God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Kamala Harris, Anti-Trump Penzey's Spice, WSJ AI Stories, Darryl Cooper, Churchill, Conservative In-Fighting, Seth Dillon, Tucker Carlson, Jack Posobiec, Book Bulletproof, Amazon Book Glitches, Pennsylvania Election Integrity, CNN Kyle Griffin, 4 Least Respected Republicans, Trump Warns 2024 Cheaters, Trump Fentanyl Policy, Matt Walsh, Movie Am I Racist, Mike Benz Brazil, Tenet Media Funding, Targeting Top Influencer Conservatives, RFK Jr., Healthy Food Solutions, Separate Laws Policy, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and aren't you glad you're here?
But we're going to take this up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
And for that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes Everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Zip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah, the Sunday version.
So, so good.
All right, we're going to talk about some funny science, and then some funny news stuff, and then some funny politics, but we're going to talk a little bit in detail about RFK Jr.' 's policy plans.
For fixing our drug and food situation.
He's got a big article in the Wall Street Journal.
I'll just summarize that for you because it's really interesting.
But first, there's some science that says that there was a study done that says that women tend to give more money to attractive men.
So I assume this means in the business context.
To which I say, well, you know what I say, right?
You could have saved a little time and money by just asking Scott.
Hey, Scott, we were going to spend $100,000 on this study to find out if women tend to give more money to attractive men.
And I would say, ho-ho, for $10,000, I'll give you an answer.
And they'll say, really?
That would save us $90,000.
And I'd say, I know, I know.
Here's your answer.
Yes.
Yes, they will.
And if you're wondering if they will do other things for attractive men, yes.
Yes, they will.
Now, I'm going to give you a little extra.
I know I didn't even promise this, but suppose, just suppose you turned it around and the question became, would men give more money to attractive women in every context?
Yes.
Yes, they would.
In every context.
There.
Safety at $90,000.
Here's another one.
Science found out that the higher your IQ, the less you drink alcohol.
So the lower your IQ, the more likely you're going to have problems with drinking too much.
And they're trying to figure out the hypothesis for why And one hypothesis is, quote, one suggested explanation for the association between intelligence and health is that cognitive skills enhance possibilities to make healthy lifestyles choices.
Now, let me translate that from science into normal talk.
It turns out the science studied to find out if smart people make better choices.
You know what I'm going to say.
You could have saved a little money on this one, too.
Hey, Scott, we're thinking of doing a study.
It's going to cost a million dollars.
And the study was going to look into, do people with high IQ make better choices?
And I would say, hold on, hold on.
For merely $100,000, I can answer that.
And they're like, really?
We would save $900,000 if you could do that.
I go, watch me, watch me.
People who are smarter, hold on, listen to this, make smarter decisions across a whole range of domains, including lifestyle choices.
But there's a second explanation.
Also, you could have asked me, If you're low IQ, you might have some other things going on in your life, such as lower income.
Maybe things aren't working out so well for you in general, which means that your happiness might be lower than somebody who is finding out that their life is working out because they keep making smart choices.
And so if you're not happy, this brings into the conversation what I call my pleasure unit hypothesis.
The Pleasure Unit Hypothesis.
I wrote about this in 2013 and before that in my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
And it goes like this.
Humans require a certain amount of pleasure daily, on average, or they will just kill themselves.
They just can't live without some amount of pleasure.
You can't go through every day with everything being bad.
You just won't, you won't last.
So if you don't have access to clean, healthy fun, you're going to go the other way and you're going to find, well, at least I can have a drink or do a drug.
So you need some pleasure.
So does it make sense that people who have high IQs and maybe the rest of their life is working out too, because they made good choices.
Do they have access to healthy pleasures?
Yes.
Cause they've worked out the details of their life.
So they have access to good vacations and stuff like that.
So for two reasons, you would expect IQ and alcohol to be related.
One is smart people make smarter choices and they know alcohol is poison.
So they just try harder to stay away from it and all of the things that are bad for them.
And the other is they don't need, To get bad sources of pleasure, because I have more access to good sources of pleasure.
You should have asked me!
Well, you know I'm a nerd when it comes to new energy sources and whatnot, but the Oak Ridge National Laboratory used a supercomputer, not AI, apparently you need a supercomputer more than you need AI for this, to make a new kind of material that gives you a 21% advantage in Power in ways that are not well explained.
But I just have to say this.
Probably the most dynamic and exciting part of science at the moment is materials.
Just making material.
Because if you can make a material that's stronger and lighter, well, suddenly you saved like a ton of energy for making your airplanes.
If you can make materials have certain qualities that you couldn't make before, then suddenly you've got a battery that doesn't catch on fire and is much better than regular batteries.
But material science is never sexy, because it's never the finished product, right?
A car is sexy, a phone is sexy, but the materials that go into all the parts, they're not so sexy.
But wow, there's just amazing things happening.
And I think AI plus supercomputing, We're going to see more of these big breakthroughs and new materials.
Anyway, that's some good news.
The Washington Post is getting mocked.
Here are two headlines.
One from before she was chosen to be the candidate for president, and one after.
See if you can determine any change in tone.
So before she was the candidate, she was just the vice president, The Washington Post had a headline.
Now, these, I think, are more opinion pieces, but the headline was, Kamala Harris staff exodus reignites questions about her leadership style and her future ambitions.
Well, that's kind of negative.
Yeah.
Staff exodus reigniting questions about her leadership style.
Yeah.
Dumping on her.
But then after she gets nominated, here's the Washington Post again.
Kamala Harris ran her office like a prosecutor.
Not everyone liked that.
Huh.
Suddenly, they've turned massive staff turnover into a slightly positive thing.
The first time they framed it, it sounded like she was an incompetent leader and nobody wanted to work there.
The second time they framed it, she was a demanding leader with high standards and you'd better meet those standards or you're not going to last long in that high-performance atmosphere.
Anybody notice a difference there at all?
A little bit of difference of tone?
And then the Washington Post is also being mocked for, there was this visit the Harris made to a spice store.
I didn't even know there were spice stores, but apparently there's a spice store in Pennsylvania.
And she went into one, and one of the Washington Post writers decided that the story to write that day was which spices she brought.
So somebody actually posted on X just a list of the spices she bought at the store.
Yeah, he was severely mocked by Glenn Greenwald and other people.
Anyway, that's what Washington Post writing looks like, an embarrassing profession.
Anyway, more about that spice store.
So there's a viral clip where Kamala Harris is hugging Some older white lady who's crying about, I think she's crying in happiness because Harris is there or something.
I don't know.
But people are saying it was all staged.
And the store was a famously anti-Trump store.
So the store has put anti-Trump, you know, marketing stuff.
You know, we don't even want you to shop here if you're a Trump supporter.
I mean, really dark stuff.
And, uh, they got a lot of publicity, but I can't imagine it worked out for him.
Cause it looks like the owner of it is some deranged looking leftist.
And, uh, he's got those crazy eyes and one photo I saw, you know, the crazy eyes, the leftist eyes look like this.
If you're only listening to this again, you're missing a great impression of leftist eyes.
Hey, Look at my smile.
It doesn't match my eyes.
That's kind of creepy.
Yeah, you don't see that on the right.
I'm not saying the people on the right are all error-free and they do all the right things.
I'm just saying they don't have that specific facial expression.
There is a facial expression that you just don't see in conservatives, for whatever reason.
I don't know.
Anyway, The Wall Street Journal Printed a story about AI and Elon Musk.
Took a few hours before the X platform outed it as fake.
So it was a fake story.
They got everything wrong.
Elon Musk weighed in and said, nope, this is not true.
Just completely wrong.
So you don't even need to hear the details because it was all wrong.
And then the guy who posted it said it was the fifth time that the Wall Street Journal has had an incorrect article just about XAI.
So that's your news.
I love the fact that you can see in real time the What's the name of the effect?
I'll remember in a minute.
The Gell-Mann amnesia effect, where if you know the truth, because the story is about you or some expertise you have, you know that the news is uniformly wrong.
But if you think, if you don't know anything about the story, you just read it and go, well, it's probably right.
So imagine being Elon Musk and reading stories about himself every day.
How many of those stories about himself do you think are accurate?
20%?
At best?
Probably 20%.
Maybe less.
Anyway, so Harris' latest hoax is the Affordable Care Act, and that Trump wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act that you might call Obamacare.
Now, what is the truth of that?
Is it true?
Kamala Harris just said it.
Said Donald Trump intends to end the Affordable Care Act, which would take us back to a time where insurance companies had the power to deny people with pre-existing conditions.
What does Trump say about pre-existing conditions?
He absolutely does not want that.
He's not going to make it worse.
His take on the Affordable Care Act is that, yes, he does want to replace it with something better.
And if he can't come up with something better, he will not replace it.
Now, that's actually saying nothing.
Am I wrong?
Let me give you an example of some other things this would apply to.
I'm going to get rid of NASA.
But only if I can come up with something better than NASA.
So are you getting rid of NASA?
No, unless you could magically come up with something better.
I don't know.
Or maybe outsourcing it all to Elon Musk might be better.
No, it's a general statement that you're not going to change something unless you can figure out how to make it better.
That's all Trump is saying, that he thinks he can make it better, but if he can't, he won't change it.
It's not really much to worry about.
And he definitely doesn't want you to not be able to get healthcare because of pre-existing conditions.
I'm pretty sure he's on board with the pre-existing conditions part.
Now, so you've seen how bad the news is.
And you've seen that the politicians are lying to us about really easily checkable.
I mean, you just had to Google it and you can see that it's not true that Trump just wants to get rid of it and go back to where we were.
No, that has never been part of his stated, or even I assume, Nobody would think that way, because that would be sort of a dumb way to think.
So, if you know that the news we're seeing is not true, and you know that the politicians are all lying, what does that tell you about our history?
Do you think our history was all accurate?
You know, I've said a few times you should watch, there's a show on Netflix called Wyatt Earp and the Cowboy Wars.
It's the worst title for a show you've ever heard, but ignore the title.
It's really interesting.
This is a real world events, but you're going to see that the judicial system was 100% corrupt in those days.
It's based on real stories, by the way.
You can see that politics, and even the selection of the president, 100% corrupt.
100%.
Just everything's completely corrupt.
Big business?
100% corrupt.
And that's where we were just in the 1800s.
100% corrupt in every system in the United States.
Business, politics, the courts.
100% corrupt.
And you think we grew out of it, right?
It's not likely.
It's not likely that any of that changed.
It's likely that it found out how to hide better.
It may have changed form, but no.
Now, when I say the justice system is corrupt, I don't mean the everyday cases.
You know, I think if you rob a bank, probably the justice is roughly fair.
All right, can we stop showing shortlist pictures of me in the comments?
All right, that's sort of dickish behavior.
During the show, it's bad form.
So don't do that anymore, please.
Anyway, what was I talking about?
Oh, so this brings me to the question of Churchill.
So, revisiting the fact that Tucker had a historian on, named Daryl Cooper, who said that, it's hard for me to paraphrase a long conversation, but effectively that Churchill was more of a bad guy than a good guy when it came to World War II, and may have been responsible for some bad outcomes that plague us still today.
Now, is that true?
Do you think Churchill is the Churchill that you learned about in school?
Or is Churchill closer to what Daryl Cooper said?
Or is neither of those true?
And there's something that's sort of in the middle that's true.
I don't know.
How would I know?
How would any of us know?
If we can't tell what's true today, how in the world could we tell what was true then?
Given we know that the news is fake, the politics is fake, business is fake.
It's all fake.
But there's a second part to this story.
Have you noticed that conservatives are sort of getting on each other lately?
I'm going to skip ahead.
So I feel like there's all these little arguments that are happening Uh, among Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers.
And I wonder how much of this is natural.
It looks natural.
I mean, it looks organic, like things just happened to pop up and people disagreed on them, but it's kind of weird that right before the election, there's this huge multi battle thing going on where a bunch of conservatives all found reasons to be mad at each other.
Kind of weird.
I don't know what's going on there.
But this one struck me especially.
So Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee, founder or CEO, or both, I don't know, of the Babylon Bee, got into it with Tucker Carlson, and I think he made some comments on X, and then Tucker Carlson must have contacted him by text, and they had some exchange, and then they both Talked about it.
So Tucker's version of what happened suggested that Seth texted him, but the wording is a little ambiguous.
I'm not sure he said that.
He just said that he texted.
But Seth objects because he wants, I guess he wants to know that Tucker texted him first, but then there was some back and forth.
So when Tucker says that Seth texted him, I don't think he was necessarily implying that he texted him first, just that what they talked about was in text form.
But let's see.
So first Seth fact-checked him on that.
And he said that he texts to express outrage about the Daryl Cooper guy.
Because the Nero Cooper guy was, some are saying, a little too favorable to Hitler.
I'll just say that other people say that, so you can leave my opinions out of this for now.
And then there's some disagreement between Tucker's version of Seth Dillon's opinion and Seth's own opinion of his opinion.
Now typically I like to look at people's own opinion of their opinion, not other people's explanation of their opinion to figure out what is true.
So the question is whether he expressed outrage or did he mock him?
So Seth is saying he mocked Tucker, Tucker saying he expressed outrage.
And then some other words that were interesting is that, uh, Seth said he thought it was pretty wild.
So this is Seth explaining his own approach.
He said it was pretty wild.
I explained that to see a Hitler apologist platformed and praised effusively by Tucker Carlson.
And Tucker said in reply, platformed?
You mean spoke to?
I said, yeah, you spoke to him on your platform to purposely amplify his voice, and that has understandably raised some eyebrows.
And then that gets into the question of censorship.
So does it seem to you that Seth Dillon was applying some citizen-to-citizen censorship?
You know, not legally, of course, but putting pressure on people to stop doing that?
Because I feel like that might have been Tucker's feeling, because when he said platform, do you mean spoke to?
So here's the question.
Although nobody's saying that Tucker doesn't have free speech, and he can platform anybody he wants, and he can amplify anybody he wants, because he is the number one podcaster in the world.
So I guess he gets some rights to do things within the law.
It's easy to see both sides of this, isn't it?
On one hand, I'm 100% in favor of Tucker Carlson putting offensive, non-standard people on the air to hear what they have to say.
I'm equally happy when the people who don't like that say publicly, here's why I don't like it and why.
So I appreciate Seth Dillon weighing in so we can see how he feels about it, and probably not too different from how a lot of people feel about it.
So to me, this is all good.
This is the free speech I like.
I like it where Tucker Carlson puts on somebody that other people say, oh my God, why are you amplifying and platforming this?
But we hear that too.
As long as I can hear the platforming and the amplifying, But I can also hear Seth Dillon and others say, hey, I'm not sure that amplifying this particular point of view is good because we don't think it's accurate or whatever our problem is with it.
So on one hand, you can say to yourself, hey, here's some unhealthy conservative to conservative disagreement.
And then I would disagree and say, no, you're just seeing the healthiest thing that could ever happen in a republic.
Somebody put a voice on that is deeply disturbing.
And somebody said, that's deeply disturbing.
And then I got to hear both.
I got to hear the opinion and I got to hear the opinion about the opinion.
I'm done.
Good job, both of you.
So I'm going to give a compliment to both of them.
This is the fight I want to see.
I want, I want to see you fighting over the question of, you know, whether it was good to platform them.
But not the question of whether it's a right, and it wasn't questioned.
So Seth Dillon did not question whether he had the right to do it, or it made sense to do it, or anything.
He just made sure you saw the other opinion.
Good for him.
So I hope it doesn't cause any long-term anything.
It's a good healthy sign.
You may have heard this story.
Jack Posobiec has a new book.
Joshua Lysak is part of that, part of the book writing process there and getting it independently published.
And so the first day it's going to be available, it shows up on Amazon with a porn title instead of the actual picture of the book.
So it's an accident.
So accidentally, The book that would probably have a—I assume, by the way, it's called—let me give you the title of the book.
It's called Bulletproof, and it's the first book about the assassination attempt on Trump.
Now, given that the assassination attempt happened really recently, the first big book that gives you a point of view on this that's presumably a positive one for Trump, It's going to make some news.
It's going to make some waves.
And it hits.
And I don't know if you know how book publishing works, but since everybody's trying to make a bestseller list, if your first few days of publication get botched, you're not going to make the bestseller list.
If the first week, you get a lot of good, positive attention, well, then maybe at the bottom of the list, And then when you get on a list, it becomes self-fulfilling.
So the entire game of book publishing is sort of a first week game.
Every now and then there's a book that has been around for a while and people discover, but it's very rare.
So book publishing is a first week game.
This is probably only available on Amazon, but I'm not sure.
And Amazon just took them completely out of the game by having a mistake.
On the cover.
Now, is that an accident?
Have you ever heard of this happening?
Ever?
That somebody put on a conservative-leaning book and it got a porn cover on the first week?
Accidentally?
I've never heard of it.
So, you really have to ask yourself, did that happen by chance?
Did it?
You know, the only way you could know for sure is if somebody else had, let's say, Another independently published book that was positive for Trump that also got some kind of a glitch.
So if that happened at the same time, you'd say to yourself, huh, that's two of them right before the election.
Huh.
My book, Win Bigly, is about to be republished with a second edition and an update.
Do you know why I haven't told you it's already available?
Yes.
There's a glitch in the system.
Can't figure out what's wrong with it yet.
We're trying to figure out why.
Yeah, two for two.
Two for two.
Now, to be fair, The process of independent publishing is fraught with natural errors.
So it's not the first time I've been through the cycle because I, you know, Joshua and I did a few other books already.
So it is an error prone, just amazingly error prone, almost every step.
We were hitting some kind of a problem that we'd never seen before and weren't sure who to talk to to even fix it.
It's like one problem after another of the same weird nature.
Well, we've never seen this before and we're not even sure how to fix it, or maybe we'll fix it in a week.
You know, just all this impossible to fix stuff.
So, let me just say this.
It's called Bulletproof.
It's Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lysak.
You can order it now.
I'm pretty sure they won't send you the porn book.
I think they'll send you the real one.
And if you'd like to see a Trump-related book that maybe there was a little bit of shenanigans going on, but we don't know for sure.
If you'd like to make sure that those shenanigans, if they happen, but we can't be sure, make no difference at all, you might want to pick that one up.
All right.
Joe Fried, I hope that's the way he pronounces it.
It's spelled like fried.
And the American thinker is talking about Pennsylvania and the election.
And lots of smart people say whoever wins Pennsylvania is going to be the next president.
So this was a big one.
Here are a few things you might not know about Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania does not require ID when voting by mail.
Does not require ID when voting by mail.
But that's not a big problem, right?
Because you could always check the signatures.
Oh, wait.
In Pennsylvania, they don't check these signatures on the mail-in votes.
Oh.
Well, okay.
Huh.
Um.
Huh.
So they don't have a requirement for ID, and they don't have a requirement for signature matching.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Here's my prediction again.
I don't see that we have a system that can produce a winner.
Do you?
All right.
We did have a system that could produce a winner, but it was predicated on the public thinking that the system was probably Pretty solid, and if there were any problems, we could kind of quickly notice them and correct them to the courts if we needed to.
That's what I thought.
I thought the system was mostly solid, and if there was any problem, we'd probably spot it, correct it eventually.
Now what do you think?
Now that we've spent a few years looking into, you know, what 2020 was and wasn't, and learning about the different processes, Is it obvious to you that the system is designed for the purpose of hiding cheating, not for the purpose of having a fair election?
To me, it's really super screamingly obvious that it's designed to hide who won, just in case you need to hide it.
This is the way you design it if you're trying to hide the result, not if you're trying to be transparent and make it easily auditable.
You wouldn't do it this way.
And then you've heard all the other state rules that clearly are designed to obscure the result.
They're so obviously, clearly, screamingly obviously designed to obscure who won.
So do you think we're going to have a result where America says, oh, that looks good to me?
Yeah, a few little complaints.
We'll look into those.
But basically, we'll just certify it.
I don't think there's a chance.
Because it doesn't matter who won.
If Trump won, the other side is going to say Russia gamed the system.
If Trump doesn't win, half the country is going to say, well, you did it again.
And there's going to be all these stories about precincts that were irregular.
So I don't see any possibility with our current setup, because you know I always say design is destiny.
Our current design, if you add on top of it the knowledge that now everybody knows all the holes in the system, that wasn't the case in 2020.
In 2020 our design held, barely, because somebody did get certified and somebody did serve on a term.
Almost.
Right?
So I'd say that system worked, but it was really close to not working.
But now we've added the knowledge of all the ways that they're obviously trying to hide the result, not reveal the result.
Now nobody can trust it.
Because everything that the Republicans uncovered, you know, to further their own point of view, is also known by Democrats now.
Because the Democrats would also say, but wait a minute, We just lost this election, and you just told us all the ways that elections can be cheated.
How do we know you didn't cheat?
And the answer is, you don't.
You wouldn't know either way.
So no, there isn't any chance we could get a result.
And we're all blindly just walking toward it like that's okay.
I think there's a lot of hope, the wishful thinking involved at this point.
There isn't really any chance of electing a president That the country agrees was legally elected.
That has been removed by the current design of the system.
The system is designed to guarantee we don't have a president after the election, at least not one that people agree on.
So I don't think that there's going to be a civil war.
And the reason is, I'll tell you again, it's funny that this isn't obvious to everybody.
Who would you shoot?
There's nobody to shoot.
Even if you thought there was one precinct that had cheated, you wouldn't even really be able to find out who did what, when.
Every time you thought you could find somebody to be mad at, like, oh, a revolution, we're going to bring some violence and fix everything.
Violence against whom?
Your neighbor?
Your neighbor's fine.
They just voted for somebody else.
You're not going to kill your neighbor for voting differently than you voted.
There's nobody to take it out on.
The reason that January 6th was such a weak and ineffective thing is that the best thing they could think of doing was trespassing.
If you steal this election again, we're going to trespass again.
No, it's worse than that.
There might be graffiti involved.
We're going to trespass and we're going to move a lectern.
We're going to move that lectern and we're going to graffiti.
That'll teach you.
We'll reverse everything.
No, there's nothing to do.
There's no, there's no lever to pull.
There's no button to push.
There's nobody to shoot.
So when I say I recommend no violence, it's because there's no purpose.
We have to figure out some other way.
Because there's nobody to shoot.
And there won't be.
So leave your guns at home.
There's nobody to shoot.
So here's a good example of how our two movies on one screen is working.
So Kyle Griffin did a post on Axe that people are reading completely opposite ways.
So I'm just going to tell you what his post was.
And then I want to see if you, do you say this is a pro-Trump post or is it an anti-Trump post?
That's the fun.
I'll just read it the way it's written.
Then you tell me, is this pro-Trump or anti?
Okay.
And it's being interpreted both ways by conservatives.
All right.
So Kyle Griffin posts this.
It's just four sentences.
Mike Pence isn't voting for Trump.
Mitt Romney isn't voting for Trump.
Paul Ryan isn't voting for Trump.
Dick Cheney isn't voting for Trump.
All right, so those are four prominent Republicans not voting for Trump.
Is that pro-Trump or anti-Trump?
Well, if there's one thing I can teach you, it's that communication doesn't make any sense unless you understand the communicator.
The person who said it.
If you don't know who said it, then sometimes you can't tell what is sarcasm and what is honest.
And if you didn't know that Kyle is pro-Trump as far as everything I've ever seen from him, you might think that he's mocking Trump by saying all these Republicans are against him.
If you knew that he would have the opinion, I'm sure.
I mean, I'm not a mind reader, so I guess I should couch this as my very strong opinion of what Kyle was up to.
I think he was showing that the four least respected Republicans, from a MAGA perspective, they would be four of the least respected Republicans, are against him, and that's a positive thing.
You would be worried if these four were in favor of Trump.
That would be a red flag for MAGA people.
But people were not quite sure if this was pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
It is pro-Trump.
I feel confident in that opinion.
George W. Bush said he Won't endorse a candidate in 2024, so he didn't go as far as saying he's going to vote for a Democrat.
That was probably the right play, but once again, all five of these Republicans appear to be the big war Republicans.
If the big war Republicans don't like Trump, I like Trump better.
Vivek Ramaswamy was predicting That, quote, very strange things will happen if Trump has a good debate and Kamala Harris melts down like some people think she might.
And as he says, Vivek says, they've already sued and prosecuted him, tried to kick him off the ballot and swap down his opponent.
Now, Vivek is smart, so he doesn't say they tried to kill him.
It's good to leave that one out because we don't have a connection, direct connection.
But you know, I know all of you are thinking it, aren't you?
You're thinking, I don't think it's a total coincidence that a bullet hit the president's ear.
Or future president, past president.
And Vivek says, all of it could be a preview of what's to come.
I 100% agree.
I would imagine the Democrats have a plan A, B, C, and D. If plan A, well, plan A was Biden, I guess, so that didn't work out.
Plan B is Kamala Harris.
Plan B also includes, you know, trying every hoax and every technique, legal and otherwise, to get rid of Trump.
If none of those things work, what exactly is Plan D?
If A, B, and C didn't work out at all, and we see that they seem to be in an existential crisis, as in they think that they'll all go to jail or be killed or be out of work or something, If Trump comes into office, what would they be willing to do?
Having done all of those things already, you know, the law fair, et cetera.
I don't know, but I'm totally on Vivek's point of view here, which is if you think they don't have any plans, I think you're totally wrong.
I think that assassination plans are actually discussed.
Now, not necessarily at the top.
I'm not saying that Nancy Pelosi has ever had a quiet conversation about, you know, we could maybe set up an assassination.
I don't think that's happened.
Or at least I prefer to think that that's not likely.
But you can't tell me that there's nobody within the entire security state of the United States who hasn't had a serious conversation about that?
Nobody?
I think somebody asked.
I don't know who, again, not at the top, probably, but I gotta think that bad people talk about bad things.
So it wouldn't surprise me.
So yes, buckle up.
Whatever happens is going to be interesting.
Well, Trump put out his statement, which I could not be happier about.
Telling people that when he wins, he's going to go hard on any cheaters in the election.
And I would like to just read his statement.
All right.
So Donald Trump says, cease and desist.
I, together with many attorneys and legal scholars, am watching the sanctity of the 2024 presidential election very closely because I know better than most the rampant cheating and skullduggery that has taken place in the 2020 election.
It was a disgrace to our nation.
So he goes, therefore, the 2024 election, where votes have just started to be cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny.
And then he says, when I win, in all caps, those people that cheated, in all caps, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences, so that this depravity of justice does not happen again.
And more stuff about Beware that this legal exposure extends to lawyers, political operatives, donors, illegal voters, and corrupt election officials.
So he's making sure everybody knows that if they break the law, the law is coming for them.
And they'll be sought and caught and prosecuted at levels unfortunately never seen before in our country.
Now, some of you might remember that I suggested It would be a real good idea for the Trump campaign to let the world know that if he gets elected, the election cheaters are going to be in more danger than any election cheater has ever been in before.
Now, on top of that, I want to see the whistleblower rewards get punched a little harder so that Democrats at least have heard the story.
That they could be in a lot of trouble if they cheat.
Now, the funny part is that Gavin Newsom reposted this with trying to do the dictator thing.
Oh, this is what a dictator would say.
I think he said, this shows that Trump plans to lose.
You know, then claim it was cheating, I guess.
But all Trump needs is for people to know that he said this.
So his win is every time it gets reposted.
So if all the Democrats repost it and say, oh, this is a bad thing he's saying, then all the Democrats who watch those posts hear that they could be in a lot of trouble if they cheat.
So the more people complain about this, the better it is because more people will hear that there's an extra risk of cheating this time.
And I'd like to see more attention on the whistleblower awards.
So that you know that not only will these prison sentences be extreme, but somebody's going to get paid for turning you in.
All right.
On top of that, Trump promised that once in office, he would do an executive order to stop any federal employees from colluding to limit free speech.
So this would be keeping Keeping them from talking to the press or social media to try to change the reporting.
And he would fire anybody who was involved with it in the past who was part of the bureaucracy.
I like that.
NBC News is reporting that people are starting to turn to Trump on the fentanyl question, meaning they think Trump would be a little more of a hard ass on fentanyl.
And so people who have been around any fentanyl tragedies, as I have, this would be the month that my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose in 2018.
So that's the thing, that even some Democrats are turning toward Trump because the fentanyl thing goes right to the top of your list if you lose somebody.
If you lose somebody to a fentanyl overdose, It will be your number one issue.
And so it's the number one issue for an extra 70,000 families.
So it's 70,000 times maybe 10 people a piece are, you know, strongly affected by any one death.
More people are affected, but for any one death, there's 10 people who really have a bad time with it, you know, on average.
So, you're talking about 700,000 people a year who have a direct, emotional, hard, hard experience from somebody they know passing away.
So, potentially, that's a lot of votes.
And I don't know if that's being completely captured in the polling.
But my take is that it doesn't matter which candidate gets elected, because I don't think anybody's going to do anything on fentanyl.
Maybe science will find a way to make it less deadly.
I've talked about a number of scientific things, like vaccinations against it, etc.
But you know, vaccinations will have its own risk.
But I'm quite convinced that some part of the American government has some kind of a deal with the cartels so the cartels don't need to change what they're doing and we're not going to bomb them.
So you can talk about it, but it looks like maybe the CIA or somebody is going to stop it and say, you know, we kind of need the cartels to control the governments and other countries.
And that's more important than 70,000 people dying per year, apparently.
So I'm not saying it's more important.
I'm saying that must be the argument that they need it more than they need to stop the fentanyl.
And realistically, you could bomb everything in the world and fentanyl would still get through.
I mean, if you only need, you know, a bottle cap the size of fentanyl to kill a city, nobody's going to stop that.
It's just too small.
You could put, you know, even a tiny drone could carry enough fentanyl across the border.
There's just no way you can stop fentanyl.
Now, I still prefer Trump on this issue.
Cause he's willing to kill people.
And I think some people need to get killed.
Criminals, dealers.
So on average, the bigger dealers, if you're a large dealer, not just some street person, but if you're a large dealer of fentanyl, you've definitely killed people.
You are definitely a murderer.
And if Trump, if Trump and the Republicans can get through some, we will kill you if you're in this business and we catch you, I'd be in favor of killing all of them.
Now, is that my logical, well-reasoned opinion?
Nope.
That's my opinion of somebody who lost a stepson to fentanyl.
So I'm in favor.
I'll even, I'll even do it myself.
If there's any way I could volunteer to pull the lever to kill dealers who dealt fentanyl, I would volunteer in a heartbeat, just to watch the life drain out of their eyes.
I would love to do it.
I will kill all of them.
In fact, I'd never get tired of it.
If you have a thousand people who need to be killed legally, only legally, and somebody needs to push the button and look in their eyes as the life drains out of it, I'll do that.
I'll do that all day long.
And I won't even require payment.
I'll pull that lever just as much as you want to watch them die.
So I prefer Trump on that, because I'd like to watch some people die.
It's not an opinion that I think you should have.
I think you should live your life without these thoughts in your head.
But that's where I stand.
All right.
Matt Walsh has that Am I a Racist movie.
I think that's the title, right?
The title is Am I a Racist?
I hope I got that right.
I just saw a trailer for it.
It looks good.
It looks good.
Matt Walsh, even when I disagree with him, which happens now and then, he does good work.
Can we all agree on that?
Can we agree?
He does a good product.
His monologues that he does are great.
Even when I disagree, I love listening to him.
And the trailer for this looks interesting.
So in it, he's having a conversation with a woman.
Who's complaining because her daughter always picks the white princesses in the Disney movie.
Now the mother is white and the child is white, but she's trying to make sure her child doesn't become a racist and just randomly prefer white people stuff.
And then Matt Walsh is talking to her and he's playing it straight and he says that his daughter likes Princess Moana from one of the movies I haven't watched in which I think there's a person of color Hawaiian, I guess, maybe Hawaiian or some other island.
And she's the star of that movie.
And so Matt Walsh is saying, but if my daughter picks this person of color and this other culture, and she wants to wear that costume for Halloween, Would that make her culturally appropriating the culture?
And the racist woman is like, hmm, yeah, good point.
So if she only picks the white princesses, she is racist.
But if she likes the person of color so much that she would want to wear the same outfit, she would be appropriating her culture.
So really, there's two ways to be racist and no way to not be.
That's not exactly true, but it's funny.
Here's an update on Brazil.
Let's see.
Brazil is trying to destroy an American company and end free speech in the United States by taking out X. So naturally, as you'd expect, the U.S.
ambassador to Brazil is very active in trying to... No, I'm just kidding.
We haven't heard from the ambassador to Brazil.
Nope.
Nope.
Vacation this week?
Maybe on vacation?
I don't see a lot coming out of there.
Now this is all from Mike Benz.
Mike Benz is watching the situation carefully and he reminds us that every day we hear nothing from the United States about Brazil banning X and going after Musk and after his assets.
Every day is confirmation that the United States is behind it.
It sure looks like the United States is behind it.
Now, maybe the United States doesn't back every single thing that Brazil's doing, but clearly they're not trying to stop it, which means that they're preferring some benefit to Brazil over America.
So definitely not America First, definitely not free speech.
So whoever is in charge of whatever is running this government are not in favor of protecting America, not in favor of protecting American companies, and certainly not in favor of free speech.
And these things we can say for sure.
Because it wouldn't take much to put in a memo that says, you know, you should stop fucking with American companies or some shit's coming your way.
That's just normal business.
The most normal thing that the United States does is say, you know, if you do it this way, we're going to be your friends.
But if you do something this way, suddenly it's going to be hard for you to find trading partners.
It's the most basic thing we do.
And yet it's not being done.
It's not being ignored.
It's not being mentioned.
It's not big anything.
So I would call this a confirmation that Brazil is working with the United States to destroy free speech in the United States.
I think you could just say it as a fact.
You know, it feels like speculation, but I don't know what the other explanation of our silence is.
There's no other explanation.
Meanwhile, Michael Schellenberger has actually gone to Brazil To be part of, you know, the resistance against this move against X. He does say that the odds of him being jailed are unfortunately pretty high.
Now he hasn't been jailed yet.
And if he does, we're not going to be happy, Brazil.
If you jail Michael Schellenberger, Brazil, you're going to have a fight on your hands.
I don't know what that fight is going to look like.
But you'd better cancel all your other plans, because we're coming for you.
If you just take one of our Americans and put him in jail, especially a productive one like Michael Schellenberger, no, we're not going to be happy about that.
Just want you to know.
Now, we might have to wait for Trump to be president.
So, you know, worst case scenario, Schellenberger stays in jail for months until there's somebody who can do something about it.
But there will be something about it.
So I just want to make sure Brazil knows clearly, the repercussions of messing with our citizens down there are going to be pretty extreme.
It's going to be really expensive.
Whatever it is.
Whatever it is.
Anyway.
You know that story about Tenet, the company that allegedly took some secret Russian money and was funding some conservative podcasters like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin and a few others?
And do you think that that's yet another inside job?
Because remember, the Russia collusion hoax The 51 Intel people who lied about Hunter's laptop came again from, presumably, the Democrat sources.
It didn't come from Russia.
So now we've got this mysterious Russian money went into Tenet.
Do you think that it was really Russian money that went into it?
Or do you think it was CIA or some intelligence group They put money into it.
Why would they do that?
Why would they do that?
Well, for this.
They would do that so that they could smear some of the strongest conservative voices, you know, the ones with big platforms.
They could say, well, you're listening to those Russian stooges.
So they created a situation that for a mere $10 million, They can create this fake funding from a fake Russian, and it will look like the people who were part of that platform must be a little bit influenced by Russia.
Now, there's no evidence that any of them even were aware, much less had any kind of impact on their editorial decisions, which were none.
There's no evidence, no accusation that any of them did anything wrong.
But does it work as a dirty trick?
Yeah, it does.
Because there's one more story that Democrats will not look into too deeply, and they'll say to themselves, well, there it is again.
It's yet another example of where Trump supporters are working with Russia.
I guess Trump and Putin just want to have, like, a love affair.
So it's a little too close to exactly what happened two times before.
That right before an election, or around an election, there's this Russian interference story.
That's a little bit too on the nose.
I wouldn't say that it was CIA funded, but if Russia funded it, there was no obvious reason for it, because Russia apparently didn't change any of the behavior of the people who were hired, although they think maybe the owner of the company, Lauren Chen, may have modified her opinions, but I'm not even sure that's proven.
That's an allegation.
So, it would make more sense if it were an inside job, because then it would make more sense that nobody tried to influence Tim Poole and Dave Rubin.
RFK Jr.
did a Wall Street Journal article that would be behind the paywall for most of you, so you wouldn't see it.
But it's quite detailed.
And I wanted to share it with you.
This might be a little nerdy for some of you, but I want to make the larger case that the reason Kennedy is special, and also Elon Musk, they have this in common, they're systems thinkers.
In other words, Elon looks at every system as a machine.
This is my interpretation of what anybody with his mind would be doing.
And so he can see all the components and knows which parts need to be tweaked to fix things.
RFK Jr.
is the same kind of mind.
So when he says we need to have better food or safer drugs, He's not just saying I have a goal.
He has specific recommendations.
So I thought you should hear them.
Because I don't think they'll be covered too much.
They're a little detailed.
But they all have the following quality.
They change the incentives.
So, our current systems have an incentive structure that just guarantees bad behavior, and it wouldn't be hard to figure out where those incentives are and remove them.
So, rather than just saying, oh, food should be healthy, and drugs should be tested better, and then nobody knows what to do, he gives very specific things to change the motivation of the people involved, and that that Should create the right set of activities.
So, one is reform the Prescription Drug User Free Act.
So right now, pharmaceutical companies pay for a new drug approval.
Every time they apply for new drug approval, about 75% of the budget Goes to the FDA.
So there's this gigantic expense to introduce a new drug.
Most of it goes to the FDA, which makes a small drug firm almost impossible to do any business.
So the first problem is that the big players have a big money advantage.
So you take that away and now you have at least the possibility that you would have lower cost, better drug people coming in who didn't have that much money.
To do this thing.
That's a system.
That's a change of incentives.
That makes sense.
He wants to prohibit members of the U.S.
Department of Agricultural Dietary Committee Advisory Committee.
God, these are long names.
This is the United States Department of Agriculture Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
Jeez!
Wants them to not make money from food or drug companies.
Well, why would they make money from food and drug companies?
Well, it turns out that 95% of the panel had conflicts of interest.
Oh my God.
95% of the panel had conflicts of interest.
In other words, they made money from people they were supposedly managing, if you will.
Reviewing direct-to-consumer pharma ads.
In other countries you can't advertise direct-to-the-consumer, and that's probably a good idea.
That makes sense.
Because then people get all worked up on the drug commercials and go beat up their doctors to give them the drug, and that's not the way you want to do medicine.
You don't want the customer telling the doctor what to do.
Change federal regulations so that the NIH funds can't go to researchers with conflicts of interest, okay?
So it's another conflict of interest thing.
Also, make sure that we can negotiate on drug costs.
So today in Germany, Ozempic costs less than a tenth of what it does in the US.
Do you know why?
Why does Ozempic cost one-tenth of what it costs in the United States?
Because Germany negotiated the price.
That's it.
And we're not allowed to do that.
It's a 10 to 1 advantage.
Just because we have the wrong law, we're not allowed to do it.
So just change that.
And then we can get lower costs.
Presumably, the other countries would pay more, because right now we're subsidizing other countries massively, by making sure the pharma companies can stay in business, and then they can sell Germany their cheap Ozempic, because it's just a little extra.
All right, that's a good idea.
Stop allowing the beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to use their food stamps to buy soda or processed foods.
To which I say, that was ever allowed?
The government is funding people to buy food and beverages that are literally unhealthy?
Yeah, how about if you're on some kind of government assistance, the only thing those dollars can go to are things that are healthy food?
Yeah, I'm down for that.
And by the way, it makes me want to go on food stamps or something, because then I could get only healthy food.
It would force me to do it.
Although I eat pretty healthy now.
Apparently there are a whole bunch of pesticides that are legal in the United States, but illegal in Europe, and Kennedy thinks we should get closer to the European model there.
And I guess glyphosate isn't currently banned in the EU, but some of the members don't use it, I guess.
All right.
So, what do you think of those ideas in concept?
In concept, could you ever disagree with people not having a conflict of interest?
I feel like that's just sort of obvious.
Right?
They don't advertise drugs to consumers who don't, you know, don't know what they're getting.
That feels okay.
So some of these feel pretty good.
I don't know if they're a full solution, but everything he says has a, you know, a common sense element to it.
All right.
I got a question for you.
This is a thinker.
So you're going to immediately laugh because you think it's a joke, but then I'm going to say, but is it?
Is it a joke?
Tell me why it wouldn't work.
All right, here's the joke.
If Democrats think that raising taxes on rich people is good, why don't they just raise taxes on themselves?
Because if you can't get everybody to pay more taxes, can't you at least get the rich Democrats to pay more taxes?
They seem to like that idea.
So now you laugh and you say, ah, that's pretty funny, but we're one country, you have to have one set of rules for everybody.
To which I say, no you don't.
I don't believe there's anything that requires us to have the same set of rules for everybody.
Can everybody be drafted into the military?
No.
You can't be 100 years old and have no legs and be drafted into the military.
Can everybody go to grade school?
Well, not if you're an adult.
No, pretty much our entire world decides who can and who can't for everything.
So, no, we can bifurcate, we can divide, we can treat people differently.
We only need a reason.
But what's the reason that the handicapped people have handicapped parking?
Well, there's a reason.
They have trouble getting around.
So, yes, you only need a reason.
But if you have a reason, the society is very open to treating people differently.
Here's my reason.
If Democrats think it's a better world when rich people pay taxes, it's at least half as good Or half as much better if at least the Democrats pay more taxes.
Now you might say to me, but Scott, that's not going to be fair, because those taxes will go to benefit Republicans as well as Democrats.
To which I say, not necessarily.
Why couldn't you, for example, say we'll increase taxes on rich Democrats, but that money will only go to reparations?
Who loses?
Who's the loser in that?
There's no loser.
Democrats think that reparations make sense and that rich people have enough money to pay it.
The people who want the reparations think that they should get them.
So then you would pair the people who want to pay it with the people who want to be paid it.
Now you might say to me, but Scott, what about the problem of, you know, not all white people, you know, got some benefit from slavery?
To which I say, that's not a problem now, because all the Democrats don't care about that.
You know, they, they just see that there's a difference in equity and outcome and they want to balance it.
But, but, but what about, no, there's no whatabouts.
Once you've paired the ones who want to pay with the ones who want to get paid, it's just a question of the number.
You just work out the number.
Now tell me that's a bad idea.
It's not a bad idea.
Why is it that California can potentially consider reparations that would just be in California?
That's sort of somewhat arbitrarily saying we're going to look at this group of people and tax them more than the people in the state next to us.
We accept this all the time.
This is completely acceptable, normal, reproducible behavior that we treat groups differently.
So let's treat the Democrats who want higher taxes on the rich, give them exactly what they want, higher taxes on their own rich, and then nobody else has to pay reparations either.
It just comes out of the higher taxes on the Democrats.
Who loses?
Nobody loses.
I literally described everybody getting what they want.
Now, if you're not sold yet, let me give you a mental experiment.
Let's say that tomorrow, Putin said, if you're a Trump supporter, you can move to Russia and we'll give you all $10 million.
And we all believed it.
So all the conservatives just pack up and legally, they just move right to Russia.
So now the United States is nothing but Democrats who want reparations and want to have higher taxes to pay them.
So they immediately change the law, and then it's only Democrats left, and they pay higher taxes and they pay reparations.
Who loses?
There's no loser.
Right?
The people who wanted to pay, paid.
The people who wanted to get paid, got paid.
So if it works, if you take all the Republicans out of the country, Why wouldn't it work if you just ignored them all?
Just pretend they're not here.
Because every Republican would be okay with being ignored on that topic.
Let me get this straight.
You're going to ignore me in terms of taxes so I don't need to pay more taxes, but you're also going to ignore me about who's getting the benefit of those taxes that I'm not paying anyway.
Exactly.
Oh, okay.
Go ahead.
No problem at all.
All right.
So there might be other things, like somebody said abortion.
I want to test this out on you.
This one's a real test to see if you have honest opinions that make sense, or if you just have brainwashed-based opinions.
You ready for this?
Suppose the country agreed that Democrats could have abortions on demand with no restrictions, but Republicans could not.
What's wrong with that?
Then Democrats get what they want, which is to kill their own babies.
And Republicans get what they want, which is that in the Republican world, it's illegal, so it doesn't happen.
And there are fewer Democrats, because the Democrats are, you know, killing their own potential offspring.
Now, this is, see, this is why this is a good test for your own thinking.
If you said to yourself, I'm fine with Democrats killing their own babies, then I submit to you that you don't care about abortion.
I submit to you that if you can hold that opinion, that it'd be okay for the people you don't like to kill their babies, as long as people who are like you are not doing it, then you don't have a problem with abortion.
If you're going to be honest, That's not a problem with abortion, because you would be opposed to it no matter who did it where, if you were opposed to abortion.
But as soon as I said, well, let the Democrats kill their own babies, as long as people like you are okay and don't have that option, the moment you say that's okay, you're revealing yourself that it's not really about abortion.
You're just on a team.
You're just fighting for your team.
All right, so that's all I got on that.
That's more of a thinker.
It's not a serious suggestion.
I think it's time to let everybody go back and enjoy their Sunday.
I'm going to say a few words to the fine subscribers on Locals.
For the rest of you, I think you know that if you went to Dilbert.com, you could pre-order the Dilbert calendar for 2025.
Made in America for the first time.
And get more than one, and the shipping costs will be far more reasonable then.
And I would also recommend, if you're subscribing to the Dilbert comic that's available on xSpice subscriptions, see my profile for the link, for the subscription link, and also on Locals.
That today's Sunday Dilbert Reborn comic is one of the funniest I've ever written, in my opinion.
I looked at it again this morning to look at the final art, and I laughed out loud at my own comic.
Now, I don't often laugh out loud, like a full hearty laugh, but I did today, so I hope you enjoy it.
