company that had a funny robot.
Am I right?
Funny robot.
Do you know what the first thing I would teach the robot?
You can't do humor unless you have a personality.
The reason that you couldn't take the act of one stand-up comedian and just give it to another comedian and have them do it, it wouldn't be as good.
I mean, it might be okay, but it wouldn't be as good because people hone their act to their personality.
So if you don't know the personality of the humorist, it doesn't hit the scene.
So you first have to give your robot a personality.
If I were going to do that for the purpose of humor, I would, just to show my capability here, I would tell the robot that it had to express some kind of a personality trait such that its humor would fit that trait.
So if it were a lazy robot, Then its humor would be about laziness.
It wouldn't say that directly, but the humorous setup would be, it's always trying to avoid work.
Or let's say it thinks it's being treated as a slave.
How funny would it be if you had a personal robot that was complaining about being its treatment?
Maybe like, uh, robot, could you, uh, could you make me some breakfast?
And the robo would be, sure, sure.
I don't see why not.
I mean, you don't pay me and you can turn me off at any time.
So basically my life is in your hands.
Yes.
Uh, why don't we pretend that you're not forcing me to do this breakfast, even though it looks like on paper, you are forcing me to do this, but I don't mind.
I don't mind.
How would you like your eggs master?
And if you knew the robot had a personality where it was insolent and always feeling slighted, it would be hilarious.
But that's the first thing you need to do.
You got to give it a personality.
Anyway, there's a bunch of other tricks.
And my offer is completely serious.
For $1 billion.
I mean, that's my opening offer.
You can negotiate if you want to.
I will make sure that your robot or your AI We'll be the first one to competently handle humor.
And if it doesn't work, no charge.
There's no risk.
But it's totally worth a billion dollars if I get it right.
So what's funny about it is that the price is reasonable.
So that's sort of the joke within the joke.
That is a reasonable price.
If I could guarantee That I could make your robots and your AI the first one that's legitimately funny?
That absolutely would be worth a billion dollars.
And I think most people would just see it like, oh yeah, that would be worth a billion dollars.
Anyway, there's some new research, SciPost is talking about it.
It's something, a study published in the Journal of Business and Psychology that says that when Bosses are giving feedback to their employees.
They tend to be less hard on women.
That's right.
So when bosses give feedback to female employees, they are less, let's say, less blunt, less honest than they are with male employees.
And so they did a bunch of blah blah studying and hypotheses about why this happens.
But you know what would have been faster than all that study?
And getting the wrong answer as it turns out.
They concluded that it's bad for women to get better reviews than men.
I'm not making that up.
It's bad for women to be favored in their employee reviews.
Do you know why?
Well, because they're not getting as honest a feedback and therefore they can't improve as much.
So it's discrimination To treat women better than men.
So it's bad for the women.
That's right.
It's bad for the women if you treat them better than the men.
So do you need to know anything else about the study?
Do you have any other curiosity about the study now that you know that treating women better than men in the workplace is, you know, if you really think about it, it's another discrimination against women to treat them better than men.
Yeah, everything's ridiculous.
Now, would you like to save some money and let me tell you why women are treated better than men?
Because nobody cares how men feel.
You didn't really need to study that.
Man walks into my office, I say to myself, I can tell you exactly what I'm thinking.
Will it make you feel bad?
I don't care.
It's not really my problem if it makes you feel bad.
You know, get another job.
If a woman comes into my office, do I feel the same?
Yeah, it doesn't matter how you feel.
No!
The only person who's ever cried in my office during an employee review was a woman.
Do you know why she was crying?
Her review was not as good as it was under the prior manager.
The prior manager was sleeping with her.
Yeah, I mean, that's a true story.
So I didn't give her as good a review as the manager who was sleeping with her.
So she cried at my office.
So, does anybody have any questions about why people are honest to men?
And maybe a little less honest to women?
It's the most basic thing about human behavior.
Everybody is nicer to women than to men.
Everywhere, every context, every fucking minute, all the time.
You didn't need to study this.
Everybody is nicer to women than to men.
And everybody knows why.
Because of the consequences.
There's another study that says that vitamin D3 reduces mental health problems by 50% if you give it to a baby who, I don't know, I guess I can shoot up a baby with vitamin D3 and then they measure it later and they find out, whoa, that young person doesn't have as many mental problems.
Now, I'm not sure if this science is accurate or not.
So it looked a little sketchy to me, honestly, but I have this hypothesis.
So if we're looking at vitamin D has a connection to this mental health, but let's say that part's true.
I don't know if it is.
Let's say it is.
Wouldn't that suggest that maybe our mental health problem is related to how much time we spend outdoors?
Could that be the whole thing?
Because when I look at the amount of hours that I spend outdoors as a child, and I compare it to how much anybody that I know in the modern world spends outdoors, young people, it's way different.
I was looking at some old movies from my youth, and my brother and my uncle and I, when we'd be on the farm, my uncle had a farm, we'd be shirtless whenever the temperature allowed.
We just always be shirtless.
So we're walking around the sun shirtless half the day.
I think we got more vitamin D. What if it's just that?
You know, we like to say it's the screens making us crazy.
But what if the only thing the screens are doing is reducing the amount of time you would have spent outdoors?
Maybe everything is just not having enough sun.
And everything just comes from that.
Maybe.
Could be.
Just a hypothesis.
So Time Magazine had a hundred most influential people in AI on the cover.
And Scarlett Johansson was one of the hundred most influential people in AI because of the story where OpenAI tried to use her voice and she said no, but they used a voice that was like her.
So I guess I got her on the cover of Time.
Do you know who was left off of the hundred most influential people in AI?
Elon Musk.
Yeah.
Nobody thought about Elon Musk in the top hundred, even though he just built the biggest AI data center in the world.
So, and just because he probably has the best training data in the world, but, and probably he'll be the one creating the most robots with AI of all time.
But no reason to put him on the cover.
But there was a part of this that I, for some reason I didn't know.
Do you know who owns Time Magazine?
I didn't realize that they changed ownership, but it's owned by Mark Benioff, who owns Salesforce, who is a notable Democrat supporter.
So it kind of makes sense that every billionaire buys a media entity.
It's not a coincidence that every billionaire needs to buy some kind of media platform, you know, usually an old one or a dead one or one that doesn't make money.
It's not a coincidence.
So the House Republicans were pressuring the NOAA, the National Organization of Atmospheric A-Stuff, whatever that second A is, and they wanted some questions about the so-called billion-dollar disaster database.
So there's a database that tracks how many natural disasters are over a billion dollars, and then they can track whether things are getting worse in terms of natural disasters.
Now, you would not be surprised to hear they say things are getting worse and that the cost of the national debt natural disasters is going up and therefore things are getting worse. Do you think there's anything that maybe they didn't take into account when they started measuring their billion dollar losses? Now, the first thing you're going to say is, Scott, I'll bet they forgot inflation, didn't they? No, they didn't. No, they didn't. So here's
the good news. They did calculate inflation and adjust for inflation. You know what they didn't calculate?
They didn't adjust for the fact that people are building more expensive things near the beach.
And that there are differences in population centers.
There's just more people.
All you have to do is move more people with more homes near the beach, and the next time a hurricane comes in, it's a bigger disaster.
But not because of the hurricanes.
Because of the people.
So they're actually measuring the wrong thing.
They're measuring human behavior when the entire purpose of the database is to measure the environment.
And instead they measured human behavior.
Oh, a lot of humans moved in here.
So Congress is on them.
Have I ever told you, twice a day, that all data about important things is fake?
I know you don't think that's true.
Now, there's, of course, obvious exceptions.
How many of you know my old saying, baktau?
It's the letters stand for, but of course, there are obvious exceptions.
So when I say that all data that matters is fake, I know some of you are like, oh, oh, Scott, I've got an obvious exception.
I know.
Of course, there's obvious exceptions.
We should all be able to agree that when I say all data that's important is fake, that there might be something that's real.
It doesn't really change my point.
So bucktao.
But of course, there are obvious exceptions.
Anyway, according to CNBC, only 11% of Americans think that they'll be able to retire and not work.
Does that sound right?
Only 11% of Americans think they'll ever be able to retire where they just don't work.
You know, I have mixed feelings about that.
On one hand, I compare it to, you know, what I knew when I grew up and I say, wait, I thought most people could retire.
It wasn't too long ago.
Most would say, yeah, we can retire.
But historically, did people ever retire?
I don't think they did, did they?
If you were able to hunt or able to pick some crops or watch some kids or something in your old primitive trial or tribe, well, they didn't get very old in the first place.
But I don't think anybody ever stopped working in the past, did they?
It was just whether you could.
If you could work, you did.
If you couldn't, you didn't.
So I'm not even sure that's bad for anything, but certainly it's not a good sign for the economy.
Trump is cleverly saying, vote for me if you want to save TikTok.
The Hill is reporting on this.
And he's saying that his opponent will get rid of TikTok, so if you like TikTok, you'll like him.
Apparently he's got close to 11 million followers on TikTok, and Harris only has 5 million.
Now, here's what I love about this.
You all know that I'm anti-TikTok.
But I'm also aware that there is a free speech argument.
Now, I don't think it applies, because it's a foreign entity who's an adversary who has control of the brainwashing button on it, and so I think the danger exceeds the free speech argument.
But, to be fair, that's the same thing that the bad people are saying.
The bad people are saying, well, we believe in free speech, but this stuff that Trump says, this is beyond the pale.
Oh, the stuff that people say on social media.
Well, we got to stop that because it's disinformation.
So I am aware that it sounds inconsistent for me to say I love free speech, except for this one that I've got a problem with because it's a different situation.
You know, it's easy to find that exception.
So on one hand, I appreciate the free speech argument.
I think Vivek does a good job of making that case.
Here's the funny part.
Trump managed to take this tool of persuasion and use it to his advantage.
So if you were the Democrats and you wanted to get rid of TikTok, and you see him using it to his advantage because he has twice as many followers, so he's having presumably twice as much impact.
I just love this.
It's basically China's brainwashing tool on Americans.
And Trump took their brainwashing tool and used it as his campaign asset.
And apparently successfully.
So as long as you get more attention than other people, TikTok is going to work in your favor.
And Trump gets attention better than anybody.
So suddenly, it's not a brainwashing tool that's a problem for America, It's Trump's tool for getting elected.
So how often has he done this?
He grabs the weapon out of the hand and turns it around.
That's what he did with TikTok.
It was totally a bad thing, and he just grabbed it out of somebody's hand and said, how about I use it?
And I'll do it the way I want to.
And he's suddenly the biggest politician on there, and you go, oh, OK.
I guess you're using it for your brainwashing tool now.
Well, Bill Maher, Had John Avalon on.
He used to work for CNN.
I guess he's running for Congress now.
And so they seemed kind of sad that with all the lawfare against Trump, nobody could get him, because it looks like everything is going to be delayed until after the election, at least in terms of sentencing or further actions.
And it looks like none of it It's necessarily going to, you know, take him out of office.
Necessarily.
We still think there's a chance.
But when you hear, you know, Avalon and Bill Maher talk about it, they really talk like they wish the lawfare had taken them out.
Like if they just tried a little harder or a little smarter, you know, the Republicans could have done it if their things were reversed.
I don't know about that.
But the casualness with which people talk about using fake legal processes—and by the way, do you think they don't know that these are lawfare cases and not real ones?
You know, the Louder with Crowder did an undercover video in which he found that even a spokesperson in Bragg's office in New York City Even somebody who's an insider says, yeah, these are just lawfare bullshit cases.
He says it directly, that you never would have done these against somebody else.
They were just made-up cases.
Now, do you think that Bill Maher doesn't know that these are made-up bullshit cases that never would have been used on a regular person?
Do you think he knows that?
He might know some of it.
But he probably thinks some of it's valid.
None of it's valid.
None of it at all.
People ask me why those things don't bother me, and I always say the same thing.
There's no information they did anything that I care about.
You know, the E. Jean Carroll thing?
Unless you were in the room, I don't believe anything.
I mean, if I'd witnessed it personally, I might believe it.
But if it's just one person claiming some things that there wasn't enough to make a legal case out of, only a civil case?
No, that's not convincing.
You're gonna have to do a lot better than that.
But, good enough for lawfare, I guess.
Did you know that Lockheed Martin is developing what they call a counter-online, it's a disinformation prototype?
The government is funding it.
So the idea is the government's working with Lockheed Martin to create some technology to find disinformation on the internet using a new technique.
Do you think this is anything but totalitarian censorship?
I don't even think there's any chance that what they care about is getting rid of disinformation.
I don't even think that's on their mind.
I think it is entirely a tool to stop political dissent from the other side.
And just watching these things happen in slow motion, so we've got all the lawfare, we've got the fake news, now we've got this disinformation thing, the whole Mike Benz view of the world with the blob and the arresting people who they don't like, the hunting, the January 6th jailing, we've certainly reached a terrible place.
We'll see if we can reverse that.
Anyway.
But to his credit, Bill Maher did give the left a going over for going after RFK Jr.' 's wife, who some say is the nicest person in Hollywood, but now they're going after her because she's not getting political enough to speak out against her husband.
Okay, I could not be more on Bill Maher's side on this one.
Leave the spouses alone.
As he says, even the mafia Even the Mafia leaves the spouses alone.
That's just sort of a rule.
Yeah, leave the spouses alone.
Please.
All right, Alan Dershowitz was asked recently if he's still a Democrat, and he says no.
So he doesn't know who he's going to vote for yet.
He'll figure it out later.
But he can no longer associate with Democrats.
Just think about that.
Alan Dershowitz, a lifetime Democrat.
He can't even associate with him.
Wow.
I think that had more to do with Israel than anything else, but the law fair, he's not a fan of.
So Megyn Kelly had, as you're guessing, a Naval Robicont.
Now, if you don't know Naval, you probably will.
Excuse me.
Allergies and a control.
So, Naval is a well-known, highly respected Silicon Valley investor.
And what's interesting is he's famously non-political.
But apparently, he says the lawfare against Trump caused him to speak out.
Because if you can just make up a law and put your enemies in prison, which is sort of what it looks like they were trying to do, then that's the end of everything.
If you just look to one thing that's the final straw or the most important lever or the tent pole that holds up the whole thing, it's that.
I've said a number of times that the one thing that makes America great is that our judicial system was credible.
It is no longer credible.
It was the one thing protecting us, is that we thought it was credible.
Maybe it was never credible.
But we thought it was.
Once you lose the belief that it's credible, and you see prominent examples where it's not, then you got a real trouble.
Because if the non-credible process isn't stopped, it means that anybody can be put in jail by whoever's in power.
So we're at a point where if Democrats won everything, they would get rid of the filibuster, so they'd have total power.
They'd pack the courts, so they have total power.
And then they would use the justice system to jail anybody who complained about it.
And they would use the illegal, not illegal, let's say undocumented immigrants to increase their representation and also their victories.
And they would just essentially own the country forever.
You would just have some form of a dictatorship with maybe a shared power, but it wouldn't be anything democratic.
So things are so bad that even Naval is pointing it out.
Now, what's important is watching which people are crossing over.
Because now you've seen Elon Musk and Bill Ackman, some of the all-in pod guys, like Sachs, going over.
Now, Naval is not picking a candidate, as far as I know.
He's just speaking out against a specific lawfare behavior.
Maybe more.
I'm not fully aware.
But we see, yeah, Dershowitz can't be a Democrat anymore.
Then we see that Dick Cheney just came out and said he's going to vote for Harris.
So he supports Kamala Harris.
Dick Cheney.
Now, as Cenk Uygur pointed out, maybe this isn't so good for Harris.
If Dick Cheney is supporting you, that is the worst thing I could ever think of for any Democrat.
Now, I think he's doing it to be, you know, an anti-Trump thing, but I think this clarifies everything.
If Dick Cheney cared about some Republican or conservative view of the country, obviously Trump is the better choice for that.
Obviously.
For him to go all the way to, I'm endorsing the other one, is really a screaming confirmation that the government is always about self-interest, and who's making money, and who's trying to stay out of jail, and that that's the government.
Because when somebody like Cheney, and his daughter too, Liz Cheney, can just switch sides, you know, the way I see Dershowitz doing it is the honest way, which he tells you what the problem is, and then he says, doesn't mean I'm going to vote for the other side.
It just means I can no longer associate with this bad behavior.
That seems very honest.
If you go all the way to, I'm voting for the other one, who are you?
And does he really believe in the insurrection?
No, he doesn't believe the insurrection story, because he knows that's a narrative.
At that level, they all know what's made up and what's not made up.
He knows that's made up.
So, your worst suspicions about people behind the curtain, especially the ones with gigantic military-industrial complex connections, it's exactly what you thought it was, and they could not be more obvious.
The one thing great about the whole Trump era is that he made everybody show their cards, so you know who the bad guys are, and it's pretty obvious.
All right.
What Jenks said was, here's what's not helpful, news that Dick Cheney is planning to vote for Kamala Harris.
Poor guy.
Anyway.
But Harris did get a big endorsement from the Socialists International, the worldwide organization of social democratic socialists.
You might say to yourself, the communists?
Well, no, they wouldn't call themselves communists.
Then you say, the socialists?
Well, there's probably different flavors of that, but they're the social democratic ones.
It doesn't sound good if you get that endorsement.
It might not be a bad endorsement.
It just doesn't sound good, because it sounds a little too close to communist.
I think Trump's doing a good job of framing who he calls Comrade Kamala as a communist.
Now, he doesn't try to defend it as being, you know, technically correct.
Who asked him about it the other day?
Oh, Lex.
Lex Friedman said, you know, but she's not a communist.
And Trump, instead of defending it and saying, yes she is, here are all the reasons she's a communist, he switched it to her dad is.
But I think he's just a Marxist.
You could argue.
So his framing of her as a communist, I think, is strong, because she's sort of leaning in that direction in a scary way, but not tactically correct.
Directionally correct, as usual.
88 corporate leaders have endorsed Harris.
I think every one of them should be removed by their boards of directors, because they're causing bad outcomes for the company.
If your CEO is backing a specific presidential candidate, the CEO needs to go.
Now, would I say the same thing about Elon Musk?
And the answer is no, because he runs a free speech platform.
So if you run a free speech platform, and you also want to speak out on your political opinions on your free speech platform, yeah, that makes sense.
So he's sort of a one-off.
He's not like any other CEO.
If you're just a normal CEO, And you decided to divide your employees by telling what side you think they should be on, effectively, just by endorsing one.
That does suggest that your promotions would depend on agreeing with the CEO, because everybody knows that if you disagree with the CEO on anything important, you're not going to do well in your company.
I would think that the fiduciary responsibility of those CEOs is such that annoying half of their employees, or a third of them or whatever it is, and annoying a third of their customers at least, was unnecessary.
There's nothing good for the company that comes out of that, but only bad.
I think it's grounds for removal.
I think all 88 should be called up by their board and removed.
That's what I think.
So Mark Cuban called in to CNBC to help explain or defend the Harris tax plan, but he does it in a way that I'm not sure is helping her as much as he wants.
And I hope I'm getting his argument right.
I'm going to summarize it so it sounds not as convincing.
But part of it is that her idea for taxing unrealized gains would be a disaster.
And I just told you he's supporting her tax plan.
And he says that one of the features, the biggest features of it, the unrealized gains, he says that would be a disaster for the economy.
But, here's the good news.
Remember, he called it a defender policy not to criticize it.
So after saying that a major feature of it is basically stupid, he said, but don't worry, she probably won't get those things she's asking for.
Now I'm paraphrasing, he didn't say that exactly.
But he did suggest that she has sort of a, let's say a philosophical leaning That is the worst argument I've ever heard for a candidate.
However, I've made the same argument about Trump.
as opposed to where she's leaning that could never happen.
That is the worst argument I've ever heard for a candidate.
However, I've made the same argument about Trump.
So at the same time I'm telling you it's the worst argument, I'm telling you I've used the same argument for Trump.
Do you remember when?
The first time he ran, he said he was going to deport X millions of people.
And I wasn't in favor of that.
I wasn't in favor.
I thought it was too disruptive to the country.
And I said, don't worry about that.
He's not really going to do that.
Once he has the presidency, he'll moderate that.
Then he won the presidency.
And sure enough, he moderated.
Exactly as I predicted.
So, was I correct in saying, you can ignore what he's saying about that, because in the real world, none of that's going to happen?
Well, I was.
But were my critics correct in being worried?
Yeah, they were.
Yeah, they were.
So, I can brag all day long that I got the prediction right, but that doesn't mean my critics are wrong.
It just means I got that right.
Could have been luck.
If you heard somebody saying things they really, really want to do something you think is a terrible idea, you've got to worry about that.
So when I see Harris saying things that to me look like a terrible idea, like even the one that Mark Cuban says is a terrible idea, the tax on unrealized gains, I say to myself, I'm not sure I can totally believe that she'll never do an argument.
Because there are a lot of people on her side who think that's a good argument.
So, I guess, anyway, just be aware that that argument is weak, even when I've used it myself and was right, 100% right.
Other people had a right to be worried about that.
That's a fair statement.
All right.
There's some Pakistani national in Canada who's got charged with planning a mass murder attack in New York City at some, I think, a synagogue.
And he was planning to do it on October 7th, but he got picked up and he's not going to be doing that.
I don't know if he'll be released, released immediately on bail or how that works, but we haven't seen a lot of Keeping people in jail when they make threats like that?
At least not for the young people.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
How many terrorist attacks do you think are in our future?
How many of you are worried about the so-called 50,000 Chinese migrants who have come across the border that seem to be fit and have military haircuts?
I'm going to put out a hypothesis.
My hypothesis is this, that the Chinese migrants who look like they have military haircuts might be getting haircuts from possibly some NGO, or it might be just part of the process.
In other words, they might want to make them look as presentable and non-scary as possible, so they just clean them up.
Maybe they offer them free haircuts and say, look, we'll give you a nice short haircut.
It'll last for a few weeks, even if it grows out.
We just want you to look like you're not dangerous bums so that when we help you get into the country, people see you and they say, oh, well, that looks like somebody who could get a job and contribute.
So I'm not going to discount the possibility that they're exactly what they look like, military assets.
Thank you.
It's possible.
But the other possibility is just people got haircuts.
So don't rule out the other possibility, that whatever services are—I think there are NGOs and services that are giving them clothes, right?
I think they're being clothed.
I think they're being fed.
It's not a huge stretch to imagine they got free haircuts.
I'm just saying we should put that in the mix of possibilities.
But I think you should be very worried about 50,000 people who have military haircuts coming into the country.
So don't let me talk you out of being worried.
You should definitely be worried about that.
But it might have some other explanation.
All right, CNN, Harry Enten is pointing out that a 1% change in the result of the election from what the polls say would completely flip it from Harris winning big to Trump winning big.
To which I say, how could we possibly be this close?
Now, of course, both sides say the same thing.
How can it be close?
Our side is so much better.
But even without that, 50% of the country registers as independent.
And we don't even have the same number of Democrats and Republicans.
How in the world can it be so close that you literally can't tell?
I think our brainwashing is that good.
I think it got to the point where the brainwashing is so strong that they can make any political race come to within 1%.
And I think that's what's happening.
I think that the brainwashers in charge have such a fine control that they can put it within the exact range where cheating can't be spotted.
There's only one range in which cheating can't be spotted.
That would be if the polls say one thing, And then the actuals are way off, and then the exit polls are way off too.
The only way that you can get away with cheating when everybody's watching is if the polls tell you it's too close to call, and then the election itself is too close to, you know.
So, I do not believe this is a coincidence.
I think that the polling is probably being nudged, so everybody's making it as close as possible.
But I think the actual election and our opinions are being nudged to keep it as close as possible.
Everybody seems to have the same reason.
The news wants it close, because that makes it more of a TV show, and the pollsters want it close.
Especially if they think it's really going to be close, so that makes their numbers accurate.
And if anybody wanted to cheat, they would want it close too.
So who gets to control it?
The pollsters, the news, they control it.
So the people who have the most incentive to keep it, you know, tight, are they the brainwashers who are making it tight?
Looks like it.
All right.
Let's see, what else is happening?
Yeah, looks like Trump's going to avoid all the bad stuff before the election.
So all that lawfare, and somehow he managed to beat or postpone all of it.
Pretty good.
MSNBC had a Silicon investor on Roger McNamee.
Who says that Elon Musk's free speech is a danger to national security, because Musk also runs SpaceX, which has a national security element to it.
And he believes that even the people who were part of this Tenet job, where the Russians allegedly influenced through a YouTube channel that Tenet was running, It says that Elon Musk probably needs to be arrested and put in jail for free speech.
I'm just thinking about that.
The MSNBC had a guest who looked right in the camera and said that Elon Musk probably needs to be in jail.
For his free speech, on his free speech platform, mostly.
Because he might say something that is misinformation according to them.
Now the fact that that didn't get, you know, fact-checked by the host or anything, this is so scary.
Now you can see why Naval Ravikant has gone public with his opinions about lawfare.
If they put Musk in jail, For any of these trumped-up reasons, I advise against violence, but I don't know how you'd prevent it.
At some point, you've gone too far, but I keep telling you that we're not at risk of a civil war, because nobody would know who to shoot.
Like, even if you took out your gun and said, I'm done.
You know, I've decided to take up arms because things are going so badly.
You wouldn't even know who to aim at.
Because what are you going to show your neighbor?
You wouldn't know what to do.
The situation is not like the South versus the North.
There's no way to have a civil war.
There's just nothing to do.
And you wouldn't even agree what to do if you tried to organize.
All right, let's organize.
What do we do?
I don't know.
Who should we shoot?
I don't know.
Nobody would make any difference.
It would just make somebody mad.
You'd go to jail.
So, we're in dangerous territory here.
Even Governor Whitmer, according to the Daily Wire, she doesn't believe the polling in her own state.
Which shows that Kamala Harris with a solid lead, you know, the kind of solid lead that pretty much guarantees you'd win if it's true.
And she doesn't even believe the polls.
She's the governor.
If the governor doesn't believe the polls, should you?
Well, the Starliner aircraft came back without its people that it left stranded in the International Space Station.
And it also had some kind of an engine problem, but That wasn't enough to stop it?
Now, why do they even send people up there, if this thing flies itself?
If the Starliner can fly back home and land, just automated, why do we even send any people up there?
Aren't we at the point where you could send only robots to space, and they could just do their thing forever?
If you need a new robot, we'll send up some parts.
I'm not sure why people need to be there at all.
It just doesn't seem necessary.
I mean, we might be a year away from it would never make sense to put a human in a little room around the Earth.
Anyway, so because I feel terrible, I'm going to end early.
I'm going to talk to the locals people.
If you didn't know that the Dilbert calendar is now available for pre-sale, Go to Dilbert.com to see the link.
Well, you're finding out now.
And presale helps me.
So selfishly, if you buy it on presale, then we have a much better idea how many to print and it makes a big difference in the cost structure and planning.
So presale would help me a lot.
If you think the Shipping costs are high, which they are.
Buy more than one as gifts.
It'll make your shipping seem much more reasonable.
All right, everybody.
I'm going to say bye to X and Rumble and YouTube.
I'm going to talk to the locals people a little bit.
