All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:11:46
Episode 2596 CWSA 09/13/24
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now you're happy.
Turns out there was a button that needed to be pushed.
You're all good now, right?
Thank you, Paul.
You saved me again.
Good save.
I believe I was telling you that this is coffee with Scott Adams, and all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank of gel, a cistern, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Well, it looks like through my bad engineering, I may have gotten rid of all the viewers who are not serious viewers of the show.
The rest of you stayed here and said, he's going to fix this because you trust me.
And your trust has been paid off.
Well, did you know that China has got a $31 billion push for making nuclear power in that country?
They've approved 11 reactors recently and 20 in the past two years.
And that's not why I bring it up.
Now, you know, if you're following the news, That whatever country falls behind in energy production is going to lose the future.
Because AI will be driving everything.
And if you don't have way more power than we have in this country right now, you're not going to compete with China on AI.
So whoever has the most electricity, basically, is going to win on AI because they can just do more of it and faster.
So nuclear power has gone from Something that would be really important for your economy and maybe good for the world's pollution and CO2 if you care about that.
But I would argue that nuclear power is now more important than nuclear weapons.
Are you with me on that?
That nuclear power plants creating electricity is now a more important weapon of war Because it's going to be driving AI, and AI will drive everything.
So nuclear weapons, of course, would still be powerful, but probably the wars of the future are going to depend on electricity.
And we don't have a way to dominate in electricity, and China is just kicking our asses on nuclear.
So unless we get somebody who can really push things in the United States, we're all in a lot of trouble.
This would be right near the top of my number one existential risk problems.
It's not number one, but it's right up there.
And I would recommend that you follow the account on X called Zion Lights, which is actually the name of a person.
Zion is the first name just like it sounds Cion and then lights Last name.
So if you follow that account, which is smallish, but the most I would say the most accurate and unbiased Following of what's happening in nuclear energy.
So highly recommended get on that account if you're not already there Um, by the way, I, one of the things that I see as my Spider-Man responsibility, you know, the Spider-Man, uh, curse with great power comes great responsibility.
Now I don't have a great power, but I have over a million followers on X. And I feel like one of the most useful things I can do with my 1.1 million followers is tell you who else you should follow to make you smarter.
That's really one of the best things I could ever do for the world.
Just make you smarter by telling you to follow.
So, Zion Lights, add that one to your list.
Apparently, Boeing, the biggest labor union, is going on strike.
Because Boeing didn't need any more problems, but here it is.
Or they did.
I guess I should have said that the other way.
Um, you know, what would really help their, uh, profits and their ability to pay their employees more would be building really good planes.
So the machinists are on strike.
I feel like Boeing is really getting every bad news it could possibly get.
How much of this, this do you think is DEI related?
And the trouble is, we don't know.
You still say you're muted or are you trolling me now?
Paul, are you still there?
I'm getting trolled on the audio.
Bunch of people saying I'm muted.
Is that because they're okay.
Yeah.
Everything's working.
Trolls.
Um, thank you, Paul.
So I wonder if DEI is actually a factor.
There's no way to know.
But the theory is that DEI should destroy every country, or every company, and then every country it comes in contact with.
Because by design, it destroys organizations.
It is the one thing that guarantees that you'll focus on hiring less qualified people to meet a different goal.
Now, if you say, Scott, you racist!
Why are you saying that?
Some other group is less qualified.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that if you focus on something other than merit, you're going to get something other than merit.
Every time.
It's just the way everything works.
And there's, you know, a small pool of people available for certain types of jobs.
And if you try too hard to fix things with that small pool of availability, it should destroy every country in America that focuses on it.
So, although there's no direct evidence that that's what's happening at Boeing, given that they have a bunch of government contracts, I would pretty much feel confident in saying it's probably their biggest problem.
I'm sure they have other big problems, but it's probably the biggest one.
And it's not recoverable.
It's not recoverable.
They're not going to fire the people they already hired.
So whatever their situation is now, that's what they're going to have to work with.
So I don't know how they work around it.
Create a skunkworks.
I don't know.
I have no idea how anybody survives DEI.
It should, by its design, On paper, it should destroy every organization it touches.
Eventually.
And certainly lots of evidence of that.
Well, you'd be delighted to know there's a research consortium.
Consortium?
Or consortium?
Which is it?
Is it consortium or consortium?
I don't know, but it's one of those things.
But yeah, a bunch of geoengineering types want to Dump a bunch of iron in the ocean to make the ocean capable of absorbing... I guess basically they'd be fertilizing the ocean with some kind of iron stuff.
And it will make the phytoplankton bloom and it'll suck the carbon dioxide right out of the air.
All right, let me ask you this.
What are you more afraid of?
A nuclear power plant?
Or trying to change the chemistry of the ocean.
This is the scariest thing I've ever seen.
It's scary that they want to change the atmosphere.
You know, have the planes release some kind of chemicals that will alter the atmosphere.
Does solve climate change.
But I'm not so sure I want to bloom a lot of phytoplankton.
Because I don't know exactly if we know what happens if you do that.
So...
I'd be a little careful about this one.
I suppose there's probably a way to test it small, but yeah, I don't know.
Is it recoverable?
If you stop doing it, do things go back to where they were pretty quickly?
I just don't know if this is a good idea, but I've got questions.
Well, this is exciting.
According to the New York Post, there's this device that's been created by researchers at University College in London.
And it's a little device that you stick your finger in and somehow, believe it or not, they call it a breakthrough medical device to stimulate what they call the natural, quote, real feel sensation of human touch.
So if you're isolated and you don't have a lot of human touch, you can stick your finger into a device It'll give you the sensation that there's a human being touching your finger.
So I plan to get one of those to, uh, stick my finger into it.
No, my finger.
I'm just going to put my finger in it.
Well, what were you thinking?
You perverts.
My God, you're disgusting.
I'm going to put my finger in it.
What are you even thinking?
Oh my God.
I'm disgusted by all of you.
That never even occurred to me.
Not once did I think, if you can stick your finger in it, and it feels like a real person, that there might be some other application for it.
I never thought of that.
You're disgusting.
I love every one of you.
All right, here's a story that makes you shake your head and say, should we just give up and leave the country?
Maybe we should just give up on America, if you're an American.
Just give up.
All right, here's a story that just makes me want to go, all right, fuck it.
We're not even trying anymore.
The National Association of Letter Carriers, in other words, post office union, announced their endorsement of Kamala Harris and Governor Walz.
The letter carriers, The people who will be holding in their hands the ballots, they know exactly what the voters in their area are likely to favor by a majority.
They know if they're living, if they're working a red neighborhood or a blue neighborhood, and they've just endorsed one side.
And you have to trust the people who endorsed Harris to deliver your ballot.
Without throwing it away, which is what you know they want to do.
They want to throw it away because they don't want the other team to win.
Now, I'm not going to cast any aspersions on any postal workers.
My father worked for the post office for his entire career and retired.
And if there's one thing I know from all of the many, many stories my father told us over the dinner table, you can trust the post office.
No, you can trust the post office as much as you can trust any other fucking part of the government, which is not at all.
Not at all.
When I used to mail my art, so when I was a new cartoonist, we didn't do everything digital back then.
I would actually create art on paper and then I'd make copies of it because I knew I was going to mail off the originals.
So I'd mail the original to my syndication company and then they would, you know, do what they needed to do to put it in newspapers.
I heard that Gary Larson, famous cartoonist of the time, had to stop using the post office because as soon as they figured out who he was, they stole all of his packages because they could sell his original art.
So I heard that and I said to myself, well, but they don't know who I am because I was new.
So I was mailing my art every day.
And then I got a little more famous.
And then they started recognizing me in the post office.
And that was the last time any of my art ever reached its destination.
They just started stealing it after that.
So, no, the post office Cannot be trusted.
Years ago I also wrote a story about a single woman who didn't have any money but was giving money to homeless people when she saw them because they were doing even worse than she was and she could not even afford basically anything.
I wrote a story and I said, you know what?
Here's a post office box if you want to send her some money and solve her problem because she's literally so kind.
This is a real story.
She was so kind and religious, really, that if she could eat a sandwich that day and she saw somebody who might not, she would give them half her sandwich.
Like literally, she would reach in her lunch and give half of it to a street person.
And people were moved by the story and they sent her envelopes full of cash.
I mean, not full of, but you know, $20 bill here and there.
And she got, if you could imagine, probably thousands, my best guess, thousands of dollars were sent to her by just people who wanted to help her out.
How many of those thousands of dollars do you think she actually received?
Because it went through the post office.
As soon as they noticed that one of her letters had cash in it, because I don't know, maybe you could hold it up and see it or something, they stole everything else that ever went to her.
They got 100% of all of her letters and kept them in the post office.
Now, you feel good about the post office?
The post office is going to determine the election.
Because the mail-ins will probably be the confirmative, consequential thing.
And they get to decide if they deliver it or not.
If they throw it away instead of delivering it, you'll never know.
And if you did know, it would be after the new president is already in office and nothing would change after that.
How in the world is this legal?
How in the world?
Is this legal?
Now, Joel Pollack asked this question before I did on X, so I'm stealing his stuff.
But, I mean, I look at this and I think, well, I guess there's no law against it, because of free speech.
But if you design the system, let's say you drew it out on paper, and you said, all right, we're going to have this election system.
We're going to have the determinative votes are going to come into the mail.
And then we're going to make sure that people who deliver the mail are very biased in who wins.
And they won't be watched every moment because mail carriers don't have body cams.
So they could just leave the whole crate of ballots in their car, drive it home at night, and throw it away.
Or throw it away in a dumpster on the way.
Now, would you have ever approved that system?
If you were designing the system, would you have approved that?
No, you would not.
On paper, you would have rejected that immediately.
You would have said, no, whatever we do, we can't do that.
It's the least, the least trustworthy group, probably of any entity.
I mean, I don't know what experience you've had with post offices, but it's hard to imagine a more corrupt organization, more corrupt in the individual level than the top.
You know, I don't have any accusations against senior management.
I only know that the individuals that they hire are pretty damn sketchy and on the regular basis.
And I say that, you know, my father worked there for over 30 years, I think.
I just have to tell you this one story.
This is my one other post office story.
In the early post office days, when I was a very young kid, Uh, the post offices, at least where I lived, they were actually required to have a loaded firearm behind the desk.
So the post offices were required.
It wasn't optional.
They had to have a loaded gun available in case some trouble went down.
Now, of course, Times have modernized, so I'm pretty sure they got rid of that.
But this is a true story.
There were days when, for whatever reason, there was nobody to look after me when I was a young kid.
And so my father would just take me to work.
And I'd be just sort of running around behind the counter in the post office.
And this is a fucking loaded gun on a shelf that I could reach as a toddler.
Do you think I played with it when nobody was watching?
Yeah, of course I did.
I'm like a toddler with a loaded gun in the post office.
Now, if you have any other questions, that's a true story.
If you have any other questions about the workings of the post office, I hope I've answered them all.
All right, so our election is being rigged in plain sight.
I think that that's the fact based on reported news.
To me, this is rigging.
And I gave you, you know, six other examples that are pretty obvious rigging.
So you don't have to cheat on the individual votes to see how much rigging is going on, but that would be cheating on individual votes, I guess.
Kamala Harris has been saying that Goldman Sachs approved of her economic plan over Trump's.
Goldman Sachs says, well, that might be technically true.
But when we compared them, there was like 0.2% of a difference between the plans.
Yes, hers was 2.2% better.
Now, let me ask you this.
Do you believe that Goldman Sachs can look at some political plans and calculate accurately?
Do you think that they can calculate accurately to within 0.2%?
Of what it's going to do to the economy?
You fucking idiots!
No, Goldman Sachs, you are fucking idiots.
If you think that any of your employees, your smartest ones, with all their computers, and maybe they use some AI, and they calculated what the fucking economy would be up to 0.2% in the future, nobody can predict the future with a complicated model.
All right?
If you believe the climate change models are real, you're a fucking idiot.
Because they couldn't be real.
Humans can't do anything like that.
Not only can we not measure the fucking planet to any accurate and reliable degree, which we know, But nobody can put together the variables to calculate the future of the fucking temperature.
And Goldman Sachs, you're doing the same thing, and the public just doesn't know.
Oh, smart people.
It must be something smart people are doing.
Well, I couldn't possibly understand it because of all the smart people doing the models.
Oh, I guess somebody calculated exactly what the economy will be in 10 years.
No, none of this is fucking possible.
It's not even close to possible.
It's not even in the general realm, zip code, fucking planetary system of being possible.
So if you're talking about whether they did it or didn't do it, you're in the wrong conversation.
It's not fucking possible!
That's what you need to know.
Not whether they forgot a variable.
It's just not possible.
And the fact that we've ever been convinced that the smart people can figure that out is one of the greatest cons of all time.
And let me tell you, the next time somebody who's really smart tells you that they've predicted the future in a complicated environment with many variables, It's also not possible.
I don't need to know what the next thing is.
Whatever the next thing is, if it's a complicated model that's predicting the future, it's not real.
That's what you need to know.
All right.
Marianne Williamson, interestingly, says that the Democrats are making a mistake by continuing to dump on Trump about the eating cats issue.
Because she says, quote, Haitian voodoo is in fact real.
Quote, and to dismiss the story out of hand rather than listen to the citizens of Springfield, Ohio confirms in the minds of many the voter stereotypes of Democrats as smug elite jerks who think they're too smart to listen to anyone outside their own silo.
Silo.
Who uses that word a lot?
Mary Ann, if you're listening, that was pretty awesome.
So, I don't know if there's much reality to the eating of animals.
I do think that it's, you know, if there's a Haitian voodoo component of the population, And that they've done that before and it can be confirmed that it's something that happens in Haiti.
It would be a miracle if it didn't happen here.
Right?
If somehow it happened in a, let's say not even widespread, let's say if 10% of Haitians had ever done it, there are certainly enough Haitians in America where it would happen.
So if you want to answer the question, is it happening in America?
I would ask one question.
Did it happen in Haiti?
And is it like a regular thing that even maybe 5% or even 2%?
If it happens in Haiti, it's happening here.
Can we agree that asking the Springfield, Ohio residents is a waste of time?
Because we're not going to believe them anyway.
Many times they won't know.
It's just a cat is missing.
And they'll be like, well, my cat's missing.
I think they got him.
You're probably never going to settle it just by asking the Springfield people.
Now, there might be a huge smoking gun.
Maybe somebody got some video and maybe there's a Haitian who's confessing.
So that would be useful.
But if you want to know without any doubt whatsoever, just confirm whether or not it happens in Haiti.
Because everything that happens there is going to come here.
Why wouldn't it?
There's no reason it wouldn't.
If there's a religious You know, I don't know what voodoo is.
Is it religious or just a belief?
But if it's a strong belief and it's strong enough that they were going to kill an animal there, nothing would stop them from killing an animal in the United States.
Nothing.
So just find out if it's true, as Marianne Williams says, that Haitian voodoo is real and that it involves on any regular basis, or even irregular, the sacrifice of animals.
We can get A 100% accurate answer.
Just look at Haiti.
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong to say that we're looking in the wrong place?
We might find it in Springfield, and then that would be good information.
But if you want to know for sure, for sure, just look at Haiti.
See if they're doing it.
And I don't know that, by the way.
I don't know the answer if Haiti is doing that in any way that would possibly translate to the United States.
All right.
New York Post is talking about how there are more single liberal women than ever.
Now, I assume that the relative birth rates are not the story, but rather that more women are remaining single.
And of them, more of them are turning Democrat.
So that's why the Democrats have this huge lead.
But I would like to... I can't remember if I've given you this hypothesis before.
But, true or false?
By the way, ChatGPT says this is true, as do searches on the internet.
But do you believe that Science has demonstrated, to your satisfaction, I think there have been multiple studies of the same thing, that if you're on hormonal birth control, you would have a different preference for a male mate than if you're off it.
You're all aware of that, right?
So I believe the way it works, I don't think I have it backwards, I think the way it works is if you're on the pill, you're looking for more of a dad type.
Who would be the dad type?
In the race.
Tim Walz.
Tim Walz has that dad kind of vibe.
Right?
So in theory, and I'm just talking the most general way here.
If you were on hormonal birth control, you would think that you'd rather marry Tim Walz.
Again, I'm not saying he's your type.
I'm just speaking conceptually.
You would rather look for a Tim Walz type.
Who's got a dad bod and a dad vibe.
Then you would a Donald Trump type, who's sort of a Chad, cad, alpha, bastard personality.
But if you were off of hormonal birth control, you would actually prefer the Chad, bad, alpha, bad guy who you hate, but you still want to hump his leg.
But Tim Walsh, you might think he's a great guy, but boring, and you don't need him to protect your children or anything.
He's just, yeah, he's there for the money, maybe.
So, if you believe, and I would say this is not 100% confirmed, but the science very strongly seems to suggest, multiple studies show the same thing, that women's preferences for a mate, what could be more important than that?
Your preferences for a mate, the most important lifetime decision, is completely reversed by hormonal birth control.
And then we observe that these single women, the people most likely to be on hormonal birth control, have an almost, in my opinion, a mental illness that seems to be based on their Dislike of Trump and their weird like of the Kamala Harris, Tim Walz campaign.
Now, what about older Republican women?
If you're over 45 and you're Republican, what do you think of Donald Trump?
Well, you're probably not on hormonal birth control and you probably like him.
Now, are we going to keep treating that like it's a coincidence that the people who are almost certainly likely to be on hormonal birth control, and we know that hormonal birth control completely changes your preferences for a mate, you don't think that changes your preference for a candidate?
If you're thinking of doing a major scientific research study to find out if hormonal birth control changes your political preferences, can I interrupt you for a moment?
Save you some time?
I could save you a lot of time and a lot of money.
You know what I'm going to say next, right?
Just ask Scott.
Of course it fucking does.
Of course it does.
There's no way in hell that it could change your mating fucking preferences without changing your election leader preference.
There's no way in fucking hell that they could be unrelated.
No fucking way.
But if you want to do the research study, it wastes your time, it wastes your money, go ahead.
And by the way, we know that if you pump somebody with testosterone, it's going to change all their preferences too, right?
So it's not just women.
Men who are doing testosterone upgrades probably are changing their preferences.
Probably.
Has anybody noticed that?
Let's, let's see if we can think of an example.
Do you remember what Mark Zuckerberg was like when he first founded Facebook?
You probably would have said he's a nerdish kind of a guy.
He was always in good shape, I'll give him that.
But have you seen him shirtless lately?
After a bout with some MMA fighters?
He's frickin' ripped.
Do you think he's taking any kind of testosterone boost?
I don't know.
But the activities he's involved in are absolutely testosterone boosters.
He's doing more dangerous stuff.
Definitely dangerous.
He's doing physical stuff.
He's clearly lifting and, you know, working on his fitness.
And then, magically, unexpectedly, surprisingly, he comes out A strong appreciator of Trump saying, fight, fight, fight, and how awesome that was.
Are these all coincidences?
It can't be a coincidence if you can predict it.
Let's take Reid Hoffman, put him on a diet, give him some testosterone, make him lift until he looks like Mark Zuckerberg without his shirt.
And then you tell me if his political preferences changed.
Now, he might have other reasons for his political preferences, we don't know.
But, just using that as an example, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Democrat men have a certain look, and the Republican men have a different look.
I think a lot of that is testosterone.
And I don't know if anybody studied this, but I'll bet you if you just took a random hundred Democrat men and a random hundred Democrat Republicans, I don't think their T-levels would be even close.
And don't waste your money on it.
Just ask me.
I just told you.
It's obvious.
Well, Politico reports that January 6th has now been deemed a national security event by Department of Homeland Security.
And that means that they can put way more resources into protecting it.
So here's the good news.
It authorizes the Secret Service to have a great role in taking care of things.
You know, it'll be the other law enforcement as well, of course.
Lots of law enforcement, but the Secret Service would have a bigger role.
Well, you can trust those guys.
Can't you? Let's see, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat, he told us that the report on the Trump assassination attempt, which by the way, also involved the Secret Service, that the report coming out will absolutely shock the American people.
He says, quote, this is Blumenthal, I think the American people are going to be shocked, astonished and appalled by what will report to them about the failures of the Secret Service and the assassination attempt.
They ought to be appalled and astonished by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security.
Well, so those are the same people who are going to make sure that our capital is secure this time.
Now, I'm no person who's developed a multivariable model for the future, but I think it's deeply unlikely that Republicans are going to storm the Capitol again.
Does anybody think that a Republican is going to storm the Capitol again?
Because there was never any chance it would work, and a lot of them went to jail.
Now, if it worked, even in any way you could determine that something worked, if you could make any argument at all that at least in some small way it worked, well, yeah, it might happen again.
But I don't believe there's a single person in the world who says, you know, if we had just sauntered, A little bit longer.
I think we could have fixed the country.
Nobody thinks that.
Nobody thinks that they under-sauntered.
If we'd moved that lectern a little bit further, we could have changed everything!
No, no, I wouldn't worry about the Capitol getting attacked.
Anyway, um, but at least our elections are secure.
Let's see, the Concord Monitor is reporting that Um, apparently there's a way of auditing their machines so that you can feel confidence in it.
So here's their auditing technique they're using in New Hampshire.
And I'd like to ask you after I've explained it, do you feel good now?
Cause I'm doing this to make you feel like our elections are secure.
All right.
So they have an audit process after the election to make sure that the machines didn't do anything sketchy.
Now you're happy about that, right?
Because we want to make sure, you know, obviously they test them before, but they also test them after to make sure that there's no mistakes.
That's pretty good, right?
Here's how they test it.
They randomly select eight machines.
Randomly.
Hmm.
Randomly.
Who do you think does the random selecting?
Do you think they put all the machines into a random number generator?
Or is there somebody whose job it is to determine which eight of them are the randomly selected ones?
What do you think?
Do you think the scrappy little state of New Hampshire put together an AI model and maybe had some kind of nuclear decay thing like Schrodinger's cat to make sure that they had randomly picked the machines?
Or was it just some guy whose job it was to pick the ones that were easy to drive to?
What do you think?
I'll tell you what I think, but I probably don't have to tell you what I think.
Now, suppose the randomness was actually appropriate.
Suppose that wasn't a problem, and suppose I had actually randomly correctly randomized.
Do you think checking eight machines is going to tell you anything?
How in the world is checking eight machines going to tell you anything?
My assumption about cheating is that if it involved machines, and I have no confirmed evidence of any kind of cheating of that kind, but hypothetically, if it involved machines, do you think they were going to spread it out across all the machines?
Do you think they were going to just put a bug in every machine in New Hampshire?
So if you check eight of them, you're going to catch it?
That's not the way I would do it.
Do you know what machines I would corrupt in New Hampshire if I were trying to influence an election?
None!
None!
Because New Hampshire is not in play.
It's not even a freaking, you know, up-for-grabs kind of a state.
Nobody would cheat in New Hampshire.
So no, we don't give a shit if you check your eight fucking random, not random machines.
You're not even trying.
That's like not even trying.
To audit.
Now again, New Hampshire probably doesn't have a problem.
But you read a story like this and it makes you think, whoa, probably those other states are doing some post-election audits too.
Well, if they are, it's probably just as bullshit as this.
Total bullshit.
Meanwhile, Newsmax has to go to trial because they said some things that a Smartmatic, the company that makes some machines, didn't like.
The big problem here, it looks like, allegedly, is that Newsmax may have suggested in their reporting, through who they talked to more than what they said themselves, that some Smartmatic machines were involved in states where there were some irregularities, reportedly, But apparently Smartmatic doesn't even have any machines in those places.
So Newsmax has to kind of explain why they think the Smartmatic machines were rigged in a place where there are no Smartmatic machines.
So that would be Smartmatic's take.
Now, I don't know if there's a... I think the defense is that Newsmax was reporting other people's opinions.
So I think the defense says, well, but they didn't get the case killed on that.
So we don't know if that's going to hold any weight.
But it does seem to me that every conservative news site is being bludgeoned to the point where questioning any election in the future would be corporate suicide.
So do you think Newsmax and Fox News are going to aggressively question any election results?
I don't think so.
Because they might have gigantic amounts of money on the line because they'll get sued, especially if they mention machines.
Let's see.
There's a report from the Gateway Pundit.
Now, if any of this is true, it's really bad.
But I remind you that stories of election irregularities, 95% of them won't pan out.
So most of them are fake.
Are there 5% real ones?
Well, I don't know that.
I wouldn't know unless I saw one and it got confirmed, which I haven't seen.
At least one that's big enough that would have changed everything.
So whenever I tell you a story, this is me trying not to get sued.
So whenever I tell you a story about a claim of election irregularity, it's someone else's claim and I'm reporting it.
So I'm going to try the same defense as Newsmax, in case they come after me.
Because I do not know of any confirmed cheating that would have changed the election.
That's true.
I don't know of any.
Anyway, so according to the Gateway Pundit, there are a lot of ballots that come in from overseas, and of course that's legal, because if you're an American and you just happen to be stationed overseas for a number of reasons, you're allowed to vote by mail.
So here's the claim.
According to a Paul Harris, there's this, they received lots of ballots from overseas and they know what a ballot looks like.
It's a certain size.
It's 11 and a half by 19.
And he says, when he opened up the box of ballots from overseas and he expected to see all of these 11 and a half by 19 ballots, because that's the only ones there are.
It was a whole bunch of ballots that were eight and a half by 11 on copy paper and faxes from unknown sources.
And the number of them was enough to change the Maricopa result.
Just hold that in your head for a moment.
Now, I don't know if this is true.
Remember, this is somebody else's allegation.
I haven't done any independent reporting on it.
And the Gateway Pundits talking about it.
But this seems like sort of an easy claim to check, doesn't it?
Or at the very least, Laura Trump and her watchers should be watching this.
And the question they should be watching is, wait a minute, why do these ballots look like photocopies and faxes?
They don't even look like real ballots.
And do you think that the watchers could get them maybe challenged or thrown out if they catch it and challenge it at the point of noticing it?
Maybe.
Maybe.
I still think the third act perfect ending to the Trump movie, not an ending because, you know, I'd like to see him in office for a few years, but would be that they cheat right in front of the witnesses, hoping that he get away with it, but they don't.
And that the witnesses say this entire election has to be thrown out.
People keep asking me, do I have a vision of who wins?
Because in the past I have.
Right or wrong.
Like I have this imagination of somebody winning.
And I don't.
I just see blackness.
But not blackness like it's the end of the world or the end of the country.
What I see is no decision.
What I see is that between the election and the end of the year, we won't know who's going to be president.
And I don't know why, but probably something to do with legitimate complaints about the process.
Maybe somebody catches something, but it takes the courts a while to sort it out.
We might have a president in January.
If let's say our court system can decode things enough and You know, they try really hard and people cooperate and it's possible.
But I feel like there might be months without a president.
If we, we might even have to run the election again.
We might have to, Congress might have to change all the laws so that the citizens believe that the election is true the next time.
So, and that's impossible.
So I don't even see a path.
I don't see any path that we're going to choose as president.
The system is designed to deny us an outcome.
Again, if you showed it to me on paper, said, all right, here's our situation.
We've got all these states doing things differently.
We've got all these people watching.
The watchers may see some real things, but even if they see some fake things, like they mistake something that's real as a fake, they're going to report it.
So you're going to have, like, 40,000 credible-sounding, signed under oath, reports of cheating.
What are you going to do with that?
40,000 credible-sounding, signed under, you know, threat of going to jail, saying, yeah, I saw this, and in my opinion, this was cheating.
What are you going to do?
How in the world do you certify it if you've got 40,000 legitimate, signed under oath, eyewitness, multiple people saw it, it's on camera?
Now remember, my assumption is that you'll have 40,000 reports of cheating, even if there are none.
Because confirmation bias is just so heavy in this situation.
If you put me there as a watcher, I'm sure my brain would tell me I saw some cheating.
Because I kind of want to be the guy who catches it, you know?
It would be my perfect fantasy that I'm the one who caught the election cheating.
It's got to be the same for the other watchers.
They don't put all that time in there without thinking, you know, I'd be kind of a star if I found that cheating and changed everything.
So that is a setup for confirmation bias of the highest kind.
Like guaranteed.
There's no way around it.
And on paper, that's the system we have now.
Now, I think we need the watchers.
That's exactly the right thing to do.
But it guarantees we don't have an election result that we can trust.
What are we going to do?
I don't know.
I don't think it's going to turn into any kind of a civil war.
It'll just be a messy, messy process, and somehow we'll work our way through it, because we work our way through everything.
But how is it going to be messy?
All right.
Here's my best idea of the day.
Let's see if everybody stayed for this.
Yeah, it looks like we got a lot of people watching right now.
Here is my strongest strategy.
I was challenged the other day, I won't tell you by who, to figure out how to get out of the sort of doldrums of things looking bad and into more of a fighting optimism.
Let's call it that.
It's not just optimism, but it's optimism driving fight.
And I woke up this morning thinking, you know, I got a lot of sleep last night and I have the optimism That we have not yet begun to fight.
That's different than the optimism you're definitely going to win.
I think you should have some uncertainty about that because it'll drive your fight a little harder.
But here's my best take on how to win.
And it's a reframe.
By the way, I have a book called Reframe Your Brain, but this one's not in the book.
So it's going to take a little while for me to develop it.
So bear with me.
I think you're going to like the payoff.
So I posted this on X if you want to see it yourself.
And I said this, I said, the Harris campaign's Trump hoax overload strategy has been hugely successful.
So they throw so many hoaxes at Trump, including the debate, that it makes them either always on the defensive, which makes people think some of these must be true, It also takes him off of his positive messaging, and off of his attacking her for her bad... whatever.
So, as a strategy, it's brilliant, persuasion-wise.
It's unethical as hell, but is it effective?
Yeah, it really is.
And it's working totally.
So it's taking all the energy out of Trump supporters and it's taking all the energy out of Trump.
And they've completely owned the, they basically own the conversation when they do the hoax overload.
Because it used to be they'd toss in a hoax here and here and there.
But here it's just, just one after another.
And there were the kind of hoaxes that are so obviously debunked and so universally debunked.
That you can't believe they'd do it unless, as others have pointed out, unless they knew they wouldn't get fact-checked by the mainstream media.
And sure enough, they fucking didn't get fact-checked.
Now, now that we know that's the case, what you can't depend on is the media helping you out, debunking any hoaxes, and there's no reason for them to stop with the hoax overload strategy.
Because it's the overload that's the key.
It's not just hoaxes, right?
Just hoaxes is not good enough.
It has to be the overload.
It's taking all your energy away.
Diversion.
So that's totally working.
So what would you do about that?
Apparently they know Trump has no effective defense against it.
Because your most obvious defense is to say it's not true.
And then people who want to think it's true say, well, you're a liar.
Because they've already framed him as a liar.
Once you framed Trump as a liar, his denial of a hoax doesn't have any weight.
Nothing.
To the people who have been convinced that he lies about everything.
But what could you do?
How could you reframe this so it's not just a bunch of hoaxes and somebody trying to say they're not true?
Because that ain't working.
So here's my idea.
And also, I should note that Trump's most capable supporters The ones who really are good at persuasion and stuff like that don't have any hope of changing this, because we're all siloed, as Marianne Williamson points out.
The press, including X, by the way, I have almost no exposure to anybody who's a Democrat, because X's algorithm gives you more of what you want.
If you're a Democrat, you want Democrat stuff, so you'll never see my stuff.
And that's the free speech platform.
The free speech platform is useless as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want.
It's useless.
It doesn't have any free speech power at all.
So I'm not sure if Elon Musk has completely grasped that he doesn't have a free speech platform.
He has a silo where people can talk to themselves.
And I hate to say it, because, you know, I'm a giant fan of Elon Musk and what he's done with X, but as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want, which, by the way, doesn't sound crazy.
Sounds pretty sane, give people more of what they want.
But as long as that's the case, there's no free speech going on.
It's people just talking to themselves.
The ability to talk to people who already agree with you is not any kind of free speech I'd recognize.
It's talking to the people in the other silo and getting them all worked up and vice versa.
Now that's some free speech, but we don't have it.
Don't have it anywhere.
The debates were stupid and fake and controlled.
That was nothing like any information at all for voters.
So given all that, the helpers can't help.
Vivek can go in public and do something fricking awesome every day.
And he almost does.
If you're following Vivek, His public appearances are almost jaw-droppingly smart, and you think, wow, that could move the needle.
No Democrat will see it.
They just don't see it.
It makes no difference.
And, you know, I would argue that there are a number of people in that category that just can't break through the silo.
So what do you do?
Well, only Trump can break the silo, meaning that if he says something interesting, Democrats have to hear it.
But he's the only one.
He's also the only one who seems incapable of doing the thing I'm going to suggest.
So, something would have to change.
Here's what I'm going to suggest.
It's based on a trick I learned years ago in my media training.
That there's a weakness that the media has, which I exploit every chance I get.
Which is why you're listening to me, by the way.
If I had not been exploiting this flaw in the media for 30 years, you wouldn't even know who I was.
It's the primary trick I use.
It goes like this.
Nobody in the press cares that you did something better than somebody else.
You know, unless it's the Olympics, some special case.
But they don't care you're really good at something and somebody's a little bit not as good.
That's not a story and they won't care about it and they won't write about it.
But here's what they will write about.
If you're doing something, if you're a public figure and you're doing something in a whole new way, They'll write about that.
Do you know why?
Because when they write about a whole new way, it's fascinating.
It interests the writers, but more importantly, it interests the readers.
So readers like, whoa, you're doing this a whole new way.
So a story about Trump not spending as much on elections, but using this, you know, social network strength that he had, that was a story everybody told.
Right?
Both sides told that story.
It's a process story.
If somebody uses a new process and it's so good it wins them the election of the United States president, you cannot not tell that story.
Every journalist wants to tell that story and do.
So if you do a new way of doing something, that's guaranteed to cut across both silos.
So what he needs to do with the hoaxes is stop saying, this is a hoax.
Because that gets him nothing.
Instead, he needs to do the following.
Number one, build a hoax debunk website.
I know they exist.
I know the fans have built them.
He needs his own.
He needs a Trump campaign hoax debunking site.
But here's the key part, and if you leave this out, it's nothing.
So I don't think I can emphasize this enough.
Because I don't want you to hear, well, if he had a website debunking the hoaxes, he's in good shape.
No, it would be useless.
That would be useless.
It has to describe how they made the hoaxes.
That's the magic sauce.
The magic sauce is showing the technique.
So, let me give you an example.
Let's say the Find People hoax comes up.
If Trump says, that's a hoax, everybody knows it's debunked.
Yeah, nothing.
But if he says, you know, what you really need to know, you voters, about how the system works, is that it's almost entirely hoax-based at this point.
And I'd love to teach you how the hoaxes are created, so that you can spot them on your own.
For example, the Fine People hoax is created just by a simple edit.
If you don't believe that, And I wouldn't believe it if I'd been watching the mainstream news either.
You can go to our hoax debunking website.
Here's the URL.
And you can see for yourself the method they used.
The method.
That's the secret sauce.
If you want a journalist to cover it on both sides, you talk about the method.
The method.
Not the reality.
The method.
The method was to take off the end of it, and then the media that's fake would keep repeating it as a real thing.
And then you say, here's another one.
The Covington kids.
The overfeeding the koi.
I would argue the drinking bleach one, but I know that's more complicated.
It was about light.
They cut out the light part, etc.
It's a little harder sell.
But for each of the hoaxes, you could say, okay, this one was done by mind reading.
They pretend they know what I'm thinking.
And they've pretended that when I said I would be a dictator for a day, which was clearly just a hyperbole to make a case about closing the border, they read my mind and acted like that was a real thing.
So you do, you know, there's the mind reading ones, the fake ethic ones, and instead of organizing the hoax list by hoaxes, wait for it, wait for it, you organize the hoax list by method.
Here are the ones that are fake edits.
Here are the ones that are mind reading.
Here are the ones that are quotes taken in a context, or whatever the categories are.
If you turn it into a how to do it, and how they did it, both sides are going to report it.
And if you can get a Democrat to look at even one of them, and somebody said to me that debunking the fine people hoax wouldn't change any votes.
What?
Most of the Democrats who have changed sides have said that figuring out that the Fine People hoax was fake was a deciding factor.
You've heard it, right?
I mean, this is anecdotal, but have you all heard public figures say, once I found out about the Fine People hoax, I was done with Democrats?
You've heard that, haven't you?
Some high-profile people have said that recently.
So, no, that's the Rosetta Stone.
The Fine People Hoax, more than all the other hoaxes, is the one that's so simple to explain, because they just clipped off the part where he said, he clarified.
If you can get people to realize that they've been that duped by their own people, they will be pissed.
And that causes action.
Anger causes action.
And they will, and they were the people who have switched sides.
They say, I was angry when I found out what they did to me, and I've been out there repeating this hoax forever.
Um, next.
Um, you need to, uh, the, uh, all the supporters of Trump need to refer to the same page.
Now there are some, uh, hoax debunk sites, but they're not organized the way I just described and therefore they have no value.
Right.
And let me say it again.
A list of hoaxes has no value.
It has to be a page that tells you how they did it.
How they did it is inescapable.
Everybody wants to know how.
So let me give you the talk that would do it.
The wrong answer is, well, the fine people hoax has been debunked.
It's been widely debunked.
That's wrong.
Doesn't work.
Here's the right.
If you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, now you have my attention, right?
If the first thing I say is, if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, that's so interesting that you're going to listen to whatever comes next.
That's a writing trick.
Make your first sentence, like, too interesting to skip the second sentence.
So you say, if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, go to the hoax site, give the URL, to see how that hoax was created with a fake edit.
You can see the unedited video to see for yourself, and when you're there, look at how the other hoaxes were created too.
It's appalling that we have to live like this.
We need honest media to have a great country.
That would have ended the debate, by the way.
If Trump had done that when the fine people hoax came up, he would have been the winner of the debate and you wouldn't have remembered anything else.
And then further, I would say that we need a QR code that goes to the debunk page, and it could be included very easily.
Any other messaging that has an image, you know, so just in the corner of anything else you say just put the QR code and you know hoax debunk site something like that and Then then is supporters could take the QR code who would just take a picture of it ourselves and every time somebody in the comments or on X or anywhere on social media and says, blah, blah, blah, hoax, you just say, check this out.
You can either put the URL for a click or put the QR code.
And then I would also preemptively predict how the Democrats are going to respond with more hoaxes and fake fact checking.
So you might say, you know, if you're going to check this, the press is going to respond with just more new hoaxes.
But now you know how they're made.
When you see the new one, check this page and you'll see which category it fits in.
It's either a mind reading or a fake edit or something in the context.
And you just teach people to be experts at spotting it.
And what's that's called?
Does anybody understand the technique I'm teaching you?
It has another name.
You've heard it before.
Oh, come on.
You know this one.
Tell me what technique I'm using.
The persuasion technique.
It's one Trump uses all the time.
He just hasn't used it in this context.
All right.
I think that the comments are a little delayed.
I think you know this one.
It's called thinking past the sale.
The sale is that these are hoaxes.
Thinking past this, let me show you how they were done.
If you can make them think about how they were done, they have uncritically accepted that these must be hoaxes, if they're worrying about how they were done.
And that is a very strong persuasion trick.
It's one that Trump uses all the time in other contexts, so he knows how to use it.
It's one of his best.
Meanwhile, World War III is kicking off.
Save that for last.
So, apparently, the news is saying that Blinken, Secretary of State Blinken, may have given Ukraine the green light to send some American-made missiles deep into Russia.
As Putin has pointed out, there is no way that Ukraine could send these missiles deep into Russia unless they use NATO satellites, which would make it a NATO operation.
And unless the NATO operators are the ones who actually sort of set up the missiles and probably push the button, because it isn't so easy just to hand these missiles to somebody and say, Hey, point them to Russia.
It doesn't work like that.
Apparently there's quite a bit that goes into making sure your missile goes to the right place.
And it's unlikely that anybody except NATO people would be firing them.
So says Putin.
I'm not sure that's true, but that's what Putin says.
And that would make it, as Putin is trying to warn us, that would make it a NATO attack on Moscow, which would be a red line, which would allow him to use nuclear weapons.
And, you know, I'd still bet against him using nuclear weapons because he would die.
Right.
If Putin uses nuclear weapons, Putin's going to be dead.
There's no question about that.
But so would a few billion other people.
So I think it's the last thing he wants to do because he is rational.
But man, here's what I would expect as a response.
I think if an American missile hits Moscow, and they already have, but if it becomes more of a major attack on Moscow, I think he's just going to bulldoze Kiev. So obviously he's made major attacks on Kiev, the capital, before, but I don't think he's really concentrated on it.
I mean, he could send his entire army, his entire air force, just to turn it into rubble.
And he might.
And he wouldn't be wrong to do it in the context of war.
Nothing's good in war, but in the context of war, if they do a strong attack on Moscow and he has the stronger military, if he wants to, he can just destroy the capital of Ukraine and with no remorse.
So I think that's more likely.
So I think Kiev has to worry about what they're getting.
I suppose I did hear an opinion the other day that maybe Ukraine and maybe Israel would like to start more of a war, perhaps with Iran or Hezbollah, which is also Iran in a sense, but that it might be the very best time to start a war is right away.
Because the United States is so distracted and disjointed at the moment, that if you don't want a strong response from America, this would be the time to do it.
Now, I don't know, I do not embrace that to be true.
So I'd like to give a message to both Israel and Ukraine, because I know you're watching.
If you take advantage of the United States when we're temporarily weakened, You better finish us off.
Because if you take advantage just because we don't have our shit together for a few months, whoever gets in power is going to make that right.
And we're not going to be happy about it.
So my warning to anybody who wants to take advantage of a little bit of unrest in the United States is we're not going to be unstaffed.
Right?
And we're not going to be happy about it.
So, so I wouldn't, I wouldn't mess with us when we've got some problems.
That's going to come back 10 times stronger than you think.
And I think that's just human nature.
I'm not really saying anything that's some kind of brilliant strategy or geopolitical opinion.
I'm just saying human nature.
If you fuck with us when we're confused and down, we're going to be way madder.
Way matter when we get right, and we're going to get right pretty quickly, especially if you fuck with us.
So if you want the United States to organize and be united for once, just fuck with us when we got some trouble, like during the election season.
You're going to pay for that.
That's going to be the most expensive thing you've ever done.
So just want you to know that.
Meanwhile, Russia has their own Thermite spewing dragon drones.
So you saw that the Ukraine has these thermite, it's basically fire, fire-breathing drones.
Now, when you imagine how bad that would be, you think to yourself, well, it's a little drone.
How far can it throw fire anyway?
I mean, it seems like it'd have to get pretty close and it can't be that powerful.
Oh, yeah, I can.
Because it turns out that the way they're doing it is they're having the fire just use gravity.
So in other words, they just fly over something and there's something about this thermite that makes it basically almost like a solid.
So the fire falls like a solid and it's some bad stuff.
So really bad stuff. I'm seeing a comment.
You suffer from the same idiot mindset.
Most Western people do.
You look at other people as if they like you.
They are not.
Russia is not susceptible to your big mouth.
Never was.
Never will be.
Well, you sound like a fucking idiot.
All right.
You are somebody who doesn't understand how anything in the world works.
You don't think that Russia and China are watching public opinion in the United States?
You don't know how risk management works either.
If I increase the risk profile of any action, it changes behavior.
Maybe not in the end, but it changes the likelihood of behavior.
So, does Russia care about what Americans think?
Yes, they do, you fucking idiot.
Does Israel care about what Americans think?
Yes, they do, you fucking idiot.
They do.
Because our actions will determine a lot to them.
Do we care about how they think?
Yes, we do.
Because it matters to us.
To imagine that other countries don't give a fuck what the United States thinks about vaporizing them with nuclear weapons is the dumbest fucking thing I've seen all day.
So great comment there.
You're doing great.
Anyway, I feel a little spicy today because I may have gotten enough sleep for the first time.
So, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my, uh, my prepared remarks.
And I'm going to go talk to the locals people, except that one, uh, privately.
And, uh, I'll see you tomorrow.
Maybe in the man cave tonight if you're part of the locals.
▲
Export Selection