God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Tyreek Hill Arrest, Joy Reid's Fake Reality, DHS Illegal Immigrant Funding, Presidential Debate, President Trump, Kamala Harris, Harris Policies, Haitian Cat Eating Allegations, Josh Shapiro, Election Result Reporting, Media Reality Control, CNN Recent Truth-Telling, Kamala Switch-Out Possibility, Harris Court-Change Policies, COVID Wuhan Lab Leak, Joe Scarborough Lying Tell, Melania Trump, Harris Admits Decision-Making Difficulty, Kamala Harris, Dick Cheney, JD Vance, 25K Housing Assistance, UK Targets Elon Musk, Brazil Judge Moraes, America First Legal, Mike Davis, Haitian IQ Allegations, 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
But in the meantime, whoa, what a show, what a show we have for you.
You're going to be so happy.
All right.
Let me get my comments going here.
here? Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I do like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Well, the first story of the day is that according to studies, moderate amounts of caffeine can improve your cognitive function.
Specifically areas like memory, attention, and problem solving.
What does all that mean?
I'm not connecting these.
Like, moderate amounts of caffeine, something about cognitive function.
I don't really understand any of that.
Oh wait, now I understand it.
Oh my god, I didn't think it would work that quickly.
Is there anything coffee can't do?
Nope.
Well, if you're watching the Dilbert Reborn comic strip, you'd have to be a subscriber to do that, either on Locals or on X. You would know that WALL-E has been asked to wear a robot costume because their robot prototype is not ready yet.
So WALL-E will be dressed as a robot.
So that's what you're missing if you're not subscribing.
Early this morning, a SpaceX rocket called Polaris Successfully launched with four human beings in it.
It's going to reach the highest Earth orbit ever.
There's going to be some commercial spacewalks and all kinds of fun.
And it worked.
I think we're getting used to the fact that Elon Musk can put people in space.
We're starting to think, oh, that's normal.
No, this is extraordinary.
And no matter how many times it happens, you got to take just a moment to Appreciate the wonder of that.
As JD Vance was saying, um, at the, uh, all in pod event, uh, that America is not as innovative as it looks.
Cause we're mostly innovating with software, but not Musk.
Musk is innovating with hardware.
And I think the computer, um, I'm sorry.
I think the robot age is going to be a lot more physical.
Manufacturing kind of capabilities coming on board.
If only because our robots are doing the manufacturing and building the manufacturing plants.
Well, there's a study that's written about in Medical Express.
Some researchers at the MRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit in Oxford's Newfield Department of Clinical Neuroscience.
Dammit, don't make the name of your group that big.
You can't do this.
You can't do this.
You cannot call yourself the MRC Brain Network Dynamics Unit in Oxford's Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences.
Too long.
Too long.
Anyway, what they discovered was that there's part of your brain that prevents new flexible memories from being formed if you have robust long-term memories.
In other words, The memories you already have, kind of hard-coded in your head, will interfere with your ability to perceive and correctly store new memories.
Probably cost them a lot of money to organize this study.
I'll bet it took a lot of time.
You know what they could have done to save some money and some time?
They could have just asked me, Scott, do you think that the things that are already in your head are in any way going to influence How well you perceive and remember new inputs.
And I would have said, well, you don't need to study that.
Calm down.
You don't need to study that.
We already know that first impressions are hard to shake.
We already know that the whole point of cognitive dissonance is that you'd rather come up with a fantasy than change what you believe to be true.
So I don't even think you need to study this.
Yes.
The things that are already in your brain will definitely filter and affect what you can put into it next.
I guarantee it.
And now a validation of what I've been calling the, uh, the Adam's law of slow living disasters.
Now, the Adams Law of Slow Moving Disaster states that humans are really good, like really good, and unbroken, you know, hundreds of thousands of years of experience in solving problems that you can see coming from a long way off.
We're not so good if something surprises us, like a pandemic.
But if we see something coming, and everybody sees it coming, and there's no doubt it's coming, we're pretty good at it.
Here's an example.
The, you know, that great Pacific garbage patch that's a lot of plastic.
It's like the size of, I don't know, the size of some small country and it's floating around the ocean.
Well, apparently for seven and a half billion dollars, uh, the ocean cleanup group says they can clean it up.
So apparently we don't need to invent anything new and it's not so expensive that we couldn't do it if we want to.
So we now have the technology to just sort of clean it up.
There you go.
Another problem not solved, but we have all the tools to solve it.
We, you know, if somebody wants to put the money into it, that might be the problem.
It might be more of the money problem.
People keep asking me, Scott, why don't you use AI to make your audio books?
And I kept saying incorrectly that Audible, the main place that people get their audio books, I used to have a rule against that.
You couldn't have AI read your book as an audiobook.
But now they've gone the other way.
In fact, they're encouraging it within specific boundaries.
But it looks like I can do that now.
Probably in the next several months.
I'll do that with a few more books.
I've already got the audiobook with a human.
A human is doing it.
For God's Be the Complete Works.
And for... I think for Winn-Bigley.
That should come out soon.
Anyway.
There's a civil war in Mexico with the Sinaloa Cartel.
So the Sinaloa Cartel has decided to kill each other.
More often than killing other people.
Good for them.
Keep it up.
Apple made an announcement about their new phones and new software.
So AI will be in their new phones.
And I was prepared not to be enticed by it.
I thought I was going to hear that AI had been added to the iPhone, and I'd say, eh, doesn't seem like it's going to be that different, really.
But I have to say their advertisement sold me.
I'm definitely going to upgrade my phone.
Now I used to own a bunch of Apple stock, but I don't anymore because I have less confidence that they can navigate the AI future.
But so far, at least in a smallish way, they have.
So one of the things their new AI enhanced phone will do is you can point it at anything.
And it'll tell you about it.
Now, I guess maybe you have to push a button.
But if you point your phone at an object, it'll give you directions on how to use the object.
Using AI.
That's pretty impressive.
Or it'll give you like a history, if you're walking somewhere.
Or if you wanted to know what the menu is in the restaurant, you just take a picture of the front of the restaurant as you walk by, the menu will pop up on your phone.
That's pretty good stuff.
But now don't you want that in your glasses?
I've had this dream forever that someday the fact that I have to wear glasses will become so universal that everybody will be wearing glasses and it won't look unusual anymore.
Because you want to get that little extra knowledge in your glasses.
I wouldn't mind if my glasses were doing nothing but send the image Send the image to my phone and then my phone can send something to my ear and say, Hey, you're looking at that restaurant.
You want to know the menu?
Sure.
So I think they're going to do well in that.
Um, my prediction is good sales for the future, uh, Apple products.
Um, there was some kind of a traffic incident with a football star.
I'd never heard of a place for the dolphins, Tyreek Hill.
And I don't even need to tell you what happened, do I?
See if you can guess.
There was a traffic incident in which a football star was stopped.
What do you think happened next?
Do you think the football star totally cooperated with the police?
And there was a plight encounter and maybe a small infraction for not having a seatbelt on?
No, it turned into, uh, somebody resisting every request from the police until they had to drag him out of the car and put him on the concrete.
And now the body cam shows the whole thing and everybody's talking about it.
And, uh, I'd like to say for the record, I don't care if police kill every single person who resists arrest.
That's where I'm at.
I don't care if they're a football star.
I don't care if it's a member of my family.
Okay.
That's a lie.
I do care if it's a member of my family, but the police can kill everybody who resists arrest.
If they, if they don't have a reason, they were literally just trying to make a dangerous situation for the police.
If you're a police officer and somebody won't put their hands where you can see them and won't get out of the car, you're going to have to assume they've got a weapon in there and that they're going to die in the next few minutes.
And you might do.
Every time that happens, if the police go crazy on that motorist for resisting arrest, especially if it's on the cam.
I mean, the body cams made it pretty clear who the problem was.
I have no problem with whatever the police do to that asshole.
No problem at all.
Anyway, Lex Fridman, his head is being messed up, he said, because he learned that Kamala Harris' father's actual legal name is Donald J. Harris.
So you've got Donald J. Trump running against the daughter of Donald J. Harris.
He thinks the universe is trolling him.
Well, it's even better than that.
We've had a President Trump once before, but we've also had a President Harrison.
Not Harris, but Harrison.
Do you remember President Harrison?
What's the most famous thing about President Harrison?
Does anybody know?
He was the ninth president.
First of all, how many of you would have even remembered there was a President Harrison?
I have to admit, I had to look it up.
I was saying to myself, isn't there already a President Harris?
But it's Harrison.
And here's what you need to know about him.
He was an American military officer.
He was president in 1841 and he lasted, uh, 32 days in office.
He was dead in 32 days.
Oh, well, he was the first to die in office.
Shortest tenure in US presidential history.
Now, here's something interesting too.
Technically, Kamala Harris was president of the United States already because under the Whatever rule it is when the president goes under anesthesia, which happened once with Biden.
So, Kamala Harris was actually the president for about 25 minutes.
So, there's another weird coincidence.
The other weird coincidence is that the most famous thing about Trump is his hair, and he's running against somebody with his first name and middle initial and Harris.
I mean, all of it just seems like it can't be a coincidence.
It feels like a bad writer ran out of ideas and just started reusing them.
Now, I realize he's not running against the father, but you know what I mean.
All right, here's a little glimpse of the Joy Reid reality.
The post-millennial was pointing this out on X. So this is something that Joy Reid just said, I think yesterday.
Quote, despite how exhausting and deadly the Trump era was, What?
The Trump era was exhausting and deadly?
What?
She goes on, and how it devastated our lives.
What?
What?
Did your life get devastated?
I don't remember it devastating my life.
I mean, not because of Trump.
It was the pandemic was bad.
So it devastated our lives, our psyches, our families.
Really?
Did any of that happen to you?
I mean, I know people's families got mad at him, but it wasn't because of Trump.
It was because of the media.
Our economy?
Tens of millions of Americans, our fellow Americans, want to go back to that era, and it makes no sense to me, and probably not to you either.
Imagine living in this completely batshit crazy reality.
Where everybody can see that Trump destroyed the United States, and your family, and your psyche, and your mental health, and your finances, and your wallet.
And still, still according to Polly Market, Trump is up 52 to 46.
That's the betting markets.
How would you explain that if you're Joy Reid trying to figure out how reality makes sense?
How could she not have mental illness with this point of view?
She's living in a world in which nothing makes sense.
Do you know why none of it makes sense?
It's because MSNBC is lying to the people so grotesquely that she bought into the whole MSNBC narrative and now she can't square it with reality.
Because reality is telling you that more people want Trump again than Harris.
But that's the opposite of the reality that they've been living in and creating for the public for years.
That would actually make you crazy.
Like, actually, legitimately, real life, you're going to have to go to a therapist if you've been living in that fake reality, and then the facts are so opposite.
And you look at them and you go, um, why do tens of millions of people not see it the way I see it?
Anyway, meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is Giving another $380 million to illegal immigrants?
What is the total amount that has been spent on bringing people in that we should not have been bringing in the last few years?
How many billions are we up to?
I mean, when you look at the entire data, it's probably not a big percentage, but that's a lot of billions.
A lot of billions.
And it's hard to imagine that there's any good intention to any of that.
I think I've abandoned any pretense that somebody was just trying to do what's good for the world.
That clearly is not the intention behind any of this.
Now, there might be some individuals who are thinking of it that way, but certainly not from the, you know, the government perspective.
This is an op of some sort.
Now, Elon Musk says it's just to bring in more voters to get a permanent Democrat majority.
I don't have a better suggestion.
I don't have a stronger idea than that.
But you'd have to throw into the possibility that it's coming from another country.
That some other country has some kind of control that we're not completely aware of, and their intention is to destroy our country.
Because if our own country is actively destroying our country, then my reality doesn't make sense.
So I don't really have a model where everything makes sense yet.
I'm not quite buying into that the only reason is that Democrats are trying to get a bunch of illegal voters.
Although they're clearly planning to do that too.
I would say it's 100% sure that that's part of it.
I just don't know if it's all of it.
I'll tell you the part that I don't think is any of it is empathy.
I don't think that's behind any of it.
Although there are individuals, you know, doing real work on the ground who are empathy-based.
But not from the management, organizational funding perspective.
That's not about empathy.
So, we'll find out.
Anyway, the big debate is tonight.
I'm planning to livestream that for my local subscribers.
We'll watch that together.
I'll give you some feedback about that.
But let me tell you what to expect.
So some insiders are saying that Harris is planning to use her prosecutorial skills against Trump and make him look like the convict, you know, the law-breaking convict, and she's the law-bringer.
I don't think that works.
And I'm not entirely sure that that, quote, leak from the inside was a real leak or a fake leak.
I almost think they might be trying to trick Trump into being mentally prepared for the wrong thing.
I don't think they could really be this dumb to think that being sort of a, you know, prosecutor personality when you're running for president in this context, when Trump has lots of ammo to use against that, I don't see that that's a good play.
And since we've seen that her advisors are I've been saying it for a while now.
Her current advisors are way above average.
They're really good.
Now, when it comes to the debate, it might be different people influencing different things, so we don't know if it's the same level of smart people doing everything or not.
You could imagine that they would be smart enough to do a fake leak and say, yeah, she's going to go all prosecutor.
And then maybe she goes a different direction.
So that's the first thing to look for is, was that a fake leak or real leak?
I don't know, but I'm going to lean toward fake.
So I'm going to say 60, 40, that was never real.
All right, so 40 is still a lot that it is real, but we're going to lead against it.
60, 40, that that was a fake leak.
All right, so the things we know that is likely that Harris will bring up as her attacks on Trump would be the bodily autonomy argument.
He only cares about himself, not the country.
He's stealing your democracy and January 6th was an insurrection.
And she'll tell you that she's, uh, her policies might've been a little vague, but she's very clear on her values and that Trump is a big old liar.
Now, does Trump have good responses to each of these?
Potentially.
So he has a kill shot for every one of the attacks, just total kill shots.
Will he use them?
No.
Why?
I don't know.
I don't know.
They're all easily killed, but Trump is Trump, and he'll probably do whatever he's done before, which is just say what he wants to say.
But he has a kill shot.
Every one of these is a soft underbelly situation.
For example, on the bodily autonomy, they're going to say, you're trying to make You know, women not do this or do this about abortion or birth control, and Trump's going to say, well, if you'd watch the real news, you'd know that I've taken myself completely out of those decisions, and that's the way I prefer it.
Is there anybody here watching today who thinks I should be involved in your healthcare decisions?
Anybody?
Anybody in the audience?
Do you think I should be involved in your healthcare decisions?
No, I don't think so either.
So that's why the Supreme Court, who I agreed with, moved it to the states so that you can be closer to that decision.
Your government is closest to you.
And if women by a majority want the laws to be one way or the other, that's the way it's going to go.
And that's what I created.
I created a situation where you can get what you want and take me completely out of the decision.
Now, where's the bodily autonomy argument when I've taken myself completely out of the decision and I hope future presidents do the same?
That's a kill shot.
That is an absolute, devastating, sword through the fucking heart end of story.
Will he do that?
No, I don't think he will.
I think he'll say what he always says, which is, you know, I got it, you know, I think he'll say nobody wanted Roe versus Wade to be, you know, the way it was at the federal level, which is just not true.
And then he'll say, I accomplished this, which only makes Republicans happy.
Doesn't get you any new votes.
I don't think he's going to kill that question, but he could.
I mean, it's right there for him to take if he wants to.
Now, I wonder if the reason he doesn't take that approach is that it would be giving too much oxygen to the pro-abortion people to say, well, if you organize, you can get anything you want.
Maybe that's too much, but you can soften that by saying, you know, it's closer to the will of the people.
You don't have to go any further than that.
She's going to say that he only cares about himself, not the country.
Here's a kill shot for that.
What do you exactly mean by I only care about myself?
In what scenario could I do a bad job for the country and that would work out well for me?
And we're done.
Now, you'd probably say more than that, but that's a kill shot.
Can you describe a scenario in which the most visible job in the world, in which I'll be bringing in people who weren't even Republicans until, you know, they weren't even on my side, like RFK Jr.
And, you know, you're going to see some people who weren't even on my side.
We're going to be watching very closely from the inside, the outside.
I know every phone call I make has multiple people listening.
I know that there's no privacy when you're president.
Not really.
So, I want everybody to watch, and I don't have any option, even hypothetically, where I could do things that are good for me and bad for the country, nor would I want to.
Because what's good for me, what's good for the Trump brand in the future, what's good for my family, what's good for my children, Is that I do the best job I could possibly do, and you all know that.
You all know that.
That the only way I can win is if you win big.
That's the kill shot.
It just erases that objection that he's in it for himself, because it doesn't make sense.
And instead of saying it doesn't make sense, you could just put it in the form of a question and make people say, OK, how would that make sense?
What would be a scenario in which you could get away with that?
All right.
To say he's stealing your democracy, I think he's got about 10 examples where the Democrats are stealing democracy.
Everything from packing the Supreme Court, which they do want to do, to getting rid of the filibuster, which they do want to do, to rigging their primaries so that RFK Jr.
couldn't be in it and only Biden would be there until they replaced him without any kind of votes for Kamala Harris.
So the stealing democracy argument, When you add on the fake news that supports it all is very strongly on Trump's side.
He just has to make the case.
Then she's going to say, January 6th was an insurrection.
And again, he could say, let me tell you something about Republicans.
They don't go to an insurrection without guns.
Now you're going to say some people had some guns and some cars or whatever, but they left them there.
The fact that they had access to them and they still didn't use them.
Is my point, not your point.
Do you get that?
Because they always say, well, but so-and-so had some gun nearby.
Right!
And they chose not to use it.
That's my argument, not your argument.
That they didn't think it was an insurrection.
And by the way, how do you conquer a country?
By sauntering.
If I saunter into your building a little bit, do I get to own the country?
Can we conquer the Conquer Russia.
If we can get a few trespassers in there to saunter around and move some assets, maybe a little graffiti, we can conquer Russia.
Why didn't Ukraine think of that?
You know, what's Ukraine doing with all this, you know, battling on the front when all they had to do is get a trespasser into the Kremlin?
Totally own that place.
Now that's too, too weird.
You wouldn't say that, but the point is that, uh, The argument against it being an insurrection.
And then the strongest part is that nobody was charged with insurrection.
The strongest argument is like, number one, this was the most heavily investigated event in American history, and nobody was charged with insurrection.
Because there was none.
The news told you there was, because the news is not real.
What we were trying to do is postpone the certification because it looked to us, and here's the part he needs to say, I don't think he'll say this, but this is the kill shot.
It looked to us because it was such a historically unexpected result.
A lot of the bellwether places went the wrong directions at the last minute.
He said, whether it was true or not, this would be the important part, whether it was true or not, I and the people who were active at that event thought that it was too suspicious to let go without challenging.
You want Americans to challenge those things that look like they need to be challenged.
If you're telling me you don't want an America that would have gathered around the Capitol to challenge what looked like, again, we don't know the
Reality of it at the base, but it looked illegitimate and honestly people it still looks illegitimate to me today You want people to challenge that Peacefully like I told them to you don't want to live in an America where people will just take that it for granted that That things don't look like a real election and we just accept it.
No, we're gonna make some noise if The election looks like it's rigged to all of us.
I mean all of us on one side But, it needs to be peaceful, and we hope the courts can work out that sort of thing, and we're going to try really hard to have more observers, and we're doing a much better job of making sure, as it's happening, that the election goes right.
That's a pretty good answer.
Of course, now, Kamala Harris has put up on her website her policies.
Some people say they're too vague.
But one of her surrogates was saying on, I think it was CNBC, that her values are crystal clear.
She's crystal clear in her values.
Is she?
All right, let's test that.
Um, some video was found, uh, well, some evidence was found on the, for the K files on CNN.
Uh, they found out that she had once filled out a, uh, ACLU questionnaire in 2019.
This is Kamala Harris and what she said she was in favor of.
Our government paying for transition surgery for illegal aliens.
I think even in detention.
I'm not sure how bad it was.
So does she still believe that?
Is that still where she's at?
She wanted to cut funding for ICE.
How do you explain that your values are the same, but you went from cutting funding for ICE to increasing border security?
I don't think this whole crystal clear in her values things.
Well, I think what she's crystal clear about is that her only value is winning elections.
That seems pretty clear.
Anyway, let's talk about the biggest story of the day.
Are Haitians eating cats?
Okay.
Just to give you some background on this.
Yesterday I talked about this story for the first time.
The allegations on social media mostly.
That some of the Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating cats and ducks from the park.
Now you might remember my first impression was that doesn't sound true.
It's a little too, a little too perfectly crafted on the nose to be a true story.
Now I'm not going to rule out, That, you know, one or two people did exactly that.
Maybe.
But I certainly do rule out that it's some kind of a large event that they're working on in Ohio, you know, and so there's been evidence that the, at least the law enforcement people are not aware of any big problem with pets being eaten.
Now, again, doesn't mean it happened zero times, I'm just saying it's not like a big wave of pet eating crime.
But, as a recreational belief, it is hilarious.
It's in the same category of J.D.
Vance and the couch.
Yeah, we know it's not true, but it's fun to say because it really bothers the other side.
If they think that you think it's true, then it's even funnier.
So, I don't think you can treat this one as true.
But if you're going to treat it as recreationally true, you know, just have fun with it.
So I've noticed that all the memes that involve cats and Trump and saving animals and stuff, every one of them is hilarious.
And now there's another dancing one where he's dancing with a cat and it's hilarious from, from start to finish.
I just watched that thing and just scream.
It's just so funny watching him dance with a cat.
And saving your cat.
There's now a commercial about how he's going to save your animals.
Every part of this is absolutely perfectly hilarious.
Trump plus cats is just your perfect fish out of water.
Doesn't make sense, but it does.
Your brain is trying to reconcile it, but it can't.
It's just got everything that makes it recreationally interesting.
Um, but I will tell you that just for fun, because it's recreationally interesting, in my comic strip Dilbert, there is a main character who is the head of human resources, who is a cat named Catbert.
And in the Dilbert comic, um, later next week, you're going to see Catbert is invited to a Elbonian immigrant barbecue.
And, uh, well, I'll say no more.
I'll say no more.
Invited to an Elbonian immigrant barbecue.
So wait for that.
It's only for subscribers on X or on locals.
Elon Musk was at the all in pod and made some news with a few things.
He's predicted that, uh, He was in the All In Pod live event, not just the podcast, he was at the live event.
And he said that by 2030, Optimus, human robots, those are the ones that he's making, they'll be making a million of them a year, at the cost of $20,000 each.
Because everybody's going to want a robot buddy, and ultimately, There'll be more robots than people.
I agree.
There will be more robots than people.
That does seem quite likely.
I don't know about the price.
I'd be surprised if he hits the price point, but he's pretty good at that, so probably will.
Can't wait to get my robot.
They're going to have to do a lot better with AI than they're doing now, but maybe.
Maybe.
We'll see.
I'll be first in line to get one.
Well, let's see.
I mentioned that K-Files thing about the ACLU questionnaire, and the part that I left out, which is maybe the more important part, is that CNN gave it some really good attention.
And Erin Burnett was so shocked by learning that Harris had once said that she was in favor of taxpayer-funded gender transition surgery for detained migrants, not even the ones who have You know, got into the country and they're living the life.
Still detained.
And Erin Burnett talking to the K-Files guy who was part of their, part of CNN's investigative team.
She actually said this, she goes, taxpayer funded gender transition surgeries for detained migrants.
She actually said she report she's.
So even Erin Burnett couldn't believe the reporting on CNN.
As she was sitting right next to the investigative reporter, she had to ask for clarification if she was even hearing this right.
And he clarified, yes, it's in writing, and we have more than one source.
Yes, she actually literally said those things.
So if CNN is shaking its head and saying, seriously?
You actually said that?
Like, in the real world, in a public way?
You actually said you're in favor of taxpayer-funded gender transition for detained migrants?
Really?
Really?
That's CNN.
So does CNN think she needs to go?
Or is CNN just finding the middle?
And that's the whole story.
They're just finding the middle, and that's something that's worth saying.
I don't know.
It's kind of confusing over there.
I think maybe it's some kind of mix of more than one thing.
Some people trying to find the middle, and other people definitely not.
Anyway.
Anyway, so all Harris says about the border on her new website of policies is that she wants to bring back the bipartisan bill.
Now, of course, the bipartisan bill story depends on Democrats not understanding the news.
That's the whole play.
If Democrats actually ever got real news, they would know that the bipartisan bill had bullshit in it, and that's why it was turned down.
It wasn't a good idea.
It was bipartisan in the sense that there was a little committee of bipartisan people who worked on it, but it wasn't bipartisan in terms of general Republicans thinking it was a good idea.
It was never, never in that category.
So that's just a lie supported by the news, the fake news.
CNN also had, uh, Paul Enton, their, their, their, uh, polling data guy.
Um, And he was saying that if Kamala Harris loses Pennsylvania, she's likely to lose the race, and likewise for Trump.
So Pennsylvania is turning out to be the main thing.
So if you win or lose Pennsylvania, that might be the whole race.
And as Paul Enten points out, and again, it's on CNN, so this is what makes it news, Because you don't expect them necessarily to say anything that's going to be anti-Harris, pro-Trump.
But Paul Enten, to his credit, I've been watching him for a while, and he does just give you the news.
And every time I get surprised by it, I have to slap myself and say, no.
Paul Enten, so far, I've been watching him for a while, seems like a legitimate, credible, News-related person, and I actually completely trust him.
Now he did that in the context of CNN.
He got me to completely trust his opinion.
That's pretty good.
I mean, that has to be noted.
That's pretty good.
And what he says, which I think you'll agree with, that if Kamala Harris loses Pennsylvania, there's going to be a lot of questions about why she didn't pick their governor, Shapiro, As her running mate when he has a 59% approval in Pennsylvania, which I do think would have been close to a guarantee of her winning.
At least Pennsylvania.
Do you know why she didn't pick Shapiro?
Identity politics.
The big weakness of the Democrats.
Is that they have to look at race more than they look at anything else.
And I do think that they were worried that he was Jewish and therefore he wouldn't get enough support.
So they literally lost the race in service of identity.
Maybe.
Now if she wins the race then all that goes away.
And certainly a lot of people are expecting that the election will be so rigged that she'll win no matter what she does.
Which, by the way, is a reasonable possibility.
I can't shake what Brett Weinstein said recently on a podcast, it might have been Joe Rogan, that we're at a place where Trump could just win the election outright, and then the news could tell you he lost.
And then the government would act on the news, it wouldn't act on the reality, because that is the reality.
And then they would just put Harris in the office, as if she won.
And then when anybody brought it up, they'd treat it like the Wuhan lab.
What Wuhan lab?
You know, I mean, we're trying to get down to the, you know, did the Wuhan lab, was it the source of the virus leak?
Hmm.
Yeah.
Maybe I'll put some people together and talk to you about that next week.
Well, you can't talk about it now.
Oh, let me, let me research that.
Get back to you next week.
Next week comes, we decided we don't want to talk to you.
You can just ignore topics that you don't like, and we've seen it now a number of times.
We can see that the news can simply create reality.
So they could, and this is the shocking part, if you don't think they could do this, you've been missing the big story.
They could tell you that the person who lost won the election, even if the numbers that they reported were the opposite.
They could just tell you it was the other way around.
And most of the country wouldn't check and would just accept it, and would be okay with jailing people who disagreed with the election result.
We are there.
If you don't think that's completely possible, and has been tested, that we can be told completely ridiculous, obviously untrue things, and still act like they're true, It's been tested.
Now I don't mean tested intentionally for the purpose of doing this.
I just mean that we have experience where the media has so erased reality.
Think of the laptop.
Remember the 51 experts who said that laptop is Russian disinformation.
They can make anything go away and they can make anything appear like Russia collusion.
So they have complete control over reality.
And if you think that reality is going to save you, it might, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I think that the controllers of reality will just change reality to what they need it to be.
So that's where we're at.
I'm not a hundred percent sure that'll happen, but it's totally possible that they'll just tell you the other person won.
Well, CNN also had, So this is kind of a trend now.
You're starting to see a little pattern.
Uh, they had Paul Dan's who's one of, I guess he was the head of the project 2025 thing, but he may have left by now, I think.
And he said as clearly as possible that Trump had nothing to do with it.
Their project 2025 started before he was even running for office.
And it's just not a Trump thing.
It's a, it's a them thing.
Now CNN had that on.
Now, keep in mind that the, You know, the biggest campaign rallying cry of Harris is that, oh, that project 2025 is Trump's.
And CNN just debunked it right in front of their audience.
What's up with that?
So that would be a strong indication that CNN is trying to find the middle.
So those are three indications just in 24 hours where something got reported accurately and usefully.
It's jarring because CNN is just so noted for fake news, in my opinion, that seeing them just treat three different things just the way you'd expect it to be treated if you were just talking about it factually, it's kind of jarring.
Does it mean something?
Does it suggest that maybe the powers that be might still have another switcheroo?
Could it be?
That maybe there's some people who think, you know, one more switch.
If the, if the debate doesn't work out, maybe one more switch.
What would stop them?
Do you tell me anything that would stop them from trading her out?
Remember, she got zero votes.
How hard would it be to trade out somebody who got zero votes?
I mean, they got us this far.
What would be a little bit more shenanigans.
Now I think it would be too weird and embarrassing and it wouldn't even work to switch around right now.
But if she really dies in the debate, and they're certainly signaling a lack of confidence in her to debate by the fact that she's not in public much, they might think that her debate is going to be so bad That there is no way that she can win after the debate.
If they conclude there's no way she can win, let's say if the polls just go like they did after the Biden debate, which is very possible.
I wouldn't bet on it, but it's quite possible.
There's nothing to stop them from replacing her.
And I would argue that Trump, you know, commanded a lead over Biden because Biden was literally brain dead.
And he commands, he might, command a, you know, a winning-looking polling situation over Harris, because she's the worst politician you've ever seen.
Those are the two most special cases in all of politics.
Two people who aren't even close to being, you know, minimally qualified for the job they're trying to do.
If they put in somebody who actually, you said, oh, well, I disagree with this person's policies, this Democrat, but I have to admit, They're pretty rational.
I think they would win.
I think there's a whole bunch of people who just want a rational president.
And they're looking at, you know, Biden, Harris, and Trump, and in their opinion, they say, you know, none of them are exactly ordinary, regular people.
So I could see if they replaced, um, me just pick, Pick some Democrat you don't hate.
Coons?
Do you remember?
What's his first name?
Senator Coons?
Whenever I see him talk, I say to myself, oh, he's, you know, spinning, and he's supporting his team, but he never looks crazy, and he never looks stupid, and he never looks uninformed.
If they just, like, plug that guy in there at the last minute, I'd worry.
If they put, like, just a person who disagrees with me, but he's smart, I would worry about that.
I'd worry about that a lot.
But he might not be blackmailable enough to be president.
Here's what RFK Jr.
said on a podcast recently.
He said that the Democratic Party is so fundamentally anti-democratic, it now mirrors Putin's regime in Russia.
Now, is that something he can back up?
Well, he gave four examples.
They got rid of the primaries to make sure that Kennedy couldn't be part of it.
They hid Joe Biden's cognitive deficits.
When there was a palace coup essentially against Biden, he was replaced without any kind of election.
So he basically picked his own successor, Russian style.
The media only gave Kennedy two interviews in 17 months, whereas Ross Perot had 34 interviews in 1992.
And the Democrats conducted lawfare to get both of their opponents off the ballot, RFK Jr.
and Trump.
All true.
Just four true statements that support his theory that our government, or at least the Democrats, have a regime that looks very much like a totalitarian dictator situation.
It's a strong argument.
I mean, it's an analogy, so it's not perfect, of course.
But argumentally persuasive-wise, persuasion-wise, yeah, this one hits.
According to Slay News, which I've never heard of, but I like their name, Harris is backing This plan to change the court, I guess Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat, he's proposing significant changes to the court.
And it could include, for example, it would emphasize more recently appointed justices, basically, so they would appoint additional justices and squeeze out the old conservatives.
So, Harris is actually in favor of that, which would be the end of the republic.
Because if the presidency can, in near time, change the composition of the court, then there's not really much point of having a court.
Because the president would determine which way things go with 98% accuracy.
Anyway, so that's pretty terrible.
Trump should tear her up on that.
Matt Ridley, who's written a lot about COVID and COVID origins, he was posting and talking about this recently.
So here's the evidence that COVID began in the Wuhan lab and that was man-made.
So here are four facts.
Number one, Uh, the COVID began next to the biggest SARS lab on earth.
You know, they said it happened next to it, but big coincidence right next to the lab that would work on that kind of thing.
Number two, in 2015, so this was before any of the lab leak, that lab was named the riskiest lab on the planet.
Okay.
So it was already known to be the riskiest and it was exactly in the one place on the whole planet.
That the virus happened.
Okay, but that's not proof.
I mean, coincidence can happen, right?
Does he have any more?
Oh, yeah.
In 2019, we know that they planned to insert a furrin cleavage, or that the furrin cleavage site would be this specific one, optimized for humans.
So it's at the S1-S2 junction, which means something to biologists, but not me.
But there's a very, very specific kind of thing they were looking at tweaking in this virus to make it worse for humans.
And COVID, it turns out, is the only SARS virus with that exact fur in sight inserted at that junction.
So the very place that they said they were going to put some mischief, some mischief is there.
And there's not a single other virus in that family that has any mischief in that area.
So it began near the lab that was the riskiest on the planet, that was doing this kind of work, And what happened was exactly what they said they were going to do, and there's only one virus that's ever had that happen to it.
And as Matt Ridley explains, in ways that just will make your head explode, that even today he can't get anybody who disagrees with him to appear at any public forum to argue the opposite, that it didn't happen there.
So the scientists are just so scared Of even approaching this topic that they can't even deal with reality on it.
So this is not a story about viruses or the pandemic.
This is a story about how easily the truth in science can be hidden, even though there are a million scientists.
Because your common sense says to you, well, wait, if I've got a million scientists, Certainly a hundred thousand of them at least are going to be on the other side of anything.
You know, you could randomly pick a topic and if you've got a million scientists, you're certainly going to get a hundred thousand who disagree with whatever the science is at the moment.
Nope.
Nope.
You can completely shut down science with your money and threats and reputational ruin and fake news and all that.
So, I figured out how to tell when Joe Scarborough is lying.
Now you're going to say, oh, it's when his mouth moves.
And I know what you mean.
I get it.
I get it.
It's when his mouth moves.
Um, but, uh, I've been watching some old videos where we knew he lied and then you get to go back and watch.
Now I do this to look for how people lie.
So it's kind of special when you can know somebody lied according to your current information, but then you look at the video of them doing the actual lying and you watch how their face changes and their manner changes.
Here's Joe Scarborough telling you something that he actually believes.
I'll do my impression.
And Donald Trump, he's a big old liar.
He doesn't pass the fact checking and a lot of people will be You know, very upset if he's elected.
Okay.
That's probably his real opinion.
I'm not saying it's true or not true, but probably a real opinion.
Now, let me give you Joe Scarborough when he knows he's lying.
Let me tell you everyone, and you can just shut the F up.
If you disagree, I don't even care what you think.
I'm going to tell you the truth.
Joe Biden.
He's the smartest man on the planet.
See, when he gets all up in your face and he's so mad at you that you're an idiot.
So, I want to show you all this.
You probably saw in the news, I think it was John Campbell, he's one of the COVID guys who talks about it a lot.
He had some images of what he said were these micro structures that allegedly the vaccination was creating in your bloodstream.
So here's one of the pictures of allegedly the micro thing.
Now, I'm pretty sure that that's a diagram of an airport with a penis connected in the middle.
I do not believe that is a picture of a thing that's a structure forming in my bloodstream.
I do not.
Now, if you'd like to ask, if you're wondering, is John Campbell a credible source for science, I'm going to say, because I don't like getting sued, you should Google him.
And whenever I'm looking to see if somebody has ever been debunked, I always just put in debunk.
You know, just put in the name of a person, then debunk, and just read what other people say.
Now, I've been following it for a while, and my own opinion is that there's no pandemic information that's accurate.
It's all bullshit.
So every study I see, I just don't believe.
Do you remember when the people who got the vaccination, their blood was all coagulated?
And when they did the autopsies, it was like, my God, we've never even seen blood like this.
It's like the blood turned solid or something.
And so many of you believed that that was true.
And I looked at that story and I said, I don't know anything about viruses or I don't know anything about this field, but I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Because it was just too obviously, kind of insanely ridiculous, that that would be happening and it wouldn't be the biggest story in the world.
But we've also seen that they can hide the stories about the Wuhan lab being the source of the leak, so there's almost nothing the news can't hide from you.
But I'm pretty sure if that was happening, we would know by now.
Now, am I right about All of my opinions on the science of stuff?
Probably not.
Not all of it.
But I would say that claims like that, no matter who makes them, 95% of them are going to be BS.
95%.
But that still leaves 5%, which could, you know, tell the whole story.
So the 5%, potentially, could tell you that the vaccinations were a bad idea.
But I don't know what 5% is true.
So if you're looking at any particular group of claims, just know that 95% of them are not true.
Maybe 5% are true, but you'll never know which ones, because all the data is motivated, and we can see from every field of science that people can't handle data.
So, I wouldn't believe anything about anything.
That's my general thing.
Hmm.
So in this next news story, uh, you've heard me say this phrase, the cat is on the roof.
Yeah.
It's part of a joke.
Well, the cat is on the roof.
Wait, I'm getting an update about the cat.
Oh, Hmm.
All right.
Nevermind.
Didn't go well for the cat.
It was in Ohio.
No, it's just recreational fun.
There's no such thing, probably, of anybody eating any cats.
Maybe.
I'm pretty sure the story is not reliable, but it's fun.
Recreationally.
Well, Melania, Melania Trump, has some kind of a story to tell.
She is very unhappy, it sounds.
About the investigation into the potential, almost assassination of her husband.
Now, Melania always fascinates me, because I think we all have this question, which is, what is it like to be married to Trump?
You know, don't you wonder that?
Like, what is that like?
Like, what is the nature of their understanding with each other?
How does she, how does she put up with him?
You know, just how do they negotiate that?
And I'm impressed as hell that they're still together.
I mean, I'm impressed when anybody stays together.
But when you see her on the video, when she's basically showing some emotion about this, she is not a happy camper that somebody tried to shoot her husband.
And I'll tell you, in it, I see a depth of feeling for him that was kind of interesting to see.
Now, I don't want to, you know, I don't read any minds.
I can't characterize their relationship or what she's thinking, but I do not see her doing the video that I saw where she's very much questioning the official story about the assassination attempt.
She looked like she was fully in.
Like that didn't look like somebody who had one foot out the door or something like that.
She looked like, yeah, she was in like it was her.
Now keep in mind, she's also talking about the father of her son.
So, I mean, no matter what their personal relationship is, she would fight for the father of her son in this situation, you know, just like it was, you know, life or death, I would imagine.
So anyway, Melania continues to be a positive force in the world.
There's a video, I don't know how old it was, it didn't have a date on it, of Kamal Harris in an interview.
Uh, saying that she embraces astrology and she's a Libra and her husband is a Libra and Libra is the sign that's famous for not being able to make a decision because they're balancing everything.
Well, on this side, but on the other hand, and she tells a story about when she sits down with her husband, Doug, and they, they say, Oh, let's watch a Netflix movie.
And then they spend the entire time looking for one and not being able to decide.
And then they run out of time and just go to bed.
Now, on one hand, it's a great story, if you were not running for president.
Because it has more to do with having lots of choices in our complicated world, and I've had the same experience, you've had the same experience, right?
So as an anecdote, it's a real fun story.
As running for president, it's the last thing I want to hear.
Is that she's looking at astrology with a little bit too much interest and that she can't make decisions.
And that she's totally aware that she can't make decisions.
Now, is there anything you've seen about her campaign so far that would suggest that she's bad at making decisions?
Yes.
Because it took her quite a while to even have her policies up.
If you are a decisive person, You'd have your policies up in, I don't know, 72 hours.
It's because she can't decide.
And now the policies on her website are kind of vague.
Do you know why?
Because she can't decide.
And there's questions about what she thought in 2019 versus now.
Do you know why?
Because she can't decide.
She told us in her own words that she's poor at making decisions.
I don't think she was joking about that.
She even gave a reason that she's a Libra.
If somebody tells you they're bad at making decisions while they're running for president, she probably said it before she was running for president.
Because I couldn't tell the date.
But that is pretty bad.
That's pretty bad.
Scott Jennings is having fun mocking the supporters of Harris because they were happy that Dick Cheney endorsed her.
And Scott Jennings said, Democrats have called Dick Cheney a war criminal for 20 years, and now all of a sudden they're clapping like seals to get his endorsement.
It's like, has nobody noticed that these are not the normal Republicans?
The ones that are endorsing Harris.
They are the ones that are most associated with military industrial complex.
I don't think Trump wanted Dick Cheney to be on his side.
Imagine if Dick Cheney had very noticeably and publicly endorsed Trump.
What would the Democrats say about that?
They'd say, well, here it is.
There it is.
That's all you need to know.
Yeah, if Dick Cheney is endorsing him, that's all you need to know.
We've been telling you he's a war criminal for 20 years, so I guess that means that Trump's a war criminal by association.
Ipso facto QED.
So that's fun.
All right, I've got an economics question for you.
J.D.
Vance says that if Kamala Harris' plan to give first-time homebuyers, including those who are not legal residents, gives them $25,000 to help them buy a house, J.D.
Vance says the price of the house will just go up $25,000 because of supply and demand.
How many agree with that simple statement?
That if you give people more money for houses, The price of the houses will go up roughly by the same amount of that, because now that's what the market can bear.
Make sense?
Alright, I'm not on board with that.
Here's why.
Now I don't know the answer, but I'll tell you how to think about it.
So this is more about how to think about it.
Here's a mental experiment for you.
Let's say this $25,000 for first-time homebuyers was given to one and only one person in the world, and they're in a certain zip code, and now they've got $25,000 extra.
What happens to the price of homes in that zip code?
Nothing.
Nothing, right?
I mean, one home might be bid up a little bit, so the comps in that neighborhood go up a little bit.
Well, basically nothing, because it's just one person.
They're not going to change the market.
Now suppose every single person who was going to buy a home for the first time, every one of them, got the $25,000 and used it.
What happens in that case?
Well, in that case, I think JD Vance is close to target, meaning that if everybody had $25,000 extra, yeah, the people selling it would sniff that out.
Or at least the bidding would, you know, the bidding for the homes, if there's bidding, there usually is lately, would basically work that into the market right away.
So here's the question you forgot to ask.
What percentage of home buyers for those homes that would be called the starter homes are actually buying them for the first time?
Do you know?
Is it 95% are buying for the first time?
Or is it 10%?
Because that's, that's the answer to the question.
If it's 10%, it's probably not making that much difference to the cost of homes, but a little, you know, demand increases, right?
With more demand, the prices go up.
But you need to know what that percentage is.
Now, the answer is it could be in the 30% range.
So if 30% of the people have more money, it kind of depends on the, you know, how much, how many homes are available and how many people are looking for them at the same time and all that.
So, uh, that doesn't make it a good idea.
I'm just saying that the reality is that if you gave new home buyers an extra 25,000, Some of them are just going to use it to buy furniture.
They're going to say, oh, I could already afford the home, but if I'm going to get a free $25,000, I'll use it to improve my furniture.
It would make no difference to the home prices.
Some people, and I would put myself in this category, if I were within $25,000 of buying a home, I wouldn't buy a home.
That's not enough margin.
But, if I thought I could afford it already, but I was sort of on the fence, I'd take the $25,000 extra, and I'd just put it in the bank.
I wouldn't use it to buy a more expensive home.
I'd buy the same home I could afford before it, but I'd have a little more cushion.
So nobody would even know I had the money.
It wouldn't be in the market at all.
So if you don't know the answer to all those questions, you don't know how much the $25,000 would increase the price of homes, But it'll have some effect.
It's not going to go down.
It'll have some effect, but probably more positive than negative, especially since it's good for the economy in general.
And even if you imagined it was a money loser in the short run, the more people you put in homes, the more they're buying furniture and home related goods and spurring the economy and being more invested in the country because they've got a stake in it.
So my guess is that that plan is probably more good than bad, but you can't tell.
And you could easily argue that with our deficit, what it is, it's not really where you want to put the money.
It's just not as clear as you think it is one way or the other.
That's all.
It's just not clear.
Apparently RFK Jr.
says that Trump admitted to him privately that Trump didn't drain the swamp his first term.
And he wants R.F.K.
Jr.
to help him drain it.
And he said, this is what R.F.K.
Jr.
says in that conversation, quote, he said, I didn't know anything about governing.
And Trump said, we won this election and then all of a sudden you had to fill 60,000 jobs.
He said, I was surrounded by people, lobbyists and business interests who were saying, you got to appoint this guy.
And that's what I did.
So that's how the swamp just recreated itself because he didn't have the wherewithal to fill all those jobs.
So he took recommendations and they were not good.
And he says, they brought in a telecom lobbyist to run the FCC.
They brought in an oil lobbyist.
to run the Department of Interior, a coal lobbyist to run the EPA, another pharma lobbyist to run HHS.
This is from Trump himself.
So if you're wondering to yourself, does Trump know he didn't drain the swamp and he promised to drain the swamp?
The answer is, yes, he does.
And he can tell you exactly why he didn't do it, and apparently he's taking responsibility for it, at least to RFK Jr.
And he's saying, I did it wrong, but now I know how to do it right, with your help.
The with your help part is the key.
Because Trump didn't have that kind of help before.
So yes, the argument that he would drain the swamp or get a lot closer to it went from, I don't know, can he?
I sort of always doubted that that was going to be much of a thing, but now I don't.
No, I don't.
If your advisors are Elon Musk and, you know, Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr.
and, you know, I could go on.
Those are people who are not going to give you the swamp.
So he has now built a machine, a pirate ship, I like to call it.
That pirate ship definitely can beat the swamp.
Or at least it's a fair fight.
But before, he had no pirate ship.
It was just the Swamp versus him, and he got overwhelmed.
Jason from the All-in-Pod, they had their All-in-Pod event I mentioned.
And he asked Elon Musk, quote, if you could shrink the size of government with Trump, what would be a good target for how much to shrink it?
Here was Elon's answer.
Quote, are you trying to get me assassinated before this even happens?
That was a laugh line, but yes, that was the correct answer.
You do not want to tell them because then they'll panic and then they'll resist.
But, You know, like you did with X, if one day you come in and there's a little pink slip on your chair, well, not as much complaining, even if you're more unhappy, because your opportunity for resisting goes down.
Apparently there's a member of UK Parliament, He's got concerns over how Axe is handling information and national security threats, and thinks that Elon Musk could face a possible summons before the UK Parliament.
So in other words, he might be summoned to talk to the UK Parliament.
Mike Benz says, in a situation where there's another country Who's targeted an American interest, which is vital to America, which I think it is vital free speech.
The American ambassador to the UK should be all over this.
They should be calling this, uh, this politician in and saying, ah, you and I need to have a conversation because it looks like you're targeting an American company.
And you know, we have lots of interests in common.
And if you target an American company, I can pretty much guarantee this is going to come back to you.
That's the conversation that has to happen.
If we're just sitting here watching another country abuse an American citizen at this level, then we don't have a government.
The government should be protecting him aggressively.
Yeah, nothing.
Not even a statement.
So that's your government right now.
Maybe we could get better ambassadors under a different administration.
Well, remember I told you that CNN seems to be finding the middle on this presidential stuff, but ABC News, how are they doing?
Well, they're going to be hosting the debate, so I hope they're finding the middle, right?
Well, there was a recent study that said their coverage has been 100% positive for Harris, but for Trump, it's been 93% negative.
Oh, okay.
Other than MSNBC, it's the very worst place in the world for Trump to have a debate.
But I do love the fact that Trump says yes to the very worst situation for Trump and also believes that he can go in and dominate.
Even if it's totally set up against them.
And I think he's right.
Because he has a long history of being able to walk into any situation and just own the room and hollow it out and wear it as a suit.
So, I think ABC News is going to have quite a show on their hands.
America First Legal, that's The Republican-oriented entity that's challenging various Democrat bad behavior with their own legal resources have now asked the U.S.
government, based on a FOIA request, to reveal any information where the U.S.
and Brazil colluded on any of this Judge Alexandre de Mores' edicts about shutting down X in Brazil.
So the question is, is Brazil being used by the United States CIA or State Department as a tool of internal control, meaning they want to control X and they want to control Musk and they can't do it with any American laws, but if the Brazilians are worth doing it, you know, are we, are we communicating with them and saying, Hey, Hey Brazil, you know, we, we don't love your new leader, but, um,
You know, if you could just take care of this one thing for us, if you could really kind of lean on X, we might be flexible in a few other areas with you.
So we don't know if that conversation happened.
That's what America First Legal is trying to find out.
And I will say again, that before America First Legal existed, I felt like the Republicans were in a stick fight and they didn't have a stick.
Because the Republicans were getting just lawfare to death.
And so far, their choice of targets has been really good, meaning that they're asking exactly the questions you want asked, and they're going hard.
And it looks like they're sparing no expense to mix it up here.
So, I think this is one of the best things that's happened to the country, is having an America First legal way in and being an important force.
I mean, they're already up to speed as an important force.
So, more of that, please.
Well, Mike Davis, who, uh, I don't know how to explain him.
He's not an elected official, but, uh, he's, uh, what would be the best way to say he is, uh, active in the Republican side of politics.
And I think he's got, uh, um, I think he's got some legal background, so I don't know too much about him.
We follow each other on X. Um, but he has been saying that, uh, When Trump wins that he expected to be prosecution of a number of Democrats.
Uh, and he included apparently in that list, the, the Soros prosecutors who don't look legit to people like me.
Um, and this is scaring people on the right.
And Mike Davis says, no one is above the law.
Oh God, I love this.
The only thing he's threatening is that people who broke the law will have to answer for it.
He's not saying that we're going to put people in jail for not breaking the law.
He's saying that the bad behavior that we all witness, I mean, all of these, these prosecutors, to me, they look like criminals.
If they don't look like criminals to you, you must have been watching something else.
They have jobs where they're supposed to be putting criminals away, but we all got to watch, and to me, they look like criminals.
So, if they've got something they can be indicted on and charged with, then I say, no one's above the law.
Now, to me, their fear of this, meaning the Democrat fear of this, Does suggest that they know they're using the law inappropriately to lawfare Trump.
Because otherwise I think they would say, well, yeah, if they broke the law, sure.
I think their panic about it feels like a confession.
They know they've been losing the law inappropriately to attack Democrats.
And when they see that the Republicans and Mike Davis taking a lead in this, when they see them saying, you know what?
Every bit of this is coming back to you.
They're panicked.
Now, I don't think Trump would do that.
I don't think he would want to be back, at least not himself.
Maybe somebody else would do it.
But I don't think Trump feels like law-faring his adversaries, even after they law-fared him, is necessarily the best thing for the country.
So, I do think Trump is going to look at the big picture here.
He might need to break the cycle.
Um, if the cycle keeps him out of office, then probably all bets are off.
I feel like the Democrats probably are in more trouble if Trump doesn't win.
If he does win, he might make some political calculations and say, okay, definitely if we went after these Soros prosecutors, we'd find something, but we can't be the ones who go looking for a crime.
Right?
If there's a crime alleged already, then yes, do what you gotta do.
But it turns into lawfare if you go looking for a crime.
You know, show me the person, I'll find you the crime.
I don't think Trump would support that.
That's what I think.
I hope I'm right about that.
And I get the whole, you know, mutually assured destruction, you need to hit back the way they hit you, otherwise they'll just keep doing it.
I get all that.
But there might be a higher principle here that you just can't lawfare the other side indefinitely.
You just can't do it.
Um, anyway, on the other hand, it would keep those Soros prosecutors in office and that would be a tragedy too.
Um, so according to the Federalist, there's a California law that now mandates that students have to learn climate change the way the, uh, The way the majority of scientists want them to learn it.
Now, since I think climate change is mostly BS, although I don't know what is true about the climate changing and the human contribution to it, I do know that the climate models are ridiculous.
That's a longer conversation we've had before.
And I do know that science can't be trusted.
And if you're not teaching the kids that, Then they're just being brainwashed.
If they were teaching them, here's everything that the scientists say is true about the climate, here are the reasons you don't need to worry about it.
Number one, the models are ineffective.
Number two, warmer might be better than colder.
Number three, we're going to invent all these things.
We'll probably have more energy for air conditioning and everything else.
If you did it that way, I'd be totally okay with that.
Just say the scientists say this is true, but the models are not exactly science.
And here's what you need to know about how models can fool you.
If you give me that lesson, I'll say that's pretty good.
But if you're just going to teach the mainstream scientists, can't be right.
Cause they all agree that is bullshit.
And that would be brainwashing.
All right.
According to also Slay News, there's a loophole in the voting in Wisconsin where you don't need ID if you are in the category of people who are, let's see, the category is indefinitely confined.
If you simply state that you are indefinitely confined, I assume that means to jail?
Maybe it means medically also.
Then people just need to say they're indefinitely confined and then they can vote without an ID, which means a giant loophole for voting illegally.
Now, how many reports have you heard in the past year About loopholes in particular states or holes or, you know, potentially computer problems.
And I feel like I've seen 50, 50 claims of election problems that look pretty real.
And maybe they weren't the one thing that changes everything, but they were real.
And we still sell the message that the elections can be trusted.
Probably 50 different problems we found.
I mean, I'm just going off the top of my head from what it feels like in the past year.
Now, if you're on the right, well, if you're on the left, I'll bet you saw none of them.
If you just followed the New York Times and CNN, I'll bet you didn't hear of even one confirmed problem of anything with an election.
But if you're on the right, and you're on X, it's every day.
Every day there's another story of somebody who got away with something, or got caught, but they tried something.
Every single day.
And yet, the public is told, oh, these systems are fine.
Well, Zelensky is in Italy, and he thinks that a peace plan will be ready in November.
Well, I can confirm that.
There will be a peace plan.
This is breaking news, so I'm going to break this story for you.
In November, there will, in fact, be a peace plan for Ukraine.
No, not because of Zelensky.
No, not because of Zelensky.
It's because Trump will be president.
Elected.
Yeah, that's my peace plan.
Here's my peace plan.
We're going to elect Trump, and then he's going to sort your shit out.
That's my peace plan.
And I'm done.
Now you're gonna say to me, but, but, but, it's difficult.
Yeah, I know.
But, but, but, neither side will agree.
Yes, they will.
But, but, but, I don't care about your but.
Yes, Trump can settle this shit right away.
And the reason he can do it is because both sides want him to.
Let me say that again.
Ukraine wants Trump to solve this.
Putin wants Trump to solve this.
If one of them didn't want him to solve it, then it would be impossible.
Or nearly impossible.
But they want it.
He's the fake because.
They both want to say, he scared us too much, so we agreed.
Or something like that.
They want to be able to say that there was something bigger than them.
They came and, well, we would have fought forever for Ukraine, but, you know, Trump, that big meanie, he came in, he threatened us, and, well, we just had to sell.
And Putin's going to do some version of that, you know, maybe a braver version, and just say, well, you know, we didn't want to fight forever, Trump offered us the solution, seemed like the right time to take it.
Trump is the fake because everybody's already decided.
The decisions are basically made.
He just has to come in there and exist.
Oh, Trump's here.
All right.
Let's do the thing we all wanted to do.
And we'll say that he's the one who made us do it.
All right.
I saw in the comments that before I dismiss the stories of Haitians eating animals, I should look into the voodoo practices of Haitians.
Let me say it again, because maybe you didn't hear me clearly the first time.
I am not denying that some Haitian in the United States ate an animal.
Maybe more than one.
I am only saying that it doesn't seem to be a major trend that is compatible with the top hundred things I'm worrying about.
If it were my cat, Well, then it would be life or death.
Then I'd be down for anything.
But, you know, it's a big world with lots of tragedies.
And, uh, I'm gonna, I'm gonna not worry about that one so much until we hear more.
If we hear more than maybe I'll worry about it more.
Um, now I've also seen many of you, uh, racists saying that the IQ of the Haitians is unusually low.
So I thought I would Google it before I got on here to debunk it because some people were saying that the average IQ of the Haitians was like 78.
And I thought, that can't be true.
I can't believe their average, the average is 78.
So I googled it to debunk, because I was talking to the locals people before the main broadcast here, and I thought I wanted to clear them up and maybe disabuse them of their racist, racist views.
So I looked it up, and sure enough, I was surprised to find That at one point there was a study that said that the IQ of the average Haitian was 78.
And then I said to myself, oh, shoot, I guess I'm pretty wrong.
But then things turned around and it turns out I was right.
I was right in the end.
They do not have an average IQ of 78.
There were some new studies that, uh, more updated and, uh, they came up with the average, uh, the actual average IQ was 60.
So I was right in the sense that it wasn't 78.
Do you believe their average IQ is 60?
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that at all.
There's probably something about how they test, something like that.
I don't believe that there are human beings who can survive if their population is 60.
You know, if that were true, the entire nation of Haiti would be just a Oh.
Hmm.
Okay, well, I guess I can't debunk it by looking at the excellent progress of Haiti, but I don't believe it's 60.
I don't believe it's 60.
I'll only go there.
I don't know what it is, but I don't think it's 60.
I just don't think you could wake up and survive the day at 60.
So I don't know what it is.
But I guess we'll find out how many people we can integrate.
Somebody said we've got 5% of all Haiti has moved to the United States in the last few years.
So we'll see how that goes.
Doesn't it depend on who designed the IQ test?
Well, I've got a feeling the IQ test stopped working.
Maybe if you're not literate?
If you're not literate, can they really do an IQ test?
So I'm not even sure that you can administer some kind of average IQ test if you have low literacy.
So I don't know the answer to that, but I don't believe it can't be 60.
That can't be true.
Google says it, but it can't be true.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, That concludes my show for the day.
We will be joining you tonight for the debate.
I'm going to say a few words to the locals people before I go, but for the rest of you, thanks for joining on X and Rumble and YouTube.
