God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Washington Post, Elon Musk, Graviton Particles, Matt Walsh, Movie: Am I Racist, Polling Credibility, Male Motivations, Country-Saving Pranks, Country-Destroying BSCW, NYT Election Priming, 2024 Fortified Election, Peter Thiel, CNN Brian Stelter, Kamala New Accent, Trump Assassination Attempt, Secret Service Incompetence, Butler PA Unguarded Roof, Mike Benz, Daniel Dale Fact-Checking, Linsey Davis Confession, Laura Loomer, MSNBC, Pet Eating Claims, 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
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sty and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
Hit it today.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh my god, that was good.
Thank you.
Extra, extra good.
Well, the SpaceX Polaris Dawn, had three crew members, has successfully returned to Earth after a five-day historic mission and had the first ever private spacewalk.
And so this is one of those days where we should all celebrate the great mastery of Elon Musk and the risks he's taken and the work he's put in.
To make the world a interplanetary civilization and extend the light of human consciousness throughout the universe.
Or, if you're the Washington Post, this would be a good time to run a hit piece in which you would paint him as uniquely dangerous because of his standing up for free speech, basically.
The Federalist has a story about this.
Now I often tell you, if you only know what happened, that's how you read the news, oh, tell me what happened.
You won't know anything that's true.
You have to know who.
If you don't know the players, all the news is backwards or misleading or makes no sense whatsoever.
So let me explain it.
The Washington Post is not a credible news organization.
I don't know exactly what they are, but they're clearly influenced by Democrats or the CIA or the FBI or some damn deep state thing.
But they're definitely not news.
Yeah, they do a little news too, but they're not really something you should see as a credible news source.
And as I was thinking about this, and it really doesn't matter what they said about Elon Musk, because you know it's just bullshit.
You can just ignore anything in the Washington Post.
But, you know, the Washington Post was the paper that led my cancellation.
And so now that some time has passed, I wondered how people were viewing my cancellation, led again by the Washington Post, which is not a credible news organization.
And so I asked this question, a poll on X, non-scientific of course.
I said, now that time has passed, what is your interpretation of the reason I was canceled in newspapers and books worldwide?
And the choices were, did I get canceled for supporting Trump or for quote, something I said.
79% said I got canceled for supporting Trump and 21% said it was something I said.
The correct answer is for supporting Trump.
Do you know how you know that for sure?
Because I got canceled without anybody even asking me what I meant or if I wanted to apologize.
In the real world, if the only problem had been what I said, then all of these people who had worked with me for 30 years, just think about it, these are people I worked with for decades in, you know, perfectly good relationships.
When you say something that gets everybody upset, what is the normal thing that people do in a normal situation?
They say, OK, we might have to cancel you.
But before we do this, you're really going to need to answer.
We have some questions.
Do you mean it?
Are you joking?
Do you want to take it back?
Is there anything you want to add?
Nobody asked.
Nobody.
In the entire news industry, with one exception.
Guess what the exception was?
It was NewsNation.
Chris Cuomo, who by the way did a great job of basically being balanced, just being fair.
And NewsNation did not run Dilbert.
So it took somebody who wasn't even involved with me in any way to actually ask the question.
Why'd you say it?
What was the point?
Do you have anything you want to apologize for?
Now they may have still canceled me, but the reason you can know that it wasn't what I said is they'd never asked for any clarification.
That's all you need to know.
And there were literally hundreds of entities involved.
If you count all the newspapers, there were thousands of newspapers and bookstores and publishers.
Nobody, nobody, not a single person.
Said, do you want to add to that?
Apologize?
Correct it?
Nothing!
No, it was because of Trump, of course.
I think it's obvious.
Anyway, I laughed because an Indian publication over in India, they just matter of factly say I was cancelled for supporting Trump.
If you're in another country, it's like, oh, that's kind of obvious.
They just treat it that way.
All right.
According to popular scientists, there's a new test going on where scientists are trying to find the components of gravity.
And long has it been speculated that there might be something called a graviton, some kind of not-discovered particle or entity or piece of reality called a graviton.
But I'm going to bet against it.
Now, partly because I'm going to agree with Einstein.
Einstein said gravity was just an aspect of bent space.
But I don't know.
Do you need any gravitons to bend space?
Feels like that's just different.
But I'm going to give you my hypothesis.
It goes like this.
That nothing in the universe moves smoothly from one place to another.
That that's an illusion.
What happens is that things disappear, and then they reappear in a new position.
Now we don't notice, because it's happening so quickly.
And that the only rule in the simulation is that the next time you appear, it's going to be probably closer to where there's already more stuff, as in density, like a planet.
So if you were, you know, in space near a planet, And you disappeared, like everything in the universe disappears and then reappears.
The next time it reappeared, it would have moved a greater distance, because that's just the rule.
So I believe that they'll never figure out a mechanical part of gravity, like a graviton.
I predict they won't find it.
I think there's just a hard-coded rule in the simulation, and it's just a software rule.
And that we'll not be able to find any basis for it in what we think is our reality, because it just comes from outside our reality.
And they just say, every time you reappear, it's more likely to be closer to where there's more stuff already.
And that's it.
And it could be, as I speculated in my book, God's Debris, it could be that the entire universe could be described by just a few simple rules, such as the next time you appear, You're going to be closer to things that are like you.
That's it.
All right.
That's just fun, by the way.
Don't take it too seriously.
There is a story in a publication called Vanguard that the title is Men Beware!
A Lack of Sex Can Make Your Woman Angry.
And apparently there's quite a bit of a study into this concept.
That if you're not giving your woman sex, her attitude will not be A+.
What do you think I'm going to say about that?
Let's see if you can put on your thinking caps.
Read my mind.
Go ahead.
Read it.
Read it.
And got it.
I think you all got it.
Yeah, they could have just asked me, are people happier or less happy when they get laid?
Hmm.
Hmm, let me fund a gigantic multi-year study, and then we'll do multiple studies, and then I'll do a meta-study of the studies, and then I'll determine that people who get laid are slightly happier than people who didn't get laid.
Men and womenism.
Men and women.
I know!
I know!
I'm starting to think that women like sex too!
Do they?
Do they?
Yes.
Yes, they do.
All right.
So here's some good news.
I'm loving this story, by the way.
I'm just loving it.
So Matt Walsh apparently has a hit on his hands.
His new film, Am I a Racist?
Am I racist?
Am I racist?
So apparently it opened as the third highest grossing film in the country, despite, as you could imagine, being on far fewer screens because, you know, it's a little more controversial.
Now, I hear great things about it.
I think it got like a 99% viewer approval, but no critics covered it.
Just hold this in your head.
Let me just say it again, because it just tells you everything about the world.
99% audience approval, zero critics have covered it.
Third highest grossing movie in the country.
Oh my God, they must be frightened of this thing.
So I hear great things about it.
I plan to see it.
Haven't seen it yet.
I just, every moment I get, I want to just help, help promote it because it has to be said that while I believe the movie is quite good and everybody seems to like it.
So I recommend it without even seeing it.
The other movies it was competing against are all garbage.
The classic Hollywood movie where you don't offend anybody means you can't do humor.
And then other movies are just way too long for anybody's attention span, and they're designed to make you feel bad the entire time you're there.
All right, we're going to start the movie by watching somebody you probably like as a character, and we're going to slay their family in front of them.
Why?
Why are you doing that?
It's a movie.
It's a movie.
That's what we do.
We make movies where there's problems and then people solve them.
And I say, but paying money to feel like somebody I like, their family's being slain right in front of me.
Don't worry.
An hour later, when they kill the bad guys, they'll be happy again.
But really killing people shouldn't make you happy after your family has been slain and all of your friends died trying to help you.
Yes, but he'll win in the end.
Will he?
Will he?
Because his family's dead, and then all his friends, and all the people who died in car accidents during the car chases.
It feels like it's just all bad to me.
Why am I watching this?
So that's my experience of watching movies, so I don't do it.
But anyway, watch that one.
A couple of senators in a bipartisan move, according to the Wall Street Journal, are trying to target telehealth firms and And, uh, online influencers who are maybe saying things about, uh, false things about Ozempic and Wegovy.
I think it does similar things.
So apparently they're deceptive online practices.
So, and some of the influencers are getting paid for promoting these drugs and that's extra bad if you're being paid for it and you're misleading people.
What do you think of that?
Is it free speech that the influencers can lie to you about medical things, or do you need to make that illegal?
Remember, it's bipartisan.
I don't know.
I'm a little bit on the, uh, I'm a little bit uncertain on this one because it seems to me that if you're getting your medical advice from an influencer online, maybe a little, that's on you.
Maybe you should ask your doctor.
Nobody's going to get an ozempic prescription from an online influencer.
Am I right?
And shouldn't your doctor be telling you what the risks and rewards are?
So, if this were a non-prescription item that could kill you, then I would say, oh, this is something we need to talk about.
But if it's a prescription item, I feel like I'm leaning toward free speech and let the idiots say idiot things about it because the entire internet is full of people saying wrong things about drugs and food and nutrients.
So how in the world, how in the world could you ever police that?
So I think if specifically in the case of it being a prescription drug, Which it is, right?
You can't go give yourself ozempic over the counter.
I think just let the doctors do what the doctors do.
Tell you who's lying to you and who isn't, and do the best you can.
Robert De Niro is back.
He wants us to know that Trump will never give up power because he thinks he's a gangster, but the real gangsters would know better.
Oh, the real gangsters would know.
He is so batshit crazy.
That I don't think he knows that his entire point of view is based on the imagination that he can read a mind of a stranger, and that what he sees in there is inconsistent with anything that's happening in the real world, but he's pretty sure he sees it!
Again, if we treat mental illness as a political opinion, that's not going to go well.
There needs to be some way that our media Makes some kind of distinction between what is clearly a mental problem.
Clearly.
This is not a political opinion, in my opinion.
Well, there's a pollster called Atlas Intel, who I didn't know this, but was one of the most, actually the most accurate pollster of 2020.
So it had estimated Biden would be up 4.7 and the final result was Biden up 4.5, and I guess that was the best of anybody.
And I tell you that because their current prediction is that Trump has a 99.9% chance of winning the election under the current polling situation.
Now, if I understand correctly, if a Republican is basically polling about even, It almost always means that on an electoral sense that they would win easily.
And it has something to do with, let's see if I have this right, that the big cities that are definitely going to go blue have lots of population.
So it's not a surprise that maybe Democrats would have more total votes in the country.
But Republicans might get them in rural areas and pick up enough electoral votes to dominate.
I think that's a reasonable explanation.
But I will note that this morning alone, I saw people confidently say that the polls are heavily favoring Harris.
And I've seen people confidently say the polls are heavily favoring Trump.
Same day, within minutes, And although everybody who said it was a credible source, you know, like a news source, and they were quite certain that the world was one way and the other said the world is the other way.
Now, I don't think polling has ever looked less credible to me, even though I always doubted it a little bit.
It's never looked less credible than it looks right now.
I mean, how could it be that half of the pollsters say Harris is dominating and the other half say Trump is dominating?
You know, if it was something like some people say one candidate is way ahead, and then other people say that candidate is ahead, but not as way ahead, then I would say, okay, that, you know, that might be honest difference of approach.
But if you're showing me that one says one is way ahead and the other says the other was way ahead, that's something different.
That's a different thing.
I don't know what it is, but it's different.
But according to Breitbart, they're talking about how Trump has consistently outperformed his poll numbers.
Here's something I didn't know.
Did you know that pollsters are very good at getting Democrat predictions right?
I didn't know that.
Apparently they're good at getting the Democrats right.
Do you know why?
I think it's because the Democrats tell the truth when the pollsters call them.
I think.
And I think that Republicans have learned not to tell the truth or to avoid the call.
And so there's a thought that men in particular, so men kind of stand out in this concept, that men in particular, conservative men, tend to not be responsive to polls or maybe just outright lie.
Now, why would men do that?
Would they do it To make the world a better place?
Maybe in some way, yes.
I mean, but it's just one poll response.
I'm going to tell you something about men in a moment.
If you're a woman, this is going to surprise you.
If you're a man, when I tell you, I want you to tell me in the comments if I'm accurate.
And it will be something I think you've never heard before.
So I'm going to say something about men that's different from women, and it's a stereotype.
But I want you to see if you agree with it.
If you don't agree, then I'll say, oh, I guess I'm just a bigoted stereotyper or something.
But I want to see if you agree.
So wait for it.
It's coming real soon.
Anyway, so the idea is that maybe men in particular are not answering polls.
But here's two things that motivate men more than women.
All right?
Here's where I want you to agree or disagree in the comments.
So just, just give me the, you know, just dump it.
Don't be good to me if you, you know, don't be kind to me if you disagree.
So I'm looking for disagreement.
Statement number one.
Here's something that motivates men way more than women.
Pranks.
Pranks.
Yes or no?
Men are motivated by pranks.
They're fun.
We like just the fun of it.
Getting something over on somebody.
Yes?
Yes or no?
Yeah.
Not only are we motivated, but we're often extra motivated.
As in, if you said to me, Scott, we're playing a prank on Bob, And can you help out?
The first thing I'd ask is, what's the prank?
And let's say I liked it.
And then they say, do you have time?
And I would say, well, I don't know.
I've got deadlines today.
I've got some meetings today.
When do you need it?
We kind of need it right now.
Can you help us?
I would say, all right, I'll clear my calendar.
Because there's no way I'm going to let a good prank get away without helping.
Oh, I'm in.
If it's a prank and I can be part of it, please.
I will rearrange my schedule to be part of the prank.
Now, tell me I'm right, men.
Now, women, you don't know.
Women, you don't know one way or another.
You have no visibility into this.
But men, in your In her mind, maybe you don't say it, you love a prank.
All right?
So that's the first point.
Here's the second one.
This will be a little, maybe more controversial, maybe a little more disagreement, but I say the following.
There's something that men love way more than women.
Way more.
Clear and specific asks that they can do.
If you say to me, Scott, can you make me happier today?
I would say, um, like, how?
What?
Like, what would I do?
Well, you know, the things that make me happy and, you know, the things.
And I would say, you mean, like, same thing I did yesterday?
Yeah, yeah, like that, but a different thing, because you did that yesterday.
And then I'd be like, well, I don't really know a thing.
Could you be more specific?
And then your mate says to you, yes, can you scratch my back at 8pm?
And then I go, yes, yes, that's clear.
That's specific.
I can absolutely do that.
And when I'm done, I'm going to feel like I got something done and I won.
If you make it clear and you make it specific and it's something I can do, I'm all in.
So now, I'm going to put those two things together.
If you want men who have never voted before to vote, here's how.
You make it a prank.
The prank is to beat the pollsters.
The prank is that when the results are read, you knew what was going to happen.
But the news didn't know.
The prank is watching the faces of the Democrats when they find out what happened.
The prank is, men, we've put up with years of fucking bullshit.
Fucking, fucking bullshit.
And maybe we just want to push back a little bit.
In a way that doesn't get you fired.
In a way that doesn't ruin your relationship.
But in a way that is, and here's the important part, hilarious.
And so here's the clear and specific ask for young men.
Vote, but the clear and specific ask is to get at least one non-traditional voter to vote also as part of the prank.
Your job, men, each of you, For the prank.
This is for the prank.
Your job is to locate, if you can, one person who hasn't voted or is unlikely to vote at all, and get them in on the prank.
Just one.
Every one of you, one person.
Now, the easiest way would be if you're both going to do mail-in votes.
You know, just say, hey, stand right here.
Fill this out with me.
Just, you know, do the line of Republicans.
That would be ideal.
And just treat it as a prank.
If you treat it as voting, people who vote will show up.
If you treat it as a prank, we all show up.
Ladies, if you don't understand men, let me say it again.
If you treat it as an election, you'll get, I don't know, half of the people showing up.
If you treat it as a prank, we're all coming.
We're all coming.
Because we're not going to miss the prank, especially if we can achieve it with a clear and very specific ask.
And that's my clear and specific ask.
Men, find one man that you know isn't going to vote, but you think would vote for Trump as part of the prank, and then get him to vote.
And then if you want to really sell the prank, if you're going to tell anybody you voted, you should tell them it's to save the cats.
That's it.
Now, would that be the reason you voted?
Of course not.
Would it make Democrats go absolutely fucking crazy?
Yes, it would.
That's the prank.
It was the cats.
You know, I wasn't going to vote until I heard I could save some cats.
Now, you don't even need to like cats.
You could say dogs if you like dogs better.
The funny thing is, the reason you should give should be the dumbest one.
Don't say that you like his economics better.
Just say you want to save the cats.
It will make them crazy.
They will just fucking go crazy.
It will be the funniest thing that ever happened to you.
Just imagine, visualize this for a moment, will you?
Visualize you're watching the results come in on MSNBC and CNN, and they're doing exit polling, and you're seeing somebody with, like, their face has fallen.
You know, it's one of their MSNBC reporters, and they have to do the exit poll report.
Yeah, we're a little bit surprised at a lot of the comments.
A lot more men than I've ever seen voting before.
And when we ask them, they say it's about saving the cats.
And then they cry.
Come on.
You don't want in on that prank?
All right.
Now, so that's my case.
Clear and specific ask.
Find somebody to vote.
Put them in on the prank.
And treat it as a prank.
Especially for the younger men.
For the older men, it's a different process, probably.
Men, men, you tell me.
That would work.
You know it would.
Men also like to have direction.
So, and again, you know, men, some men like to be leaders, some like to be followers, but even the leaders and the followers like a clear direction.
I'm giving you a very clear direction.
Men, it is time to save the country.
If the way you can do it is also with a hilarious prank, you need to do it.
But what you need to do is you have to wrest control away from the batshit crazy women who have been ruining our lives and destroying the country.
No, I'm not saying every woman is bad.
There's tons of great women on the left and the right.
If you're also going to say to me, Scott, you're being a bigot because you made a generalization.
That's what we're trying to stop.
We're trying to stop the people who will stop you by telling you you made a generalization.
No, it is true that women are destroying the fucking country and a lot of it has to do with being literally mentally ill.
We should stop listening to them and take back the country.
Men, it's time.
It's time to do the prank of all pranks.
Let's get this done.
Now watch this.
Is there one man who disagrees with me?
Even one.
Go.
Look at the comments.
I'm looking for even one man who would say this is a bad idea.
Or that it wouldn't work.
Yeah.
Look at the comments.
This is 100% stake through the heart.
It's an unstoppable stake through the heart.
You just have to let people know this is the plan.
That's it.
And it's over.
It's over.
As long as people know that's the plan, it's over.
All right.
Shouldn't have canceled me, that's what I'm saying.
New York Times is warning us that the election results, huh, this is interesting.
The timing of it and the story in the New York Times, the source, huh.
So the story is that, quote, if a winner is not declared on election night, huh, why wouldn't it be?
With our excellent systems.
I'm pretty sure we fortified them pretty well.
But you know, if in the unlikely event that a winner is not declared on election night, New York Times wants to know, they will not necessarily point to failures in the process.
No.
No.
No, just because everybody else's elections can be figured out the same day, and the fact that we know in advance ours are designed so that we can't, that's not a failure of the system.
No, no.
In fact, it's so far from a failure in the system, let me tell you what it is.
It's more likely, they say, quote, it will be a result of the intense security measures required for counting mail-in ballots.
Election officials across the country are trying to telegraph to voters They're waiting long hours, or even days, days, for a result that is not unexpected in a close election.
Huh.
And the elections are suspiciously, magically, almost miraculously close.
What could have possibly caused that?
And they're eager to counter conspiracy theorists.
You know, people like me.
People like you.
They're eager to counter that.
So we're being countered, people.
Stand down.
Stand down.
The New York Times is countering us.
You're being countered.
Stop it.
Stop it.
You've been countered.
And you've been countered by them saying that, really, the real thing is that it just takes longer to make sure it's done right.
That's why it takes longer.
It's not longer because they got to figure out how many ballots to ship in, which you people are thinking.
Stop it.
I'm countering you.
I'm countering you with this.
Damn it.
You're countered.
Yeah.
So I'm going to triple down or quadruple down on my prediction.
I've been saying for a while that we will not have a decision of who the president is by the end of the year.
I think we'll figure it out January ish, but I don't think it's going to happen before the end of the year.
Now there might be people.
Individuals saying, oh, yes, we have decided, but I don't think the country is going to be decided.
In other words, at least half of the country is going to be looking at whatever the decision is and saying, nope, I don't know which half it will be, but I do predict there could be problems.
Imagine if you will, that Trump wins, by the way, Peter Thiel actually said at the all in pod, That if the election is close, Trump can't win because the Democrats will, quote, fortify the election.
And he jokes because he has to use that word fortify because it's the one that's allowed.
You know, he doesn't want to get canceled for saying that there might be a problem with the election.
So instead of saying it's a problem, he says they might fortify it.
Now he gave some examples of what he meant by fortifying it, and they would be within the legal and observable process.
So fortifying might be a rules change or ruling or a process change that just happens to be good for one side and bad for the other.
But yeah, Peter Thiel thinks a little fortification will make it impossible for Trump to win if it's a narrow election.
But suppose Trump wins handily.
Do you think we're out of trouble?
I doubt it.
Because they still can do this trick where they try to say he's an insurrectionist or something.
I think Jamie Raskin has some kind of plan.
But what if, here's the worst case scenario, what if Trump wins by a lot, but so much that it violates the polls?
Which is exactly the prank.
Do you think there's a situation where he could win so much That the Democrats would hit the streets and say it must be cheating, because he couldn't possibly win by that much, because the polls said he wouldn't, which of course would be the entire nature of the prank.
Yeah, if Trump wins by too much, the Democrats are going to say, the polls must have been right, so therefore the election is wrong.
They're not really, the Democrats don't seem to be red-pilled enough.
To understand that the polls are not real.
Or at least some number of them are not real or they're not really trying.
So, we could have trouble.
Anyway, Brian Stelter is back on CNN.
You know Brian Stelter?
Does everybody know him?
I refer to him as the poor man's Jeffrey Toobin.
And if you'd like to find a way to be funny if you're not good at jokes, It turns out that when you call somebody the poor man's something, if you pick the right person, it's kind of hilarious.
He's the poor man's Jeffrey Toobin.
I think that's just one of the funniest things I've said in a week.
All right.
But Stelter was on today, and he made the observation that what Kamala Harris says isn't going to be nearly as important As the images and the feeling and the vibe and the hope and the change and the youth and the excitement.
And my comment on that is that, first of all, from a persuasion point of view, I feel he's coming closer to me.
So I'm going to give him a compliment for saying, yeah, I agree.
That what she says is going to be far less important than how she makes people feel.
So I'm going to give him A+.
I think that's actually an additive, useful, and provocative.
So it hits every point.
So as I have fun mocking Brian Stelter, he is 100% right.
But let's dig a little deeper.
Why is he 100% right that it won't matter what she says?
It's because he works for an industry that won't fact-check her.
That's why it won't matter.
It won't matter because they don't fact-check her.
Now, I'm lying a little bit.
They do fact-check her a little bit, and we're going to get to that.
But they fact-check her in a way that makes her look better, not worse.
Wait for it.
All right.
There's a new video of Kamala giving a talk somewhere, and she's tried out yet another accent.
We don't know what is an alien accent or some other country.
I don't know what it is.
And she's cackling again.
So she is cackling with her accent.
To me, she looks inebriated.
Like actually, literally, I'm not joking.
She looks inebriated.
I've said it a million times.
Yes, I mean exactly that.
It's not a joke.
It's not, I'm not saying it just for politics.
This is my honest opinion that she looks inebriated often.
I don't know on what exactly, but she looks inebriated.
So back to that, And that dovetails with the fact that I saw Joel Pollack mentioning this, that it seems that on social media, there was a lot of attention to Kamala Harris's recent interview, the one she did, where she recently sat down and answered some questions from a local reporter.
And it went around because it was a complete train wreck.
In other words, you didn't even have to tell somebody why she did wrong before you showed it to him.
You just say, Oh, you have to watch this.
Like all of it.
Every part of it was weird, cringy, something's wrong with you.
We don't know what the problem is.
I mean, it was bad.
So which of the major news entities covered that and said, well, she did give an interview and here it is.
And by the way, It's a total train wreck.
None.
None.
They just ignored the whole thing.
So Stelter's right.
It doesn't matter what she says.
It only matters that, you know, people get some feeling from the general vibe of the campaign.
He's totally right about that.
Um, and then how good is the, uh, oh, and then there's more items.
So apparently the Proud Boys, or at least 12 of them, went to Springfield, Ohio, where the rumors are that the Haitians are eating pets, and they carried a flag and they marched through the streets.
To which I'm thinking, that must be the most boring trip that the Proud Boys ever took.
They got like five seconds of coverage for 12 people walking down an empty street.
What were they looking for?
Did they think they were going to see like cat carcasses laying by the side of the street?
I think it was kind of a wasted trip.
So, good luck.
I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish.
Were they going to find somebody barbecuing a dog and then beat him up or something?
What?
How is that supposed to work?
Anyway.
MSNBC's panel says that what they call the lies about eating pets could get somebody killed.
So that's the real danger.
So if you've got a town of 60,000 and you ship in 20,000 Haitians, the real danger is the rumors about the petting.
It's not the fact that you just shipped 20,000 Haitians into a place that only had 60,000 people.
No, that's not the problem.
It's not the unchecked immigration that could kill you.
It's the rumors about animals.
It's the animal rumors.
That's the dangerous stuff.
New levels of absurdity.
And then if you haven't watched Joy Reid mock Trump for claiming that he talked to a Taliban leader named Abdul, and then the other host, Aita, apparently he just thinks everybody named, he must think that everybody's a Muslim is just named Abdul.
So he tells this story where he says, I was talking to Abdul, as if Abdul is a real person, because he's such a racist, he must think all Islamic people are named Abdul or Ra'allah or something, because he's so dumb.
And then they show the compilation clip of all the people in the news referring to Abdul, who was actually the name of the co-founder of the Taliban.
And did I say ISIS before I meant Taliban if I said it wrong?
And I wonder if they'll ever correct it.
So they made like lots of content.
Saying that Trump was just making up a story about a guy named Abdul, then it was very easy to demonstrate that he was really actually, that's the name of the guy.
He did meet him.
He did actually meet the guy named Abdul.
This is all confirmed.
And that the news had reported his name as Abdul as a co-leader, you know, co-creator of the Taliban for years.
Like every form of the media had called him Abdul.
Do you think that the MSNBC-only watchers know that that was completely made up?
Of course not.
They never corrected it.
Never even corrected it.
Of course not.
Well, there's an update on the assassination attempt on Trump.
So...
All right.
So my prediction was that in the end we'd find out it was a Dilbert situation, meaning it was just mass incompetence, because we're seeing mass incompetence in every walk of life.
It's everywhere now.
Now, you could speculate the cause of it, but I'll just say it's there.
We all see it.
If you call tech support for anything, good luck.
If you try to get any company to do even the thing it does normally, good luck.
I mean, good luck getting anything to work, because whatever the mass incompetence problem is caused by, it's pretty bad.
But we were led to believe that the Secret Service is the shining exception.
And if you're in the Secret Service, let me tell you, People, allow me to tell you every interview I saw.
Well, I worked in the Secret Service, you know, back when people were capable, and I can tell you there's no way that any of this was an accident, could not have been done, because they're so professionals, and professionals are so professional, and they'll be so professional that there's no way it could just be an accident.
And I said, oh, there's a way it could just be an accident.
And the way is the normal way.
The most common human experience is that any large group of people are incompetent.
That's my experience.
I made a comic strip about it.
Now, before you get mad at me, I will tell you, first of all, I'll give you an idea what they did wrong.
There is still very much open the question of why did they do it?
So obviously badly and it does open the possibility that Some something was going on.
I'll tell you what Mike Ben says about a minute.
So Here are the things we know That the Secret Service did not ask the police to get on the roof and guard it Now that would have been the obvious thing they should have done because the police were in charge of the outer perimeter Secret Service was the inner perimeter and The Secret Service was in charge So if they told them to be in the roof, they would have been.
But they didn't.
Instead, they talked about putting up some kind of barrier.
But when the Secret Service arrived, there was no barrier.
So did the word go out to put up a barrier?
And it didn't happen.
Was there incompetence involved where they put up some barriers in the wrong place?
Maybe.
So we don't know that.
They did not have a common communication system so that the police and the secret service could not know things at the same time.
So apparently the shooter was walking around, the police knew it, but they couldn't get that information in a usable form to all the people who needed to know it on time.
They've made a change recently to make sure that there's at least a police person and a secret service person together in a command room.
Because at least if they're in the same room, Then the police communication will be heard by the police, the Secret Service communication heard by the Secret Service, but they'll be standing next to each other.
So they can just say, Hey, there's a guy out there.
Now, better than that would be to have communication that they're all on the same channel, but maybe that's a little harder.
I don't know.
Um, and, uh, reports that they were slow to beef up the protection after the Iran threats.
And then there was a problem of that.
They were overextended and blah, blah, blah.
All right.
Now that would be the argument for it being totally just incompetence.
I don't think that's ruled out.
But there's one other option that's not ruled out either.
And Mike Benz says, quote, they deliberately left the roof unguarded, likely because a small compartmentalized cell inside Department of Homeland Security had advanced awareness through informants in Crook's encrypted chat network Of his intent to go up on the roof to shoot Trump during the speech.
Oh.
Now, if this came from anyone else, I might, you know, discard it.
But Ben's, more than just about anybody, seems to understand how the entire system works.
And then he goes on to clarify.
He said, again, this is just my opinion.
Because I've seen this movie so many times before, obviously I'm not reporting this as a fact.
It's just my working theory that congressional investigators should assume as the default of what happened, unless evidence dispels it.
Yes, exactly.
Let me say this as many times as I need to.
If you're a citizen of the United States and you're accused of a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty.
There is no wiggle room on that.
You're a citizen of the country.
You're innocent until they really prove you're guilty.
If you are the government, that rule doesn't apply.
If you're the government, you are guilty unless you can provide transparency to show that you're not.
Have they shown transparency that is sufficient to show that you've ruled out the possibility that there's any inside connection?
No, they haven't.
So, is it reasonable, as Ben says, his working theory, that is reasonable?
It might not be accurate, and Ben says that very clearly.
It's an opinion.
But as a working assumption, what we know now, the correct working assumption, and I'm going to agree with his opinion, the correct working assumption is that there was some kind of insider help.
Only because there's no way to disprove it, and the government is guilty until proven innocent.
So I think he's right on.
You know, as long as he's saying as clearly as possible that this is not an established fact, it's an opinion, you should have a working theory, and it will get you further.
Totally agree.
Perfectly, perfectly stated.
All right, CNN woke up Daniel Dale to do some fact-checking on some Claims coming from one account that's associated with the Kamala Harris campaign.
What's the first thing you would say about them fact-checking an account on X as opposed to fact-checking what Kamala Harris said with her own words?
Huh.
It feels like you're trying to divert me from what Kamala Harris says or said at the debate.
And make me think you're doing real fact checking when all you're doing is checking an account on X that probably Connell Harris didn't even know what you were, what was being posted.
Okay.
So he did fact check eight different claims from this one account.
And I think all of them had one quality in common.
I may have missed one.
They all had the following quality.
The Democrats took out of context a piece of video or a quote.
So they're all root bars.
So we found eight root bars.
Eight root bars.
So the root bar is when you edit a clip by clipping off the front or the back.
So it reverses the meaning to the people who see it.
Eight of them.
Now, if you don't think that the Democrats do this continuously, even CNN just picked out eight examples of RUPORs, and that's just, you know, things that happened in the last few weeks.
Eight!
In the last few weeks.
That's a lot!
Yeah, all of politics is fake.
But let me tell you what they are.
I'll just list some of them and I'm going to talk about one.
Misleadingly described a Trump comment about his supporters.
Deceptively clipping and misleading describing a Trump comment about immigration.
Again, they're all anacontext clips, right?
Deceptively clipping and misleading a Trump comment about his Charlottesville remarks.
I'll get back to that in a minute.
Deceptively clipping and falsely describing a Trump quote about Penalties for damaging monuments, deceptively clipping and misleading describing a Trump comment about taxes, cutting out critical words from a Vance comment about unions, falsely describing a comment from a Trump rally.
Now, what do all of these fact checks, except the one about the fine people hoax, have in common?
We'll see if he can catch it.
What do they all have in common?
Now, they were all done with clips.
That's one thing they have in common.
You know, edits.
But what's the other thing they all have in common?
None of them are important.
It's all the smallest stuff.
I didn't even know about most of these.
I mean, I follow the news more than 99% of the people.
I didn't even know these.
Never even heard of them.
And they're debunking the least important ones.
Do you think that's an accident?
I don't.
I think it's a diversion.
Because then you could tell yourself, well, they debunked both sides.
You know, the fact checker went hard at them, found eight things.
No, eight completely unimportant things.
Well, seven unimportant, and then let me talk more about the Charlottesville thing.
So, to his credit, Daniel Dale called them out for the Charlottesville fine people hoax.
But, Within his fact check, and I can't even believe this happened, within his fact check, he said, quote, and while there's a solid case that he's talking about Trump, there's a solid case that his 2017 fine people remark was about some white nationalists.
And then he refers to a source called the bulwark.
Have you ever heard of the bulwark?
It's not exactly the source you want to point to, but I went to the bulwark to find out what the argument was, that it wasn't a hoax.
And the argument goes like this, that there were two nights of protests, and on the second night, when he referred to it, he did say the right things, it was just clipped out.
And he did say that the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis should be condemned totally.
Here's their argument, in the bulwark, that on the first night, he also said there were some fine people there, but the writer says that he knows there were not.
Do you know how he knows, on the first night, there were no people there who were non-racist, who just were there for the statues?
And by the way, this is important, he says he also opposes the statues, and he's a non-racist.
So he referred to himself, the writer in the bulwark, as a fine person.
I would be the person that Trump is referring to.
I would like to keep the statues for historical reasons, but I definitely disavow all those marching racists.
And then he said he knows that there were no people like him on the first night.
Do you know why?
Here's his proof that there were no fine people there that night.
Let me read it.
He said, I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history.
He says, I'm one of them.
So I know that we weren't there that night.
Only the white nationalists were there.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
He said, he is one of the fine people And so, meaning that this is connected logically, I'm one of them, so I know that we weren't there that night.
We?
Did he think it was a club of six people?
Did he think that the six people he knows personally weren't there, and therefore, there were only white nationalists there?
Okay, that's fucking batshit crazy.
And CNN pointed to this, because they don't think you're going to be smart enough to go look and read it, because they're readers or not.
This is the most messed up, fucked up thing you're ever going to see in your life.
But this is the important part.
It doesn't matter who was there.
That's not even on point.
The point is that Trump told you his assumption.
If his assumption was wrong, and there were no fine people there the first night, That doesn't make Trump wrong.
It makes his assumption wrong.
If he said, I assume there were good people there, and it turned out there weren't, that doesn't mean he said the fucking racists were good people.
There's no connection logically between him possibly being wrong in his assumption.
I think he was right, actually.
But if he was wrong, He was only wrong on a fact that nobody fucking checked.
And the reason that they didn't check?
Well, I guess there's no reason to check because we know that this one fine person wasn't there.
And therefore, logically, if one person wasn't there, we can know that no people who would think like him would also be there.
No, that's fucking stupid.
And that's their fact check.
He fact-checked it while actually saying, well, but, you know, there's a strong argument that's actually true.
And then he points to the weakest argument you've ever seen.
It wasn't even on point.
The argument isn't even on point, because it doesn't matter who was there.
It only matters that Trump made a reasonable assumption that it was a mixed crowd with different opinions, which, by the way, would be true of just about any large gathering of Americans.
I can't even conceive of a large gathering of Americans for anything!
For anything!
That wouldn't include people on all sides.
You know, maybe several sides.
So his assumption, if it was wrong, would be weird.
That it would be the one time in the world that there was only people on one side.
That would be pretty weird.
Anyway.
The ABC moderator who did the debate, one of the two of them, the partner with David Muir was Lindsay Davis.
And she's actually told the LA Times that the reason they fact-checked Trump, but not Harris, is because CNN didn't fact-check him, and they didn't want Trump's comments to just, quote, hang there.
And the moderators studied hours of Trump rallies and interviews to be ready to counter him.
They didn't do that with Harris.
They didn't need to study her to know what to counter.
So they only studied one person to counter him.
And she said people were concerned the statements were allowed to just hang there and not be disputed by the candidate.
And then they decided to check Trump four times and Harris none.
Now, this is a confession that you should be fired, right?
If I were her employer, and I saw her say this in public to a news outlet, a competitor, that she had not done her job, and had injected bias, and she describes it in detail, there's no question about what happened, and even why they did it.
That's a firing offense.
Do you think she'll be fired?
No, not a chance.
Not in our world.
Well, the Laura Loomer controversy.
It's one of those fake things that nobody really cares about, but it's kind of interesting.
I was trying to ignore it, but it keeps getting bigger.
MSNBC.
So if you don't know the background, Laura Loomer, controversial character.
Uh, has been working on behalf of the Trump campaign, but not for them.
So she's an independent opposition researcher, uh, story breaking kind of person.
But MSNBC, you know, confirms she's not working for the campaign.
Um, but they say the problem is she's only right 80% of the time.
How does MSNBC compare to that?
Now, first of all, is it true that she's only right 80% of the time?
That sounds about right.
Sounds about right.
What about me?
I'm only right about 80% of the time, which is pretty good, by the way.
What about Fox News?
I think they're right about at least 80% of the time.
80% of the time.
80% is pretty good.
If you follow the news at all, 80% is not bad.
It's not bad.
It makes a big difference what the 20% is, like if you pick something that's outrageous.
But being right 80% of the time, I'll take that.
And I don't think the MSNBC is right 80% of the time, or anywhere near it.
Remember, they're primarily a propaganda outfit.
They're not really trying to tell you the news.
So I would say if I were to score them, every time I turn it on, I see a lie.
Every time.
I mean, it's some idiots within the first 30 seconds.
So, that's a weird thing for them to say, but I suppose in their bubble it makes sense.
Here are some things they say that Laura Loomer said that they say are not true.
She claimed that Haitians are eating pets and maybe people.
Okay, the people part, I don't know if she said that.
But, uh, I would say there's still an open question on the pets.
Uh, Christopher Rufo did a, uh, a, uh, investigation and he has a number of credible sounding claims, not massive, but they seem to be credible sounding claims of, of somebody, their barbecue and pets.
I'm still not at a point where I'm going to declare it's true beyond maybe a special case.
I'm not going to say it never happened, but to imagine it's something that's happening on a regular or growing basis, I don't have that evidence.
So I'm treating it as a recreational belief.
She said that Harris lied about being black.
Well, that's more of an exaggeration about what she emphasized.
She said the 2020 election was stolen.
They count that as false, and that's proof that the news is fake.
Because whether or not the election was true or false, the one thing you can know for sure is the news doesn't know.
CNN doesn't know the election was fair.
Nobody does.
It's designed so you can't know.
If you're reporting that somehow you couldn't know if an election is fair, you couldn't know.
If a state actor got into our systems and changed something, how would we know?
Apparently, according to Christopher Wray, the FBI, China's already got their hackers in, you know, a whole bunch of our critical infrastructure in the United States.
Why don't we get rid of it?
Because we can't find it.
We're just pretty sure it's there.
So a state actor, especially working with insiders who might be bribed or blackmailed, there's no reasonable assumption that you could find out or know for sure if something's been rigged.
You could only know that it wasn't proven in a court.
That you could know.
But that's a long way from knowing it didn't happen.
Those are unrelated concepts.
Let's see what else.
She had some offensive racially charged theories that 9-11 was an inside job.
Let's see, racially.
So would that involve blaming Israel?
And she's also been accused of being a anti-Semite by CNN.
And Laura Loomer's response to me calling her an anti-Semite is to remind them that she's Jewish.
Can you be a Jewish anti-Semite?
I'll need a ruling on that.
It feels like that ought to be sort of automatically not true, but things are so weird in the woke world.
Can you be an anti-Semitic Jewish person?
Is that a thing?
I don't know.
But CNN says, so Caitlyn Collins, She said, let's see, MSNBC is saying that she said Ukrainian spies infiltrated the capital on January 6th.
How does MSNBC know that that's not true?
How would anybody know that's not true?
So they're reporting it like it's not true without doing any investigation.
Now, I'm not saying it's true.
I'm just saying how can they say it's not true?
You could just say she said it.
You could say she didn't prove it.
You could say there's no evidence.
But you can't say it's not true.
How would you know?
They say that Laura Loomer said that some school shootings were staged or allowed to occur.
I don't have an opinion on that.
I mean, it's not my opinion.
She said that DeSantis' wife exaggerated her breast cancer diagnosis.
I don't know enough about that story, one way or the other.
And that the deep state may have manipulated the weather ahead of the Iowa caucus to help Haley.
Now that's interesting.
Because we do know that there are efforts to, you know, seed clouds and create rain and stuff.
And maybe some of it was happening around then.
Um, I, I wouldn't assume that they were connected to the election if they were doing any cloud seeding, but it's not the craziest thing anybody said about politics or the world.
So let me conclude this way by saying that, uh, I don't know all the things that Laura Loomer said, and therefore it's not my problem to defend her.
Um, but I do like, and I'll say it many times, I do like the fact that Trump does accept people who are working in the right direction, even if he doesn't agree with all the things they say.
I feel like that's the most American thing you could ever do.
Say, I will work productively with you, but I disagree with a lot of your opinions.
It doesn't get better than that.
So you could disagree vehemently with her opinions and still love Trump for being willing to You know, deal with the good parts and work toward a common mission while saying overtly and clearly, I disagree with some of the things she says.
That's the country I want to live in.
I want to live in a country where you can be friendly and productive and work with people you disagree with, even if you disagree a lot.
That'd be great.
The other thing that's funny, is that there are lots of photos of Laura Loomer that are associated with these hip pieces and maybe it's just me but she looks great in the pictures that they're the pictures they're trying to bash her with And I don't know if it's because there aren't that many publicly available photos, but they're just great pictures.
If I were her, I'd be thinking, okay, the fact that I look good in these pictures is probably beating whatever they're saying that nobody's going to remember.
So I feel like she's coming out ahead and she's probably growing followers and her, her, uh, her impact is, is improving.
I believe she's been banned from the Trump airplane, which is just a good prudent move.
She's not excommunicated from the world, just it's a bad look to be in the plane, so fine.
No problem.
All right, that's all I've got for today's I'm going to talk to the people on Locals privately, because they're so awesome.
Thanks for joining, and I feel bad for all those podcasters who take the weekends off.
Lazy!
Lazy!
And at least I'm here, putting in the work so that you don't have nothing to look at this morning.
All right, Locals, I'm coming at you if you're on Rumble or X or YouTube.
Thanks for joining, and I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
