God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Corrupt Racist MSNBC, Laura Loomer, Dick Cheney, President Trump, Trump TikTok Meme, Prosthetic Mechanical Hand, US Government Approved Fentanyl Deaths, Democrat Mega Donors, Presidential Debate, Independent Voter Key Issues, Taylor Swift Endorsement, NATO Messaging, Mike Benz, Complicated Topics, Daniel Dale Fact-Checking, Election Security Legislation, Voting Machine Vulnerabilities, Montgomery TX Voting Machine Upgrade, PA Mail-In QR Code, Scott Presler, Lara Trump, Linda Ronstadt, 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
Well, we don't know how many people are going to join us in this new, earlier, shorter version of the show, but 11 of us so far.
You're the ones I call the high achievers.
Get in here, will you?
Let's figure out how this day is going to go.
We're going to have some fun.
All right, I've got a little scheduling overlap today, so I'm doing the show earlier and shorter.
But I didn't want to miss out.
I didn't want you to wake up and say, where's my simultaneous sip, which for many of you might be recorded.
But I hope you figure it out and Come here and make it all work, because I take some responsibility for having developed a simultaneous SIP habit in you.
I feel like I have to deliver every single day.
So here I am.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, well, all you need for that is A cup or mug or glass, a tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh.
When I say I needed that, oh my goodness.
Thank you.
Bye.
Well, I've got the swaddling blanket of comfort on me today, because it seems to me that the country is in a weird mental state, and what you need is, well, me.
You need me.
You need me to snap you out of this bad mental state.
It looks like there's doom coming from every direction, and the elections look iffy.
Yeah, we'll fix all that.
I've got an idea to fix all of it.
Actually, really.
So although today's story will be short, you're about to see the best idea ever.
Just wait for that.
Well, J.P.
Morgan announced that they're going to put a limit on junior investment bankers' hours.
So if you're a junior investment banker at J.P.
Morgan, they will no longer let you work more than 80 hours per week, no matter how much you want to.
What?
Who works 80 hours a week, unless it's their own company?
Well, you can make millions as an investment banker if you do everything right, but it looks like there's a lot of competition for those jobs.
And so the question I ask myself is, if I can see a time sheet for that entire 80 hours, How much of that time are you like just really kicking out the work?
Because, you know, recently I got some attention for, uh, having a good work ethic.
Cause I like to show up every day and I'm not big on vacations.
I like to work every day, but even I don't work 80 hours a week, 80 hours a week.
Do you have any idea what that would do to you?
I mean, there's a report of somebody dying from overwork.
In Japan you hear about it all the time, but there's no good reason to make somebody work 80 hours a week.
There's no way that that extra 10 hours or 20 hours at the end is your good time.
You would have to have all kinds of breaks and I don't know, you're going to have to have an affair with your coworkers to make that all work.
So that's a pretty broken system.
Meanwhile, MSNBC has decided to spend some considerable time telling its audience what a terrible person Laura Loomer is.
Now, Laura Loomer is a, if you've not heard that name, she's associated with the right and she is, I guess I would say an independent researcher, journalist, and she's broken some good scoops.
So she's, she's got some serious credibility in terms of scoops.
But, she's also controversial, and it's not my job to defend anything that anybody else said.
So, you should hear this first.
I'm not defending anything that anybody else said.
But, do I need to?
Why would that be my job?
No, I'm on a pirate ship.
I signed up to be on a pirate ship.
If they let another pirate on the pirate ship, you know what I'm not gonna do?
I'd like to examine your past statements for acceptability.
No.
I'm going to take whatever weapons that pirate has, because we need to get a mission done, and I don't give a rat's ass what anybody ever said to offend you.
Do I agree with everything ever said by RFK Jr.?
I doubt it.
I mean, I can't think of a specific example, but I doubt it.
Do I think he shouldn't be on the pirate ship?
No, I think he should be very much on the pirate ship.
I want to be on the same ship as him.
So, Laura Loomer is very effective and they wouldn't be talking about her unless she had made a big dent in the universe.
And if you're a pirate who can make a big dent in the universe and you want Trump to win, because I think it's vital to the survival of the United States, and that's the kind of pirate I don't mind associating with.
But it's kind of funny because We've entered this weird political mode where we're trying to take people down by who they associate with.
And then it's kind of a contest.
It's like MSNBC says, all right, all right.
We're going to say that Trump is associating with this, this horrible racist, they would say, Laura Loomer.
And of course that's weird because MSNBC is the most famously corrupt and racist organization in the public knowledge.
That would be an interesting question.
Could you think of a more racist organization, like just overtly racist, than MSNBC?
Actually, I can't think of one.
I actually can't think of any.
That's weird.
It seems like there'd be some competition for the top spot, but there really isn't.
Yeah, MSNBC is so blatantly racist, That they're going after Laura Loomer.
Now again, I'm not defending Laura Loomer.
I know, you're going to say the ADL.
I thought of the ADL, but they're so special purpose that they seem like a different kind of animal.
Yeah, the ADL is not my favorite organization.
They defamed me in public because racist.
Yeah, you're right.
The ADL might be competitive.
Because they went after me because they're racists.
I assume.
I mean, they made a racist claim about me.
Anyway, so here's what's happening.
So the Democrats are like, alright, you've got Laura Loomer.
Ha ha ha.
And then we say, oh yeah?
You've got Dick Cheney.
Ha ha ha.
And then the Democrats say, well, you've got that terrible person Scott Adams.
And then I say, oh yeah?
You've got Adam Kinzinger.
And then they say, we've got that terrible person, fill in the blank.
I feel like there are enough terrible people, according to other people, that we could do this all day long.
All right, now here's the funniest story of the day.
As I told you, every meme about Trump is funny.
And I don't know how it spans all generations.
Whatever it is that's funny about Trump as a personality or a character or a meme or whatever, it works for every generation.
And on TikTok today, this is real, by the way, this sounds like I'm making it up, but it's real.
There's a viral trend going on.
Where the TikTokers, young ones, like older teens, are dancing to Trump saying at the debate, they're eating our dogs, they're eating our pets.
And they've turned that into a auto-tune sort of a line that they dance with.
So you can hear Trump's voice, they're eating our, they're eating our dogs, they're eating our pets.
And you see the people dancing, they're eating our dogs, they're eating our pets.
And it's freaking hilarious.
And where does that come from?
Like where in the world of all the things that a TikToker could dance to, they pick that and it works.
It works.
It's like, it's hilarious.
And I watched several of them this morning and I thought, Oh, I'm glad I saw them.
Those are pretty good.
So that never gets old.
Anyway, are they eating our pets?
Well, let me tell you how the news determines whether something's true.
Would you like to see an example of me doing some investigative journalism?
Watch.
There's nothing behind that closed door.
How do I know?
Well, I don't see anything behind it.
Well, but that's because the door is closed.
So?
Well, how could you see something behind the door if the door is closed?
Well, there's no reports whatsoever of anything from behind the door.
I know, but you wouldn't necessarily hear about it unless you talk to the right people, as in opening the door.
But there's no indication there's anything behind the door.
I know, but you can't know what's behind the door unless you open the door and look.
I don't know, you sound like a conspiracy theorist, because you're always thinking there's something behind the door.
When we've proven there's not.
No, you didn't prove it.
You didn't prove it.
You simply stated it without checking.
That's the opposite of proving.
Proving would be doing something actively.
Not doing something is called not proving it.
So, yeah, we know that no dogs or cats are being eaten because some of the news people asked the government.
They asked the government.
Now, I would like to put out at least an alternative hypothesis to the eating of the pets.
There may have been somebody who tried to kill a goose at the park.
I think that's likely.
I mean, if you needed food and you're used to killing ducks and geese where you grew up and you saw geese and it looked like it was free, I could see that happening.
The cats and dogs part, especially the cats, seems like it's at least a little bit likely to be a mass hysteria.
I know, I know.
I'm a broken record.
Mass hysteria is everywhere.
So it could be that I'm just filtered that way.
So I see mass hysteria is because my brain is kind of tuned to look for them.
That's how I knew that there would be no information about a secret sonic weapon at the embassies, because that was really a classic mass hysteria.
Even with all the evidence that there was something real happening, And maybe there's something real happening, but the odds of it being a secret sonic weapon were really not very high.
Now, could I be wrong and someday they'll find a secret sonic weapon?
Sure!
Because unlike the news, I do not declare that something doesn't exist simply because I haven't seen it.
What I did predict is that they wouldn't find it.
It would never be confirmed.
So think of it as a prediction, not a fact.
So far, the prediction is holding.
Now, let me ask you this.
If you went to my neighborhood, my current neighborhood, and you surveyed all of the people here, and you said, do you have an outdoor cat?
Some of them would say yes.
An alarming number of them would say, we used to.
You know what I mean?
We used to have an outdoor cat.
It didn't come home.
We don't know why, but there are mountain lions and all kinds of dangerous things out there.
And, uh, outdoor cats disappear a lot.
And sometimes they'll be gone for days and come back.
Now, if you had heard that the, uh, the immigrants in your town were eating cats and that your cat disappeared, what would you tell people?
Oh, I think they got my cat.
They may have eaten my cat.
Now that's how a mass hysteria starts.
Because if you have a natural situation where cats disappear pretty much all the time, I mean, outdoor cats, they don't last a long time where I live.
So you, you can imagine that people would start hearing stories of other people losing their cats and presuming it was the immigrants, et cetera.
So here's my best guess of what's really happening.
My best guess is that there are a few, Legitimate claims of an immigrant eating an animal.
Might have been a goose.
Might even be one example or two where somebody ate an animal.
Like a pet.
Maybe.
I wouldn't rule it out because I haven't seen it.
And you're going to say to me, but Scott, we've seen the videos and the phone calls and stuff.
Well, I don't trust anything anymore.
I don't trust any videos.
You don't know where they came from or what you're really looking at or whether it's been edited, whether it's AI.
Can't tell.
But my best guess is that there's a little bit to it, but the rest might be a mass hysteria because then people say, but my cat's missing for two hours.
They got my cat.
And then they complain about the cat and you hear about it, but they don't tell you later the cat came home in two hours.
I think it might be that.
But again, I'm speculating.
So unlike the news, I can't tell you what is a fact without investigating.
In Aurora, the town of Aurora, 10 members of that Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, have been arrested.
Fox News say they're associated with that alleged building takeover, so the question of whether a building has been taken over or not is still a little bit contentious.
I think Aurora is saying no, But there are gang members and they put out a statement saying that the gangs are not taking over Aurora and they got things under control.
Well, maybe.
According to the Express, there's a big breakthrough in prosthetic hands.
So a mechanical hand for somebody who's lost a hand.
They figured out how to make it controlled by the brain.
So they actually showed a video of somebody with a mechanical hand whose brain was controlling the fingers and the grip.
And Daniel, a 34-year-old from Italy, he tested it because he'd lost a hand, and he said, quote, it feels like I'm moving my own hand.
Oh my God!
Really?
Really?
Could that be true?
Because the hard part would make it Would be the part where you feel like it's your own hand.
I don't know how they did that.
I mean, I suppose it could be just a psychological phenomenon as much as a physical one.
I don't know.
But what if this is true?
And by the way, this is a little, this a little too good to be true.
Falls into the category of maybe the demo worked, but you know, maybe it's not so easy to just slap these on people and say, there you go.
You got a new hand.
But, uh, It does raise some questions.
If you can get a prosthetic hand that feels just like you're moving your own hand, makes me wonder what other options are available.
I'm going to sip a coffee while you fill in the joke.
Not even saying the obvious, I'm just letting you fill in your own joke at home.
It's a prosthetic hand that feels just like your own.
But if I were at home and I were writing this joke, I'd say something like this.
I wonder if I can get a female hand that doesn't sound like, feel like it's my own.
All right.
All right, they had to say it.
All right.
What else do we got going on?
Fentanyl is killing 200 people a day in the United States and costing 1.5 trillion per year, according to the times of India.
Their headline is how China is destroying US families with deadly drug fentanyl.
Well, yes, it's true that China seems to be the source of the precursors and they do seem to pretend that they're going to do something about it while clearly not doing anything about it or anything that matters.
And then they send that to the cartels in Mexico and the cartels press it into pills and ship it across the border and kill 200 people a day in the United States.
That would be about one every eight minutes.
One every eight minutes.
So we've been on for 33 minutes, or let's say I've been on for three deaths.
So we could change the way we keep time in the United States by having eight minute increments.
That's one fentanyl overdose death.
So we're, uh, we're three fentanyls into the, uh, three fentanyl ODs into the show.
Hold on, hold on.
Four.
Somebody else just died.
Every eight minutes.
Every eight minutes, somebody's dropping dead from fentanyl.
In another seven minutes, I might remind you.
There's another one.
Now here's my current working hypothesis on this.
There's no way this could have persisted this long the way it is, unless some dark part of the United States government is in on the plot.
And we do have at least the suggestion that the countries that are south of our border, our country wants to control their governments in any way that we can.
Cause that would have a legitimate value to the country.
Making sure it doesn't become, you know, an enemies controlled country, making sure we have access to resources, all that stuff.
So we probably can't control a country that's owned by the cartels unless we're working with the cartels.
So it seems to me that cartels probably control most of the governments and therefore if we work with the cartels and let them earn, They will let us have our little geopolitical control, because the last thing the cartels want is... What's the last thing that the cartels want?
Foreign control.
The last thing the cartels want is China or Russia, for example, to get real active in their country.
So I don't, to me, it seems obvious that the U S government, at least some portion of it, the security state part of it, uh, probably gives the talk to only Republican leaders, not, not everybody.
Cause it'd be too sensitive, but I'm sure if you're the speaker of the house, for example, there's somebody in that dark part of the government says, look, here's the deal.
If we stop the cartels from earning.
We're not going to be able to work with them and we're going to lose control of the entire central South America and the entire country could be in trouble.
So I know it's terrible, terrible, terrible that 200 people a day are dying from fentanyl, but that's the cost of having this control and that's worth it.
I feel like that would explain everything and it would be consistent with all observations.
It's consistent with human behavior, it's consistent with incentives, and it's consistent with history.
It might not be true, but it's the only thing that fits the observations.
Because if you're telling me that the United States really, really wants to fight this fentanyl, and the border's kind of porous, that's no.
Sorry.
If we're not physically attacking the sources of the fentanyl, which we're not going to do, By the way, even if Trump wins, there won't be any bombing of the cartels.
I think there's no chance.
Because I think the people doing the bombing will say no.
They'll say, you can order us, but we're literally not going to go.
Why?
Because there's a dark part of the government that has a lot of control over things who would say, maybe don't.
I do believe that it's possible Trump does not get the talk.
And the reason is, if Trump got the talk, he might tell you.
All right, here's the deal.
I'm just gonna be honest with you.
We can't attack them because we're working with the cartels.
You know, that would be the nightmare scenario for any alleged deep state hypothetical group that's really controlling things behind the curtain.
So, and we've seen, you know, the generals, etc.
Suggest that Trump should not be told the full truth that the intelligence people know.
So it would completely explain a lot of things if nobody told Trump, which is why he's saying things like we'll bomb the cartels, which will never happen.
Um, that would explain everything.
Wouldn't it?
And Mike Ben's, you know, is, uh, let's say compatible.
With the idea that we have some cartel-related dealings with the government south of us.
The details could be wildly different than what I'm speculating, but it does seem like we may have a cozy relationship in some way that's not completely public.
All right.
According to Project Veritas, They're still in operation, even though they lost O'Keefe.
There's this Department of Justice immigration attorney that says they got him undercover, saying that Biden has the authority to end illegal immigration, but he doesn't because Democrat mega donors control the border.
The Gateway Pundit is reporting that.
Does that sound right to you?
Now, just because it's a DOJ immigration attorney, That doesn't necessarily mean he knows what's happening.
I mean, he might be talking as just a citizen who's speculating like the rest of us.
Because if he asked me what's going on, I'd say, well, somebody's controlling that border.
I think the DOJ person legitimately believes that the megadonors are controlling the border.
Bye.
Um, but I don't think he understands that the mega donors are in turn owned by whatever that deep entity is that's running things behind the scenes.
So if this DOJ's belief is that, let's say Soros is the funder who's keeping the border open, does he go further and say, is Soros his own man?
Two Soros is now elder and younger.
Are they their own men?
Or are they influenced by somebody?
Let me give you the most obvious interpretation is they're not independent.
The most obvious, I mean, let's be honest.
Alex Soros is getting married to Huma Abedin.
Does that look organic to you?
To me, that reminds me of the old kings and queens in Europe.
You'd have to marry your German cousin or something to make sure that everybody's not going to sell you out, keep it in the family.
So to me it looks like a keep it in the family move and that the Soros money, it's just what it looks like.
Do I have any proof?
Nah.
No.
I'm saying that if you're trying to understand the world, the world in which he's just donating because he thinks it's good for the immigrants is kind of absurd.
It is good for the immigrants.
But it's absurd to imagine that's why they're doing it.
The why of it is clearly something that we're not being told.
So what would that be?
It all comes back to basically the same answers for everything.
The people behind the curtain.
Alright.
Did you know, Ryan Saavedra, who's reporting on this, That when there's a debate, there's always somebody who hooks it up to a dial test.
Now a dial test is where you get what you hope is a mixed group of people in a room, and they literally have a little dial where they're sitting, each of them.
And as they're watching the debate, if they like what they're hearing, they'll dial it up, and then they'll dial it down if they don't like what they're hearing.
So you can see, overlaid when the candidates are talking, You can see the graphs moving.
Oh, they like what they're saying right now.
Oh.
And then they're divided by independents, Democrats and Republicans.
Now, you would not be surprised that whenever Kamala Harris talks, the Democrat line goes way up to the top.
Whenever Trump talks, it goes way down to the bottom and vice versa.
Republicans up when Trump is talking, Republicans all the way at the bottom when Kamala is talking.
But here's the interesting thing.
Where do you think the independents are?
Your common sense would say somewhere in the middle, right?
Somewhere in the middle.
Well, it didn't work out that way.
Apparently, when Trump was talking about the economy, the independents tracked the Republican line perfectly.
Perfectly.
Basically, you could barely see any difference.
So the independents are economics voters.
What do you think of that?
So that's my statement of the day.
I don't know if it's true.
I'll just put it out there as you can test this against what you see and hear.
I say the independent voters are the ones who are not caring about the eating of cats and dogs, they're not caring about who got accused of saying the thing that made somebody mad, they're not caring so much about the mean tweets, they're not caring so much about anything except the economy.
So maybe we're making a big mistake to call them independents.
Maybe all they are is people who prioritize the economy above other things, and they say, the rest is garbage, Everything else is garbage.
Just give us an economy.
Maybe stay out of some wars.
We'll be good.
So that's interesting.
So that would be a suggestion that Trump would win.
And there is some evidence that in Michigan, for example, the New York Post is reporting that Trump's IVF proposal, where the government would pay for your scientific IVF in vitro fertilization so you could have more babies, and also some kind of support for people with major newborn expenses. So Trump would help having babies.
According to a new poll, that made independents swing pretty hard to his side.
So that would be a second indication that there's another thing that could move independence, which is, can you directly help me have a baby?
Now the number of people who are either using IVF or have a close family member or friend who is using IVF is really high now, isn't it?
Let me ask you in the comments.
Have you used IVF or do you know somebody who's close to you who has?
So just say yes if you've heard it, if you've used it yourself, planning to use it, or does it have a connection to your life at all?
Because I feel like it might.
I feel like a lot of people would have some connection to that topic.
Anyway, you could argue that it's an economic thing, but I think it's more It could be, and I wouldn't take too much away from this one poll and this one state over this one issue.
I'm looking at a lot of yeses coming in, some noes as well.
So if you look at the wall of yeses coming in to people who have some direct or indirect connection to IVF, that tells you it's at least a real topic.
But secondly, here's my interesting question.
You know, the news has to fill up the 24 hours, so we end up getting excited about things that we all know are not important, because we're trying to fill up the thing.
It's about memes, and who shook hands right, and who tripped on the stairs, and all that stuff.
But what is more core to your human existence than reproduction?
Mating.
Mating is the core human value.
So it could be that the person who sort of accidentally stumbles onto that wins in a landslide and nobody knows why.
You know, I've told you a number of times in the past that all of our behaviors, all of them, are an expression of our mating instinct.
Because it's the only thing we're optimized for by evolution.
If you get mating right, then you get to survive as a species.
Everything else doesn't matter so much.
You just got to be able to mate.
Period.
Just make more of you and everything will be fine.
So we, we evolved so that any suggestion of anything that's in the domain of sex or reproduction is just automatically goes to the top of all of our lists.
Even if we don't know it, like even if you're completely oblivious to it, it goes to the top of your list.
So even what I'm doing right now feels to me like an expression of my mating instinct.
I'm literally showing off.
That's what I'm doing, like, right now.
I mean, I do it for other reasons, too.
But the other reasons are my conscious reasons.
My conscious reasons are, oh, I enjoy this topic, and it's easy, and I like dealing with all of you, and, you know, I like the experience, everything.
That's my conscious reasons.
Do you know what my real reason is?
I'm showing off.
I'm displaying.
I'm just showing you my feathers.
And will that increase my mating options?
Well, if I were in the mating mood, it would.
And I don't think the fact that I'm not logically or rationally in a mating mode allows me to turn off the instinct.
I think the instinct remains.
It's just too embedded in my entire being.
So, if Trump comes up with something that's Pro extra babies.
That might be different than the question of abortion.
Because the abortion question gets, I think, you know I'm not a woman so I can't judge this, I feel like that's just too much government control on your body.
And that nobody can be okay with that.
At least half the country, they can't be okay with it.
So the IVF thing could be a surprising home run.
That nobody saw coming, just because it's one of the few things that taps into your most basic instinct, which we act on all day long, but we're not aware of it.
So this, this would be the thing I'm trying to add to the conversation is that your rational brain and IVF don't have any connection.
I mean, there's a rational, you know, we save money, et cetera, that's rational, but that the real draw of it, If it really is moving independents in a big way, like this one unconfirmed poll is saying, this could be important.
It could actually move the election.
Anyway, I wouldn't say that's confirmed yet, but it's sort of suggesting that.
So you know that Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris, and she did it in a very public way right after the debate, so she got maximum attention and she was clever and she was holding her cat and saying that she's a childless cat lady, making fun of J.D.
Vance.
And Mike Benz points us to NATO's YouTube channel.
So I didn't even know NATO had a YouTube channel.
But on the NATO channel, where nobody's hiding it, because again, it's NATO's own channel, this isn't somebody talking about NATO.
This is NATO's own channel, and there's a screenshot that Mike Benn shows that says, quote, goal, identify key actors to train and spread desired messaging.
Example.
Encourage opinion leaders to share counter-I.O.
I don't know what I.O.
is, but content.
What is I.O.
in that context of NATO?
Interoperability.
Intelligence opinions.
I don't know, but it sounds something NATO related.
All right, so yeah, the goal is to identify key actors to train and spread desired messaging.
And then there was a photo On that same slide, right next to identify key actors to train and spread desired messaging.
And it was a photo of Taylor Swift.
It's actually Taylor Swift's photo, right next to NATO saying that they're going to try to bring in these personalities to help them with their messaging.
Oh, man.
My take on this is we've entered the don't even need to hide it phase.
It seems like the people running the real country are not trying to hide it.
And the reason is they don't need to.
And there are two reasons they don't need to.
One is the news is so saturated with complicated stories that you and I have too much to worry about.
I can't pick one of them out.
You could easily imagine that this alone The Taylor Swift thing would be the number one headline story in the country.
Oh my God, NATO is weaponizing our celebrities against us.
Can't you imagine that would be a headline story that people would talk about for a month?
Do you know why it's not a headline story and we don't talk about it for a month?
Because the things that become headlines are not organic.
There are a few entities, which have close intelligence connections, which decide what the headlines will be for all the other news.
If the New York Times says, this is our big story, and they hit it a few times, the other news just picks it up.
Washington Post, same thing.
CNN, maybe.
So the point is, if the news can tell you what is news, they control the narrative, And everything is so complicated that you can't do much with it yourself.
You know, you've seen me.
I follow the news maybe because I do it literally every day.
Top 2%?
Is that fair?
Of people who are aware of and capable of following some of the details of the news, would I be in the top 1%?
Only because I do it every day, not because of my magical abilities.
Maybe top 1%.
I don't understand the lawfare stories.
I just get them all confused.
There's too many of them.
And there's so many stories like that, where the details of them are so confusing, that how could anybody understand it?
So as long as whoever controls the media decides which stories to focus on, and then they keep everything else complicated, the public is completely neutered.
Do you know why there's not a big protest about the use of electronic voting machines?
Do you know why there's not protests in the streets?
Well, first of all, we're divided, so maybe one side doesn't mind it so much.
The other is, it's complicated, and they'll just tell you, no, the machines are fine.
Well, but I think they're not.
We had an expert look at them, they're fine.
Everything's too hard to understand.
Take Ukraine.
If your story of Ukraine is Putin's a monster and he's invading countries because he's basically Hitler.
If that was your view, you're Missing out on a lot of details about why the United States may have always wanted to control Ukraine, and NATO's growth, and the security state, and the military-industrial complex, and the Maiden overthrow, and Victoria Nuland.
I mean, to actually understand Ukraine is incredibly complicated.
So, at this point, the bad guys can show their work right in front of us, and we'll just go, ah, I have so many other things to complain about, like the national debt, it just seems more important.
I'll let that one go.
So we let it go.
They can do stuff right in front of us now.
Let me give you another example where they can do it right in front of you.
Daniel Dale, I talked about this, he still has a job.
He ranked the lies and the fact-check for the debate 33 to 1, with Trump lying 33 times and Harris only once.
Now this is an example of where there isn't, in my opinion, the slightest chance that he thought that was real.
Do you disagree?
See, I don't think there's a slightest chance that Daniel Dale is the fact-checker on CNN And doesn't know what the facts are.
But he scored it 33-1.
What's that tell you?
Well, it tells me that something's happening right in front of you.
Right in front of you!
They're doing it right in front of you.
There's no way that was organic.
I don't know where it comes from.
I don't know what forces caused it.
And I'm not saying somebody talk to him.
Because we don't need to do that.
Everybody knows what they need to do.
You don't have to have a conversation about it.
Everybody knows.
So if Daniel Dale still has a job, then they can do anything they want right in front of you.
It doesn't have any consequences at all.
All right, so let's look at how secure our elections are now that we have a few data points.
We know that the Democrats are massively using lawfare against Trump and that the Department of Justice is corrupt in a really deep way.
So could you say that the election is unrigged if one team has been essentially illegitimately lawfaring one candidate out of office for over a year?
I would say that that would be enough to say the election is rigged.
If nothing else happened just by that.
How about Dr. Epstein's work in which he claims that Google is so obviously biased and fixed, it can completely move the election dial one direction or another, and it always moves it toward Democrats.
Do you think that he's got a handle on that?
Well, we don't know, because I have trouble trusting any data or any expert at this point.
But I haven't seen him be debunked.
Haven't seen the debunk.
We did hear that his wife was killed in a suspicious car accident right after people warned him that he might get killed in a suspicious accident.
So, everything about that screams that he's on to something.
But, you know, I'm not the one who can confirm that.
Of course, we have mail-in votes, massive mail-in votes, that suggest that the intention is to cheat.
Because there's not really an argument on the other side.
That, you know, there was no way to vote without mail-in ballots.
So mail-in ballots are a giant signal of an intention to cheat.
What about the use of voting machines, which we've been told are totally secure?
Well, have you heard of the Secure IT Act?
So that's a proposed legislation that would close the election machine vulnerable... What?
The election machine vulnerabilities?
What?
Huh, well now I'm all confused.
So the elections were secure and we know it, but there are so many vulnerabilities in the machines that we need legislation and major work and a huge budget to fix the vulnerabilities that we've been told don't exist or at least have not been exploited.
How would anybody know that it wasn't exploited?
Here's my second question that the news will never answer.
You ready for this?
I'll make you a bet.
The news will never answer this question.
It's a very simple question.
Are all of the vulnerabilities that we're talking about, and it's stuff like shared passwords across states, some password credentials are in the code, so anybody who knew what to look for could have found it.
Some of them you could connect to the Internet when you shouldn't.
Some of them have old software, and they think the new software would fix some bugs in the old software that could have caused a vulnerability.
So there's a whole host of things.
But are those things, the types of things, that you could always catch it if it happened?
There's the key question.
Are these vulnerabilities, which I think there's general agreement there's lots of them, because even if you think the machines are great, you're probably still looking to upgrade them, because software gets upgraded.
So, how do we know?
Do you ever remember the news telling you Well, it is true that there are potential vulnerabilities in the voting machines.
But, even if somebody tried to exploit them, they would get caught.
Now, we don't want to be in that situation, of course.
We'd rather they don't even have anything to exploit.
But if they did exploit them, in any prior year, well, we caught them.
Because we've got a check and a balance.
To which I say, wait a minute.
If you could catch a problem on a voting machine, what are you looking at to catch it?
Does that mean there's some parallel system where you can look at and say, well, your voting machine total didn't match this total?
Because if there's an alternate system that's more reliable and you can use it to test whether the voting machines have the right total, shouldn't you just use that other thing as your source?
If there's some other thing that tells you that the vote was right, use the other thing.
Otherwise, I would be assuming that there's no way to know if the machine got the right answer or not.
So, there's the key question.
If we all know, and I believe this is now established, it's now established, that the voting machines have vulnerabilities that at least potentially could be used by bad people, are they the type That if they existed in past elections, and they got exploited, that we definitely would have caught them.
And what does that look like?
How exactly would you catch them?
I guess it depends on the type of exploit.
But, they're really telling us two opposites.
One, there are lots of things that need to be fixed in terms of current vulnerabilities.
Two, the election was secure and we know it.
Can those both be true?
To me, those seem like opposites.
If these vulnerabilities are the kind that you have to fix, it's sort of suggesting, by nobody saying it, that somebody could have exploited them and gotten away with it.
So this, again, is the news saying, well, we haven't looked behind the closed door, but we can guarantee there's nothing back there.
How?
Well, nobody said there's anything back there.
I know, but you never looked.
Right?
Do you see how obvious this is?
Just think about the fact that you've been watching shows and news and reports about this topic, election integrity, for years.
And today is the first time anybody said the only question that mattered.
If somebody had already used any of these vulnerabilities, Did you definitely catch it because the system catches that kind of stuff?
If you've never heard the answers to that question, let me tell you the answer to that question.
We would have no idea if they were exploited.
That is the answer.
It's the most important question and most important answer.
And the news, on the left and the right, doesn't even ask it.
What's up with that?
Why is this the first time you've even heard the question?
Am I right?
How many of you, your brains are exploding right now when you say, my God, that is the only important question.
Since we've confirmed lots of vulnerabilities in lots of different ways, if somebody had used those vulnerabilities, which we've confirmed to exist, would they definitely have been caught?
How?
It's not much of a vulnerability if you get caught every time you use it.
Now, I suppose there'd be a different kind of vulnerability where it just takes the machine down and, you know, let's say they take the machine down in Trump territory.
So that would be maybe harder to spot.
All right.
So we got that.
So we got, uh, let's see, um, the lawfare against Trump.
We've got Google is rigged.
We've got mail-in voting, which only has one purpose for rigging.
We've got the use of voting machines that have lots of vulnerabilities, but they can't tell us if they've been exploited in the past.
And let's see.
Oh, Montgomery County in Texas just halted their voting machine upgrade, according to John Becker.
Now, why would you halt a software upgrade or an improvement in your election machines?
Because they're there to fix a problem.
I mean, that's the whole point of a software upgrade.
There's either a vulnerability or something.
And they've decided not to.
And I think the reason is that they can't be sure that the upgrade will be secure.
That's a good point.
How much time does it take to check every upgrade to know that it's secure?
And how can you know that a new software is better than the old software?
I'll bet the people who do the upgrade can't tell.
Now let me inject what DrInsensitiveJerk on X says.
Good account to follow, by the way.
DrInsensitiveJerk.
He has lots of good statements, even though his name doesn't sound... He sounds like a troll, but his trolling is always data-related, you know, sort of logical data-related stuff, so he's good.
He says the following, it's funny that anyone believes a voting machine could be secure against the men who designed the hardware or wrote the software.
How do you make it secure against the people who designed it?
That's not a thing.
It's definitely not a thing.
You can't be secure against the people who made it.
So, and how would you know that the people who made it are all on your side?
No way.
You can't possibly know.
And it gets better.
Dr. InsensitiveJerk points out that even reading the code won't help, because hiding exploits and innocent-looking code is literally a sport.
Now when he says it's literally a sport, To hide the real meaning of your code in the code?
I mean, he doesn't really mean that, right?
It's not like it's an actual international contest where experts see if they can be the best to hide some code in some code.
It is.
It's an international contest in which they see who can do the best of hiding malicious or just hiding code in other code.
It's literally a contest.
It's the International Obfuscated C-Code Contest.
Now look at Elon Musk when he took over Twitter.
He had access to the code, did he not?
And when he had access to the code, he was like, oh, I found some problems here.
We corrected them.
And then what happened?
Oh, uh, well, it looks like we didn't know it, but there's some other problems, but we corrected them.
And then what happened?
Okay.
There's some other problems, but we got them.
And then what happened?
Okay.
We found some other problems, but we corrected them.
I think it took them a year just to pour through the code and find all the things that were rigging the results.
Probably a year.
And we're talking about the best engineers who are experts on the system.
Do you think the election people are the best engineers?
You think there are a lot of Elon Musk who said, I could build a rocket to space and make a car company, or I could work 8 to 5 on that election machine upgrade stuff.
No, you can't tell by looking at the code.
All right, let's see.
We've got the total media control working on one side, as we saw in the debate.
We saw the Democrats game the primaries so that the voters weren't Uh, involved really.
We saw the Biden was replaced and we see the immigrants are being shipped in and every attempt to make them voters to rig the system.
So let's, uh, let's go through the full list now.
So is this a election going to be fair?
Well, we see lawfare before, and we'll probably see lawfare after, even if Trump were to win, he would be lawfare at end of office, or at least they would try very hard.
So that's rigged.
Dr. Epstein's Google research, if that's true, that's rigged.
The mail-in votes, there's really no reason for that other than rigging.
The use of voting machines, they're full of vulnerabilities, we know that, and we wouldn't know if they had ever been used before for rigging, and we won't know in the future, because that's how they're designed.
Let's see what else we got.
We've got the media, total media control.
The Democrats rigged the primary, replacing Biden and keeping Kamala Harris from our view.
And then of course the immigrants shipped in.
So that's the bad news.
Let me get to the good news.
The reason I was wearing my swaddling blanket today is because you guys need some good news.
Here's some good news.
Voter enthusiasm is probably all that makes a difference in this race.
So the smart people, the ones I agree with, say that getting your base, more of them to show up, is going to be way more likely to work than getting people to change their minds.
Because there's not so much mind changing going on.
But you might be able to get more people to show up.
Now I don't think you, it's hard to get people to show up in person.
Because it's hard to get somebody's bitch ass off the couch if they don't want to do it.
But it might not be impossible to get people to vote by mail.
So, here's what I'd do.
From this day on, every time there's another Trump meme, I would put a QR code on it.
And the QR code should take you to the Pennsylvania page where you can request a mail-in ballot.
And you should know that's what the QR code is for.
And it should say Pennsylvania mail-in ballot.
I posted the link to the Pennsylvania mail-in ballot because winning Pennsylvania might be the whole game, a lot of people say.
So if you wanted to just drill in on the one lever that might move the whole thing, besides IVF, which could be surprisingly effective, you put a QR code on your memes.
Ideally, you'd want somebody like, you know, Laura Trump or Scott Pressler.
Maybe Scott Pressler should do this, because he's doing signups in Pennsylvania.
Come up with one QR code, so everybody isn't using one, and you just say, put this on your memes, and then everybody will say, what's that QR code for?
But maybe label it, you know, Pennsylvania mail-in ballot, something like that.
Uh, yeah, there's another.
Okay.
So that is my suggestion.
Put a QR code that takes you to the link for Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania mail-in votes, and just put that in the corner of every Trump meme.
And you're gonna get a lot of people getting a mail-in vote.
How hard is it to get somebody to fill out their mail-in vote?
Well, I'll tell you, I think the podcasters who are pro-Trump should stop their programs and say, hey, if you're watching right now from Pennsylvania, let's fill these out together.
So, you know, take a moment.
I'll give you a minute.
Just go find your mail-in ballot.
Just find it right now.
And then fill it out, vote for Trump, drop it in the mail, and then put it in the comments.
Tell me in the comments you just filled it out.
So you need to make it a group social situation.
Uh, and that could work.
Linda Ronstadt had complained about Trump going to, uh, I guess he's going to Tucson and he's going to be in a stadium or a facility that has her name on it.
And she didn't like that cause she doesn't like Trump.
The surprising story about this story is, uh, Linda Ronstadt's still alive.
How many of you thought Linda Ronstadt had already passed?
I did.
And I saw the stories like, how is she talking from beyond the grave?
She's 78, but she's a, uh, she's a cat lady.
Uh, she's, she had adopted kids, but didn't have her own kids, but she does have a cat.
And she said in her message, quote, Trump hates women, immigrants, and people of color.
How do all the batshit crazy women come to that opinion?
Now, I get that Trump has different views on, let's say, abortion than some of the country.
But where in the world do you get that he hates any women immigrants or people of color?
There's not ever been even a scintilla of evidence of that.
He's only ever talked about policies which are unambiguously good for the United States, such as closing the border.
And then he just has a normal protect-every-life opinion, whether they're male or female fetuses.
Somebody who wants to save every single female fetus isn't exactly a woman-hater.
If he said, oh, we only want to abort the female fetuses, then that would be a woman-hater right there.
That'd be a woman-hater.
But no, he wants to save all the babies.
You know, that would be his view.
He wants to do IVF.
Why?
Because he hates women?
No.
Oh my God.
How do you even come up with that?
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this is my show for the day.
Uh, I'm not going to talk to the, uh, to the locals people privately today cause I got to run, but have a great day and I will get back to you maybe tonight in the man cave for the locals people, but I'm not sure yet.
