Good morning everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
I mean, not counting the debate last night.
If you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that would be a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, sugar flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Well, there's yet another coffee study that says it's full of vitamins and antioxidants, and they studied 400,000 people, and they found that if you drink coffee for 13 to 14 years, you have a substantially lower risk of death.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going for immortality.
If a little bit of coffee can make you live longer, A lot of coffee can make you immortal.
That's just common sense.
So please join me in immortality if you like coffee.
Well, today is September 11th and we will remember the tragedy and the victims and the heroes, etc.
But it makes me think that there's some kind of a limit to how many days that can be special.
There are 365 days.
Typically.
And, uh, now we got September 11th is special and January 6th is special.
And of course, December 7th is a day of infamy and December 25th.
We got your Christmas, July 4th.
You got your independence day.
We got the Juneteenth and of course, June 8th, my birthday.
So quite a few days are already spoken for.
So if you were planning to do any kind of big thing that would be remembered in history, You want to stay away from the reserved days.
Something in March would be good.
There's nothing in March.
Yeah.
So if you're going to do something that's going to be world-changing, and it's going to mark a day, look for March.
It's sort of unspoiled territory there.
Well, we will talk about the debate, of course.
I'm just waiting for people to pile in here.
The update on inflation.
Has fallen to 2.5%, which is in line with expectations.
So we got the core inflation is unchanged, but they expected that.
So that's good, right?
All the inflation's over.
Thank goodness.
Here I thought my prices were higher than they used to be, but no, no.
Now I know that inflation.
Right back down to almost where you want it to be.
Two would be better than two and a half, but you know, pretty close.
Let's see.
Uh, what does that imply?
Well, I would, I would think that with this good inflation news, the Fed will be, uh, lowering interest rates.
The stock market will be up and enthusiasm about the economy will be rising right around election day, which should raise a little flag in your mind that says, huh, Huh.
The administration that's in charge says the economy is extra good right before the election.
Hmm.
Hmm.
I wonder if there's any data they left out.
Well, according to Republican researcher Jackie I think that's at least somewhere close to the way she pronounces her name.
Since Harris took office, gas is up 46 percent, electricity 30 percent, fuel oil 43 percent, airfare 21, hotels 49, groceries 21.
Baby food 29, K-12 food 66%, rent 22%, transportation 32%, car insurance 55%, overall inflation 20%, real average weekly earnings down 3.4%.
Now, even if you adjust for the fact that some of these comparisons are wonky because of the pandemic, for example, I imagine the pandemic lowered airfare for a while.
Cause demand was down.
So I'm not sure where we're counting from, but, um, generally speaking, generally speaking, uh, prices are way up and I think everybody knows it.
Well, importantly, after the debate, Taylor Swift endorsed Harris and signed off on her letter saying why she, she called herself a single cat lady.
Which is kind of funny, but also suggests, you know, maybe that cat lady thing hurt a little bit.
Maybe it hurt a little bit.
Well, as others have pointed out, and Trump pointed this out himself, it's really expensive to be a public figure and endorse a political candidate.
What do you suppose it will cost Taylor Swift to support Harris?
Well, if it's anything like we've seen before, she should probably instantly lose about 20% of her annual pay.
Meaning that fewer people will support her.
We don't know that, but that would be a typical response.
So let's see.
Recently she made $92 million in a year with her tour.
So let's say she takes 20% off of that.
So that's, that's going to hurt a little bit.
Um, let's say that her music catalog, which is estimated to be worth 500 to $600 million.
Let's say that goes up in value and she's got this, uh, What do you call it?
Unrealized capital gains.
So let's say it doubles in value, then she'd pay a 25% on her extra half a half a billion.
So that might cost her 125 million or so.
And of course, her income taxes would be higher because she's a high income person under Harris.
So if her endorsement makes a difference and it puts Harris over the top, It should cost Taylor Swift, for that, several hundred million dollars.
Several hundred million dollars.
Now you could argue that Elon Musk cost him way more than that for endorsing somebody.
You might say that me endorsing Trump cost me some number of millions of dollars, which it did, and it's expensive.
I have to admit, I kind of appreciate that she's willing to basically lose hundreds of millions of dollars to use her free speech and have her free opinion of how things should be.
But it's going to be expensive, Taylor.
All right.
Elon Musk saw that and responded humorously on X. Remember, she signs it off as a single cat lady.
And so Elon Musk posts this.
He goes, fine, Taylor, you win.
I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life.
Okay, that's really funny.
I will give you a child.
Coming from Elon Musk, who's got 11 children from various baby mamas.
I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life.
See, this is why I doubt that Elon Musk is on the spectrum.
Now, he says he is.
I mean, he's referred to himself as having Asperger's.
But you can't write that joke if you're on the spectrum.
That is not the kind of joke you'd normally... This is a sophisticated Joke!
I mean, it's actually really well written.
So, I don't know what is up with Elon Musk's brain, but it's not operating like your brain and my brain, and that's good for him, I guess.
You know, I do wonder if J.D.
Vance's single cat lady's, you know, one-time reference he made that, of course, you're making a big deal about, does that feel like his deplorables moment?
Meaning that Single cat ladies represent a pretty large percentage of the total voters and people who love single cat ladies, I suppose.
So it kind of feels like he, you know, he insulted a group of Americans who are not going to forget it.
Very much like the deplorables comment.
And I don't think that he meant it as anything but a colorful way to talk, but so did Hillary.
It's just that sometimes these stains don't wash out, and I think he's got one that doesn't wash out.
But it only affects that one demographic, and they were probably all going to be for Kamala Harris anyway.
So I saw yesterday this compilation of, yet again, the media that backs the Democrats Using the same language in every newscast.
It was after Joe Biden did the State of the Union, the most recent one, and all the newscasters were saying it was fiery.
That's fiery, fiery, fiery.
And you can look at it and go, oh, well, they obviously had some kind of memo that they're all, they're all supposed to say fiery.
Cause when you see them like back to back, they're just all using the same word.
It's fiery.
He was fiery today.
Fiery.
It's pretty obvious that, you know, it was sort of a talking points memo and they all got it.
Or that's what I used to think.
And when I say used to think, I mean yesterday, I have modified my belief on this topic.
Because the moment, or even before the debate was over, I saw the first person on the right say, hey, that was really three against one.
And I thought that, oh, yeah, that's sort of a clever way to frame it, because, you know, you're saying that the moderators were for one side.
Three to one.
And then I saw somebody else say it.
And then somebody else, and somebody else, and somebody else.
And it was exactly like that fiery thing.
It looked like, but I'm pretty sure this is not the case, it looked like every Republican got a memo instantly saying, uh, you should say it's a three to one, just say it's three to one.
Now that didn't happen.
I feel confident that there was no memo and nobody told anybody to say that, but everybody said it.
Everybody said it.
It'll be in the comments.
You watch the comments.
And the people who didn't hear me say this as they're coming in, the first thing they'll say is it was three to one.
So sometimes it looks like it is a memo.
I'm sure that was true with the dark thing during the 2016 thing.
Everybody say dark.
His speech was dark.
That was definitely a memo.
But apparently this can happen spontaneously as well.
And I'd love to know who was the first one to say it.
Did it come from one of the Fox News hosts who said it first?
Because it must have been something that a lot of people saw.
Was it one of the Trump campaign people who said it?
So if anybody knows who was the first person to say that, it would be interesting, because that just swept through everything.
And I'm so bored with it, I don't want to ever hear it again, because it just, it already feels like swimming is the best exercise, and it just feels like the most basic thing you could say about the debate.
So I'm like, I'm so bored with that.
But we will talk about it.
All right, so the debate happened.
I'll be a little bit all over the place on this, because I took so many notes.
But I saw a screen that I thought was a joke.
So I showed Daniel Dale the fact-checker for CNN, and next to him I showed a graphic that I knew was fake when I saw it, because it said that Trump had 33 lies and Harris had one.
And I thought, OK, that's a pretty good meme, but I'm surprised that they didn't go to zero.
Why would you do one, you know, if you're going to make a meme joke?
And then I saw it again.
And I thought, oh wait a minute, the second person who's sending it around isn't indicating it's a joke.
And then I had to go look at the source and play the video for myself.
It was real!
How many of you watched the debate?
Can you even believe that somebody called the CNN fact checker scored it 33 to 1?
What?
We're going to talk about all the lies?
I mean, I won't have time to talk about all of them because the thing was just full of lies and hoaxes, but how in the world do they have the balls to say it was 33 to 1?
I'm going to mention all the things that were obvious lies and that Daniel Dale didn't catch any of them, Except whatever the one was that obviously had no... Obviously, whatever the one was, was one that doesn't matter.
In other words, he must have randomly picked out of the many, many lies that Harris said, he must have picked the one that wouldn't hurt her, so that he can say he found one.
I mean, he needs to quit, like, immediately.
If it was his own idea that there was only one problem on Harris's side, just one, He needs to quit, or be fired.
He's an embarrassment to CNN at this point.
I was kind of, I've been curious about him, because I wondered if, does CNN tell him what to say?
Or are these actually his opinions?
Yeah, so, at this point it's obvious, I think it's obvious, I don't want to be a mind reader, but how many of you would agree with the following statement?
Daniel Dayle knew he was lying a lot with his analysis.
Would you agree with that?
I don't know any other way to explain it, because the lies were so obvious and so numerous, and the people watching it all knew, and he couldn't catch more than one.
There's no way that's an honest attempt at doing your job.
That is completely dishonest, and I wonder, was he forced to do it?
At the risk of losing his job.
Was there somebody who said, look, here's the deal.
I only want you to say there was one.
Well, but there were 15.
Yeah, I know.
But I want you to say there was one.
Or we'll fire you.
Do you think that happened?
Because if it didn't happen, he's a piece of fucking shit.
I mean, that is one fucking worthless piece of shit person.
Unless he was forced.
And I'm going to give him the benefit of a doubt that he was coerced to be that bad.
Because if he did that naturally, if that was organic, no, it couldn't have been.
Because I've seen him work.
I mean, you can tell he's biased, but he's not a fucking idiot.
Right?
So he was presenting himself as really just a fucking idiot.
And there's no way that's real or organic.
Because he isn't.
He's clearly unethical and corrupt.
That seems obvious.
But he's not dumb!
Anyway.
So that wasn't a joke.
Bill Mitchell had a list of the things that Harris Said wrong.
I had maybe a quibble with a few of them, so I removed them, but I'll tell you the ones that are obvious.
So Harris used the Find People hoax and was not fact-checked by the hosts.
Keep in mind that the hosts fact-checked Trump in real time I saw two different numbers.
One said four times and one said seven.
Four for sure.
But none... Harris was never fact-checked in real time.
And we'll talk about what they fact-checked on Trump.
But she put down the fine people hoax.
Didn't get caught.
She said Project 2025 was Trump's.
That's not.
She said he wanted to be a dictator.
That's fake.
Wanted to terminate the Constitution.
Nope.
Nothing like that.
She said that Trump told Putin that he could, quote, do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine.
Nothing like that ever happened.
She blamed the Afghanistan withdrawal on Trump.
That's ridiculous.
She used the bloodbath hoax that was Trump talking about economics, and they made it sound like it was going to be a violent insurrection.
She said that Trump would have an abortion monitor.
That doesn't make sense and he's never suggested anything like that.
She said that back in the 70s, was it, that Trump refused to rent to black families.
My understanding of that is that the Trump company Pled guilty to discriminating in renting, but that that was never tied to Trump.
So there was an acknowledgement by the staff that they did, but there was no smoking gun that said Trump told them to do it.
Use your own judgment on that one.
Central Park Five, Harris said that Trump called for executing the Central Park Five.
That was not true.
He called for execution in general and did not mention the Central Park Five.
And also, when Trump defended himself, he said that that was when they had been found guilty.
Later, I think that changed.
But, oh no, the police, I think it was based on the police saying they were guilty.
So that was Trump's defense.
There was the suckers and losers hoax.
Trump never called military veterans suckers and losers.
Then Harris had a new one.
She referred to Trump's tariffs as a national sales tax and never explained that what she meant was, in effect, that a tariff would look like a sales tax to Americans.
So that was just a lie because she didn't explain what the context was.
She distorted unemployment figures.
What else did she do?
It's quite a long list here.
She said that there are no troops in combat zones under the Biden administration.
She said that five police officers died on January 6th.
The way she said it was like they died during the event.
That was not the case.
I think there was one point where she had three hoaxes in one answer.
In one answer she used the find people hoax, the stand back and stand by thing, as if it was a militia she was talking about, he was talking about, but he wasn't, and then the bloodbath one.
Here's the thing.
It seems clear to me two things.
Number one, Kamala Harris knew in advance that she would not be fact-checked.
Don't you think that's true?
Do you think she would have brought out the fine people hoax if she thought ABC was going to fact-check her?
I don't think so.
Somehow she knew she wouldn't be fact-checked and he would.
Right?
Now, I saw Mike Cernovich and some other people suggest that she had gotten the questions in advance because when the initial question came out, she had great answers, but when there was any kind of follow-up, she struggled a little bit.
Now, I'm not sure you could tell from that alone.
You know, because confirmation bias would slip in there a little bit and you'd imagine you're seeing it even if it's not there.
But here's why I think she saw the questions.
And many of you knew this, that the head of the network, the CEO, Who owns Disney that owns ABC?
Is her best friend for 30 years?
Do you think that somebody's best friend of 30 years, I don't know if they're best friends, but they're good friends for 30 years, do you think they're a good friend of 30 years and wouldn't tell her the questions?
See, in the world I live in, it's just guaranteed.
If your best friend has access to the questions, and she would, Because she could just say, hey, before you ask the questions, you need to run them by management.
And then she just sees them.
And then she goes to Kamala Harris, she goes, hey, here's what the questions are.
Now, if you're telling me that her friend didn't do that for her, knowing that there was a zero chance of getting caught, because all she had to do is say, look, I wrote this on a piece of paper, take this to Kamala, make sure nobody else sees it.
It would be the easiest thing in the world not to get caught.
So if it has a high benefit, and you have easy access to it, you're literally the boss.
High benefit, no chance of getting caught, easy access.
Under those conditions, cheating happens almost every time.
So you don't have to I don't think you have to dissect the difference between the prepared answers and the less prepared answers.
There's something to that.
There was one example I think was she somehow knew that there were 9,000 or however many she knew.
She knew the number of Polish people living in Pennsylvania for some reason.
Which sounds like something you wouldn't even know, there's no reason to know it, unless you had it prepared for the question.
So, there were some signals that she prepared for the question, but I'm telling you that the setup largely guarantees she saw the questions.
Largely guarantees.
I mean, in the world I live in, if your friend has a big benefit for you, easy access to it, and almost no way to get caught, and even if you got caught, it would be blown off.
I mean, people would say, yeah, well, yeah, it happens every time in that condition.
All right.
Let's see.
So here's some of the fact checks.
Well, we'll talk about that separately.
Let me give you the overall.
Harris won the handshake.
How many of you noticed that?
So Trump does this thing where he establishes dominance with his handshake.
Like he'll grab your hand and pull you in and, you know, like control you with two hands.
And it's a strategy.
It kind of establishes your alpha dominance because you controlled the handshake.
It wasn't an equal thing.
And if you noticed when they both walked on stage, that Harris closed the distance and shook hands with him behind his own podium.
So Trump, instead of meeting her halfway, she walked to him and then she introduced herself.
Hi, I'm Kamala Harris.
Now that was funny because I think he probably knew who she was without the introduction, but they had never met.
So if you've never met, it's sort of normal to say your name.
It's kind of weird when famous people Say their name.
I've had the same experience.
You know, I'll be in an event where people went there to see me, and I'll still introduce myself.
You know, like, we came here to see you.
We kind of know your name, but it's just an automatic habit.
Anyway, so I think that she immediately and strategically, I don't think any of that was an accident, she took the handshake initiative.
Number two, I thought they both looked great.
Did anybody have that impression?
So, compliments to hair and makeup.
Compliments to whoever dressed them.
Compliments to whoever did the lighting.
But I thought both of them looked great.
Like, as good as they've ever looked.
Trump looked great.
I mean, he looked young and energetic.
His hair was on point.
His makeup was good.
Harris looked better than I've ever seen her recently.
Um, so real good job on the support staff, making both of them look good.
Um, the, the bottom line is that Harris beat expectations because she was well prepared, probably knew the questions and she simply did her, her standard answers.
Now, Trump said he had his best ever debate and he's not wrong about that.
I actually felt that if it had been a normal debate against a normal person, you know, under fair circumstances, I could imagine that you would rank him the winner.
But it wasn't that.
You know, the moderators were clearly on one side.
We'll talk about that.
And he missed a lot of layups, meaning that she gave him so many openings to end the race, he didn't take any of them.
Why?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Was he not skilled enough?
Was he not prepared?
I mean, when the fine people hoax came up, you know, he dismissed it as a debunked hoax.
Do you know what else he could have done?
He could have turned to the moderators and say, are we, are you guys debunking hoaxes today?
Or are you just going to leave this one for me?
Just imagine that.
If he just turned to the hosts and said, are you jumping in with any fact-checking here?
Or do you want me to do this one?
Then he should have said, if it was up to him.
So first of all, he should have called out the hosts for not being equal fact-checking.
If not then, then at least when it became an obvious pattern, he should have hit it.
So that was a missed opportunity.
He should have said, If you're watching at home, for some of you, this will be the first time you ever heard that the Find People hoax was a hoax.
You're not going to believe me when I tell you it's a hoax, but do this.
Go to Snopes and just look up the Find People hoax.
You'll find out that Biden ran his entire campaign on something that you could have told was fake simply by listening to the whole video instead of the edited one.
Just think about who I'm running against.
They ran that entire hoax, and the media, and you see that your ABC hosts are sitting here silently.
They let that go.
It's the most dangerous hoax in American history, and they just sat there and let you say that right in front of the public.
I'm going to end that tonight.
Every one of you, you've got a computer at home, go to Snopes.
It's a left-leaning fact checker.
So you can know that if they fact check this one, it wasn't because, you know, they were being biased and he could have ended the entire, the entire election would be over.
She just handed him the kill shot and he didn't take it.
And I felt like he, that happened several times.
He, he is terrible at explaining his way and of hoaxes.
I don't know why, because he's so good at everything else.
It's kind of a mystery to me.
But it's obvious now that the campaign knows that she's not going to get fact-checked by the media, and they know that they can overload him with hoaxes, and it will just make him frustrated and keep him off point.
So she offloaded, she just went heavy with the hoaxes, and it worked.
It worked.
So, once again, yet another signal that her advisors are really, really good.
I hate to say it, but they're really good.
I keep telling you, it's not an accident that things look different for her kind of suddenly.
It's her advisors.
They're really good.
And if they told her, look, just keep dumping those hoaxes on them, because you'll just bury them in hoaxes.
Nobody's going to fact check it anyway.
That was the right advice.
I mean, if you're unethical and a weasel.
But it's politics, so it's normal.
Some people said, Scott, you idiot.
It wasn't a tie.
I kind of called it a tie, meaning that it didn't change many votes.
But people said to me, but Scott, she said the thing that was wrong and then Trump correctly corrected it.
So he gets the point.
And then there were lots of points he made.
So if he had it all up, he won.
That's not how anything works.
It wasn't a debate.
In the sense that there was any back and forth of any consequence.
And it doesn't matter who won on points.
It matters how you felt.
That's it.
So I didn't even score it on points.
It's not like a boxing match where you could win within a knockout.
No, none of those points made any difference to anybody at all.
So if she avoided a question, some people said, ah, but the public's going to notice.
That she avoided the very first question, are people better off or worse off?
She didn't even answer.
To which I say, nobody's going to care that she avoided a question.
It's the most ordinary thing that politicians do.
And I'll go further and say that when I first got into the public sphere, when Dilbert took off, my publisher decided that I needed some media training.
Here's the entire media training.
If you don't like the question that they ask, answer the question you feel like answering.
The one that you want to answer that's good for you.
That's it.
And then run out the clock.
Because if somebody's asking you questions, it's usually on video, they usually have a time limit.
So if you don't like their question, just ignore it and answer some adjacent question that's the one you wish they had asked.
And she did.
So if you're saying to me, but Scott, she's showing her weakness by avoiding the question.
Nope.
That's not what she showed.
She showed she's well-trained.
Avoiding that first question was exactly the way she was trained.
That is media training.
It's exactly what it looks like.
So was she prepared?
Yeah.
Yeah.
She was prepared.
Um, some say her, you know, her smugness will be a turnoff.
Others say, I saw Fisher King note this on X, that, uh, her, her facial expressions where she was sort of, sort of mocking Trump for his various points is, you know, looking like, what's wrong with you?
Oh, oh, are you, are you being crazy now?
You know, so she really worked the facial stuff.
And to me, it was very off putting.
But was I going to vote for her?
No.
Didn't matter what I thought.
What do the single women and the people in her base think about all the faces she was making at Trump?
Probably loved it, because they were feeling the same feeling that her face was exhibiting, and it probably worked.
So you can't judge it by what you think of it.
You have to judge the debate by what the people she's talking to likely responded to.
And I think they probably responded to her face if they liked her.
There were no great memorable lines that change anything, but there were a couple of funny ones.
When Harris interrupted Trump, he did the, I'm talking now, basically a call back to her doing that in the debate.
And it worked.
So he took away from her the ability to do that to him.
So he was prepared for that.
And he handled it by doing it first.
Now, if he had prepared to do it first, you know, if she ever interrupted me, he would do it first, you know, give her that line and then joke about it.
That would be good preparing.
That would have been smart.
If he wasn't prepared for it, And he did it spontaneously.
It was even smarter.
So that was just a good play, whether he was expecting it or not.
And then she had a good line saying that Trump was fired by 81 million people.
I mean, that's a good one for her base.
Oh, you know, you're the guy who fires people.
Well, you got fired by 81 million people.
It's a pretty good line, politically.
It kind of sticks in your mind a little bit.
Probably will get used again.
She did bait Trump, and oh, my God, when I saw it happening, I said, don't go into Trump.
When she said that Trump's rally crowds were bored and would leave early.
As soon as she said that, I said, don't take the bait.
Don't, don't.
And he took the bait.
And I could feel my heart just sink because it put her in charge.
She was basically directing the terms of the conversation and he was letting her.
Because he can't handle the... apparently he just can't handle that kind of specific attack on his ego, I guess.
So, that was really... the baiting of the lesser important things to get him to defend them, that was just brilliant.
That was brilliant.
And it worked.
She didn't cackle very much, so her anti-cackle efforts have been successful.
Um, I would say of Trump, remember, you know, he said it was his best debate ever.
And I'm actually agreeing even while I'm criticizing him because I think her debate.
I hate to say it, but it's one of the best you're ever going to see, because she was so well prepared.
And I think this has more to do with her advisors than it does with her.
Honestly, I don't think I'd give her all the credit.
You have to say her advisors were just right on point.
I don't think on her own, she would have come up with that rally crowd thing.
But somebody who really knows the psychology of things said, you know, if you stick that in there, You're going to take him right off his game.
She did, and it did.
In my opinion.
So here's how I put it.
If I put it in basketball terms, I would say that Trump made every two-point jump shot.
So if he had an open jump shot, he made it cleanly.
So he did everything that's sort of the basics, you know, you want to hit, hit all your points, etc.
He missed all of his layups.
So like, debunking the Find People hoax and ending the entire campaign, that was a layup.
It wasn't hard to end the entire campaign.
You just had to do it.
He didn't do it.
So he missed several layups, and I don't think he even attempted a three-point shot.
So he didn't get any kill shots like only Rosie O'Donnell.
I mean, the only Rosie O'Donnell remark was, you know, for the ages.
You didn't have any one of those.
So nothing special, but also nothing that's a big mistake.
You know, falling for these little baiting things.
You didn't spend a lot of time on it, so it wasn't the biggest mistake in the world, but yeah, nothing special.
Let's see what else.
I would say that the viewing public is not influenced by how many lies either of them told, or how many hoaxes.
That's why Kamala can just throw in the hoaxes one after another.
I don't think anybody cares that anybody avoided a question.
And here's a take that I thought was kind of brilliant.
I saw a few people have this opinion.
That it might only matter what the Pennsylvania's thought about it.
And Pennsylvania cares about fracking.
So if Trump, if Trump made a dent in the Pennsylvania vote just by the fracking conversation and nothing else, he won the election.
She may have won the debate, but if he did only that one thing, made Pennsylvania Little bit.
Just a little bit more pro-Trump.
That's the whole game.
So we do have this weird situation where I think she won the debate.
He may have won the election.
Which would be fascinating.
And that would be compounded on top of her not picking Shapiro as her vice president.
So you can almost see the after story forming.
If Trump wins, it's going to be the fracking, and it's going to be not picking Shapiro as her VP.
So we'll see.
The most annoying thing that she did is possibly my fault.
I have to take some responsibility for this.
I don't know for sure, so I might be aggressively connecting dots that shouldn't be connected.
Have I told you the story About helping Al Gore and Bill Clinton during their campaign against Bob Dole, in which I did give some advice to the campaign.
And my advice was that Bob Dole kept saying he was going to take the country back to the greatest generation, you know, better ethical, moral, patriotic, spiritual ways.
And I said, just say he's taking you to the past and you're taking them to the future.
And that's the end of the race.
And so they did.
And that was the end of the race.
If you remember, Clinton's slogan turned into, uh, we're a bridge to the future and he's a bridge to the past.
As soon as you can successfully frame your opponent as taking you to the past, nobody cares how good the past was.
It's the past.
There's just nobody interested in the past.
They're interested in what are you going to do tomorrow.
But if you can get away with that framing, that is really, really powerful.
And so it makes me wonder if any of the people advising Harris remembered that from the Clinton days.
Because if they did, that was my fault.
So I might have had some indirect role in that.
They wouldn't know it, by the way.
They wouldn't be aware that I had any role in it.
They might have just seen the VP and the President Clinton say it and say, yeah, that sounds good.
They would not necessarily know that came from me.
All right.
The Harris campaign, very cleverly, again, frickin' brilliant, said right after the campaign that they won it, and they're looking forward to having another debate.
Now, Trump tried to frame that as, well, why would they need another debate if they won this one?
But they're framing it as, we beat you so badly, we'd love to do it again.
So, I don't know if they'll do it again.
I don't think it's a good idea.
I think if Trump took a second bite, the odds of him correcting his, you know, the holes that he had in the first one are pretty high, because his holes are really obvious.
You know, he just didn't go well against the hoaxes.
He could practice that and nail it next time.
I think that the Harris campaign will just find a reason to say no.
So Trump will say, hey, let's do it on Fox News.
They'll say, no, we don't like Fox News, and then that'll be it.
But they'll be able to say they wanted a debate, and then still not have one.
So they win twice.
Once by saying they want it, and another time by not having it.
Every time I see Harris's campaign work, It's always good!
I hate to say it.
I really, really hate it.
But they're very smart.
Consistently.
If it were one thing, I'd be like, well, he got lucky.
Blind squirrel finds a nut.
But it's kind of every day now.
And when you look at the fact that they hid her from the public for so long, and then when she finally comes out and everybody's expecting the worst, she does her best performance.
That borders on genius campaign work.
Maybe it's just genius.
It's brilliant.
It's evil.
It's unethical.
It's immoral.
But it's brilliant.
All right.
I think this happens every debate.
Every debate, there's a rumor that the Democrat was wearing an earpiece.
So there's some allegations that Harris's earrings were a special kind of earring that does exist, apparently, that doubles as an earplug.
Not an earplug.
What do you call it?
A headphone?
Except it sits outside your ear.
But my understanding is, although it's outside the ear, like an earring, it's got a little speaker thing that's pointing toward your ear, so only you can hear it.
Now, there's a picture of that device that has that quality that it's like a headphone thing.
Yeah, and I'm seeing, oh, here it goes.
And here's a picture, here's a picture of it.
You see that?
So that's a picture that is exactly that earbud headphone thing.
So if this is a real picture, she was definitely wearing an earbud.
Is it a real picture?
No, of course not.
No, that's not a real picture.
If you see the real picture, she's not wearing those.
That's a Photoshop picture.
Very Photoshopped.
Now, I was lucky enough that I saw the real one, like, half a minute before I saw the Photoshopped one.
So, you know, you can see what happened.
Yeah, it was a Photoshop.
I guarantee it.
It was a Photoshop.
All right.
But there's always that hoax.
Every time there's one of these debates, there's always the, somebody was giving her the answers hoax.
Let's talk about the fake fact checking by the hosts, David Muir.
Uh, so he challenged, uh, Trump said, uh, he said, you said you lost by a whisker, but all the other times you said you had been cheated.
So did you change your opinion and believe that you did really lose?
And Trump said that, uh, you know, he was being sarcastic when he said he lost by a whisker.
Now that's what I thought.
Well, I said it actually in advance.
I said that when he said I lost by a whisker.
That he was sort of, you know, joking and the implication was that they cheated.
So he said, I lost by a whisker, just sort of being jokingly sarcastic about it.
Now that's exactly how I interpreted it.
But I'm also aware that if, if you, if you're coming from a different perspective, you wouldn't necessarily interpret it that way.
So David Muir decides to fact check him by saying, you know, we checked all the video and it didn't sound sarcastic to me.
To which I said, wait a minute, one person's opinion of what somebody is thinking is not a fact check.
What kind of fact check is that?
My opinion of what you were thinking when the person just told you what they were thinking?
No, you don't fact check somebody's internal thoughts in a debate for president.
You're going to let the fine people hoax just go by.
But you could have fact-checked him on what you believe he was secretly thinking.
Oh my God!
That's just so, you know, on-the-nose corrupt.
It's incredible.
Let me give you a little I don't know why I need to tell you this, but somehow it seems relevant.
I once spent the whole day with David Muir.
So a number of years ago, he was still with ABC and he came out to where I lived.
And hung out with me all day to do a story on my voice.
Because, you know, I had that voice problem for a while.
And ABC did a nice special on, you know, this condition and helped me promote that there's a cure for it now.
So, ABC News and David Muir specifically did a very Useful Valuable thing for a number of people because to the to the extent that people found out there was a cure for it They probably went out and got it some of them anyway, so he's you know If I can judge him from that one experience very nice guy Enjoy talking to him, totally.
And he did a valuable thing for people, and it really mattered.
I mean, it really, really mattered if they got fixed.
So there's that.
Now, there's one other interesting thing that happened that day.
So I was married to my first wife then, and we went to dinner to continue the conversation.
And as we're driving to dinner, my ex-wife, first ex-wife, was telling a story about somebody she knows.
And it was a longish story about somebody he doesn't know and just somebody that the two of us know.
We get to this restaurant and we get seated.
And we're sitting right next to the guy we've been talking about in the car for the last hour in the restaurant.
And we go, you know, David, do you know that guy we were just talking about for an hour?
That's him right there.
And he was like, what?
Yeah.
You know, the guy we just talked about for an hour, we just sat down next to him.
He's right there.
We go, Hey, how are you doing?
That really happened.
To this day, it's one of the freakiest things that's ever happened to me.
So when I see David Muir, I think about that weird simulation experience.
Anyway, that's enough about me.
Let's talk about I know I'm going to get hammered for this, but I'm going to do it anyway, because I just have this need.
So there's a question about babies being born alive, and then Trump's claim that the doctor can basically kill them or let them die after they're born alive.
Now, the Democrats, and also David Muir, I believe, fact-checked that and said, No, that doesn't happen.
There's no example.
It just doesn't happen.
That's just not true.
So, I have a take on what's true, and it's real interesting because it's almost like both sides are using the same language, but they're somehow ignoring part of it or something.
Here's what I believe to be true.
That if there's an abortion, and it would normally, if the baby is old enough to have some viability, there's probably some medical reason for the mother.
Not necessarily, but there might be.
But that when the baby is born, the examples given of where they were in fact alive after they were aborted, they were not viable.
Meaning that they might only have a few hours to have a heartbeat, and there's nothing you can do.
Now, is that how you understand it?
Or do you understand that some of those babies could have a long healthy life if they just put their effort into it?
My understanding is that although in the medical community people can be wrong, you know, you probably are aware that one of the biggest causes of death are medical mistakes.
You all know that?
Did you know that just in general, forget about abortion, in general, one of the biggest ways that people die is that the hospital, the doctor made a mistake.
Very, very common.
Now, if you assume that medical help is still better than no medical help, then although you can hate the fact that medicine kills a lot of people, you can still say, okay, we're still in favor of healthcare.
If it's the same in this abortion situation, that there might actually be a case where a baby was born alive and they let it die that could have been saved and could have had a full life of some kind, then that might actually be true.
But it wouldn't be unusual if you look at the larger field of medicine.
They make mistakes because they're humans.
But It's hard for me to imagine a situation, and by the way, if you're thinking I'm going to be pro or anti-abortion, I'm not.
I still think women need to figure it out.
Just tell me what you decided.
I'm just describing it so you can understand it better, I hope.
What I think happens is that you probably have at least one medical professional, at least the doctor, Probably nurses and some other people involved if, you know, if it's a normal procedure.
And you may have at least the mother being involved in the decision.
Now you've got the hardest decision in the frickin' world that you aborted, but there's something there with a heartbeat.
Whose job is it to figure out what to do now?
It's yours.
You the mother, you the doctor, and maybe a few other people involved.
It's the hardest decision in the world.
Do you try your best and maybe all you've done is taking something that didn't need to suffer?
And given it a week more of suffering.
Just pure suffering.
Or do you say, let me give it some, um, whatever this is, whatever you want to call it.
You could call it a baby or not, but I'm going to give us some painkillers.
But since I don't think it can survive under any condition, I'm going to make sure the painkillers are lethal.
Nobody would check.
And by the way, is that unethical?
It's the way we handle seniors.
When a person is 100 years old and near death and can't make their own decisions anyway, the doctor and the family member who's closest, they decide.
Do we give you a basically lethal dose of painkiller and hurry things up?
Because there's nothing that can be gained.
There's no upside.
Now, could they ever be wrong?
Yes.
They could be wrong, and they could end up basically killing somebody who could have had a whole life.
Just like every other part of medicine, they can be wrong.
But here's my take.
If the mother and the doctor, in their best judgment, make a decision at that moment, I don't want anybody else in the world involved.
Because it's the hardest decision in the world, and they're the closest to it.
Even if they get it wrong, I still back them.
It's the hardest decision in the world.
We should just stay the fuck out of that.
Because they're not going to be happy about it.
Just imagine your mental state if you had to be in that unusual situation where there's a heartbeat after the abortion.
If you're the doctor, how do you deal with that?
I mean, that's got to be the most disturbing thing you can even imagine.
So I say under those situations, it's life and death, literally.
And if the mother and the doctor, in their best judgment, have decided that really easing the pain of whatever this creature is, is their best play, I think second-guessing them is immoral.
It just feels immoral, because of how difficult that decision is.
And I'm going to assume that people make mistakes.
It's still immoral to second-guess them, I think.
Now, this is not an opinion on abortion, because it's just such a special case.
It's not really about abortion in general.
So, I think the truth is that Neither side is describing it exactly accurately.
And if they did, they wouldn't have a difference.
If they explained it accurately, I think they'd be on the same side, basically.
That's my take.
And so here's the easier way to understand that.
I believe that when these babies are aborted, yet they have a little bit of a heartbeat or life left in them, that the doctor probably sees it as hospice.
The way you would treat a hospice is not the way you treat somebody else.
Look at the video.
Somebody's saying that the photograph of her wearing normal earrings is not equal to the video.
Okay, I'm not buying this.
There's nothing you can do to convince me she was wearing an earpiece.
There's nothing.
So you just give up on that one.
All right.
Then there was a question about, Trump went about eating the animals, the Haitians, or the immigrants eating the animals, and of course they got fact-checked in the way that the fake news fact-checks things.
How does the fake news fact-check something that's true but they want to say it's not true?
They use the same technique.
They say we asked somebody and they said they didn't have any information about it.
So David Muir fact checks them by saying, you know, we talked to the town and the town says they don't have any information about people eating animals.
Well, did you talk to any of the townspeople?
Because apparently there are quite a few reports.
It doesn't mean it's true.
I don't know if it's true, but there are reports.
So, uh, and then Harris did the whole, oh, oh, you, you think, oh, you're being so ridiculous now.
You're saying they're eating animals.
Oh, and she pulled it off.
Unfortunately, she won that round.
Um, so anyway, uh, I think everybody's going to blame ABC for being biased.
They clearly were.
Um, I don't think that's why Trump did not, um, did not win because I don't think he won.
Um, I think Trump needed to do a better job of dealing with the hoaxes.
And that's the whole, to me, that's the whole story.
He wasn't prepared for the specific, most obvious attack.
And if you don't prepare for the specific, most obvious attack, What are you doing?
So, I hate to say it, but one of them did their homework better, was prepared better, and it was Harris.
Now, it's not going to make me vote for her, because she's shown one look.
It does, however, make me feel better about one thing.
That in 2018, when I was predicting that Harris would be the biggest problem for Trump, It was because I'd seen her act this way, you know, when she was doing some Senate hearings thing.
She was like this, which also suggests, perhaps, yeah, I'm seeing a video of her not wearing earrings that are that kind.
Anyway, so a couple of closing things.
The Venezuelan gang that trend to Aragua, Gang, they took over a hotel in El Paso, turned it into a violent drug den, according to the Gateway Pundit.
So, took over a hotel.
I don't know how many of the other stories about Venezuelan gangs taking over buildings are true, but it certainly has my attention.
Some of them might be exaggerations, I don't know.
Anyway, if you didn't catch it on the All In Pod event, apparently Elon Musk said that America would do great if they can just get rid of all the regulations so we can operate.
And he says, quote, I think the reality is that if we get rid of nonsense regulations and shift people from the government to the private sector, we will have immense prosperity.
And then he said, I think we'll have a golden age in this country and it'll be fantastic.
So maybe the golden age is still on, but it's going to require Trump.
Now, I saw the Kennedy and Shanahan weighing in on the debate.
I don't think either of them should be happy about that debate, because I don't think he brought up the chronic illness thing, for example.
So I think they were a little underserved by that debate.
And Just The News is reporting that a bipartisan group of attorney generals Is urging that social media have a warning label on it, a health warning label on social media.
Now it's a bipartisan group.
What do you think of that?
I think it's pretty good.
I think there should be warning labels on social media.
But I think we should take it further.
I think there should be warning labels on the nightly news on the networks.
And it should say, this news is not intended to be reality.
Sometimes it's fiction.
If you were to believe it as reality, it could cause a mental illness, such as you might think the world is going to burn up from global warming.
So, it's unhealthy to watch these programs unless you understand that it's fiction.
Now, is that going too far?
No, it's not.
I mean, it's not going to happen.
But that would be completely honest and appropriate to say that it's not necessarily true what you see on the news.
Because if you're a kid, how old were you when you realized the news wasn't true?
Probably not very young, right?
I'll bet in your 20s, you thought the news was real.
Maybe for most of your 30s.
Somewhere around the 40s, you start noticing patterns, and you think, wait a minute, I'm not so sure this news is even real.
And then if you're me, you know, when you get older, you're more likely to have been a subject of a news report.
And if you've ever seen yourself in a news report or you're an expert on that category, then you know it's really fake.
And that's when you're like, oh, what if the rest of it is fake too?
And then you find out it is, at least the political stuff, pretty much all fake.
So let's put those warning labels on there, people.
Warning labels.
All right, that's all I've got for today.
My announcement for tomorrow is I don't expect to have a show tomorrow.
I just have some personal business to take care of that I couldn't schedule any other way.
So, you'll miss me tomorrow, live anyway, probably.
If I come on, it'll be for five minutes or something, just to say hi.
But don't worry, it's nothing important.
Nothing of consequence.
I just have something scheduled.
I'll tell you about it later.
And that's all for today.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately, but thanks for joining on X and Rumble and YouTube.
