God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Sean Combs Arrest, Hillary Clinton, Weaponized Brainwashing Terms, Chaos, Unhinged, Confirmation Bias Traps, Brainwash Priming, Anti-Trump Brainwashing, Democrat Dirty Ops List, Democrat Weaponized Assassins, Joy Reid, Nate Silver Polling, Springfield Fake Bomb Threats, Ryan Routh Planning, Ryan Routh Background, John Brennan, Elon Musk, Pattern Identification, Drone Warfare, Friendless Kids, 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
Anchor gels or Steiner canteen, 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, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, my god.
So good.
Sublime.
Well, according to the New York Post, can a good cup of coffee turn a bad day around?
Yes.
Yes, it can.
This is the kind of science you need.
There's a poll of 2000 American coffee drinkers, and 31% of them said their entire day can be ruined if their coffee isn't right.
That's why your coffee should always lean right.
You don't want leftist coffee.
Is that what they mean?
No, I think they just mean if it isn't Correct.
Not right.
But one person in five claimed that fresh coffee is, quote, better than sex.
Now, when I heard that, I instantly said to myself, fresh coffee is better than sex?
Come on.
Now, in the process of testing to make sure that that was true, or not, I learned something that I want to pass along.
If you're planning to have sex with your coffee, wait about 10 minutes.
Otherwise, you will burn your penis.
But 1 in 5 say coffee is better than sex, so they probably wait 10 minutes.
That's my guess.
Because if they were burning themselves, they'd say, not nearly as good.
Not nearly as good.
But it also raises the question, for the 1 in 5 who said coffee is better than sex, I'd like to see their sex partners.
Just for complete information.
Were you pulling the Thames?
Maybe not.
Because when I walk down the sidewalks of my town, and I look at the other human beings, I say, hmm, I'd rather have coffee than have sex with you.
Yep, you, I'd rather have coffee than sex with you, and you, and you.
Well, you're almost as good as a cup of coffee over there.
So that is how I see the world.
Well, there's new research, according to SciTech Daily, that reveals that cannabis can reverse brain aging.
That's right.
A low-dose, long-term administration of cannabis.
It turns out, study shows, it reverses aging process in the brain, and also exhibits anti-aging effects.
Now, do you know who knew that?
You could have asked me.
All right, I want to be clear that I never recommend marijuana, even if it's legal in your town.
Don't do it.
So it's not really a good habit to get into.
However, I will tell you that my experience of it is that I would have retired from my profession probably 10 years ago.
But honestly, my brain feels like it's 19.
And I'm pretty sure that my lifestyle habits have something to do with that.
Because you can actually feel the difference if you're a chronic user like I am.
You get the difference between, ugh, I've already worked too much today, and wow, I feel like I'm 19, I'm full of ideas.
It happens pretty quickly.
And I would have actually been surprised If it didn't make your brain more, let's say, more flexible in a youthful way.
It's what it feels like.
So, not a surprise.
Well, Glenn Greenwald, he was talking to the FCC Commissioner, Brendan Carr, and I guess the question was, why would you be in favor of banning TikTok?
When you would not be in favor of Brazil banning X. Because in both cases, that would be a country banning a platform, a free speech platform.
So why would you be in favor of banning one but not the other?
To which I would like to add my comment.
One of them is an enemy.
And one of them is coming from our team.
Let me see if we can do this with an analogy.
Now, analogies are never good reasons, but sometimes they're fun.
What would be the difference between giving a gun to your best friend, who's trained in guns and on your side, versus giving a loaded gun to a deranged criminal?
Why wouldn't they be the same?
It's the same gun.
Right?
Same gun.
Why would you care if you give it to your best friend who's trained to use it and wants to defend you versus somebody who wants to use it to kill you and rob you?
What's the difference, really?
It's the same gun, people.
It's the same gun.
If you're in favor of one, you're in favor of the other.
I don't see any difference.
Well, now, of course, all analogies are terrible for arguments, because those of you who disagree with me are saying, let me pick apart something about the analogy that's not identical.
Well, analogies are not meant to be identical.
But since everybody will pretend that they don't know that when you present an analogy, analogies have no value.
Because people will just say, but it's different in another way that doesn't make any difference.
So don't use analogies.
But I would say that there is a valid case for getting rid of a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of your enemy.
Versus a communication tool that might have things you don't like on it.
They're not exactly the same.
So to imagine that they're just both free speech platforms is, I would say, a limited view.
P Diddy apparently has been arrested.
We don't know the details of P Diddy, but what people are saying is that he was the Epstein blackmailer of the music rapper world.
And then allegedly his home had cameras in every room and he would have big parties in which you would convince rappers to do gay stuff and get it on camera and then blackmail and own the world and then he could get away with anything.
Those are the allegations.
They do sound a little bit truish, meaning that, yeah, I could believe that that's what's happening.
But, I remind you, it's fog of war, and absolutely anything could be true about this story, and anything that they tell us could be false.
So, as hard as this is for me to say, B. Diddy is innocent until proven guilty, and he hasn't been proven guilty.
So, as a citizen, I'm going to give him the same consideration I give every citizen.
Which is, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Now, if something comes out that sounds like proof, I will immediately modify my opinion, as I should.
But at the moment, the only thing I know is that law enforcement is accusing him of something.
And I live in a world where law enforcement accusing you of something doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to.
Maybe it never meant anything, I don't know.
But now, as a concept, I'm going to say, let's wait.
Let's wait.
If they've got a case, we'll listen.
But innocent until proven guilty.
Chipotle is experimenting with some robots to replace their employees.
They've got one robot that can perfectly peel an avocado.
I gotta get one of those.
I need an avocado robot.
Just to brag about.
You know, cause at some point we'll have more than one robot.
You'll get to say like really douchebag things like, Oh, Oh no, that's, uh, that's just my service robot.
Um, if we want coffee, you need to talk to the coffee robot.
No, no, no, not, not for the avocados.
That's the avocado robot.
Come on.
I've got more than one robot.
So that's happening.
Now the question I have is how the industries will adapt to robots.
Because it seems to me that any company that's already big is going to have a terrible time getting rid of all their people and replacing them with robots.
Because there might be union problems, there might be lawsuits, there's going to be all kinds of problems.
So I have a hypothesis that the first Robot fast food place will have to be a new startup.
Because it seems like it would be way easier to start from, it's all robots all the time on day one.
And I think it should be a soup and salad place.
Because if I were making robots, I think they could do a great job on soups and salads.
It might take them a while to saute or make a sandwich.
But a soup and a salad?
Mostly it's just chopping and putting stuff in a bowl.
Well, Bill Malugin, Fox News, is reporting about the number of asylum seekers.
Now remember, the asylum seekers are not technically here illegally.
Because if they came in and said, uh, I'm here for asylum, even if someday they're turned down, while they're waiting, they're completely legal.
Now, When people lump them into the category of illegal immigrants, are they being fair about it?
Well, sort of a gray area.
So it is completely and technically legal because it's our system and they came in through that system.
Is it just a workaround to get more illegal people into the country?
Apparently, yes.
I don't think it has anything to do with asylum.
It looks like just a Democrat plan to Bring in more people.
We'll talk about that a little bit.
Elon Musk, well, how many of this?
According to Mlujan, 530,000 migrants have been flown in.
And then, as you know, they're part of the asylum program.
And another 813,000 have scheduled appointments.
Holy cow.
asylum program. And another 813,000 have scheduled appointments. Holy cow. So Elon Musk says, this is his take on the whole asylum thing.
He says, those granted asylum become citizens within five years.
Somebody said it's really six, but it's the same point, which is just over one presidential election cycle, and then vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
And Musk says, this is why so many are being placed in large numbers in Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio, and other swing states, to create permanent one-party rule by the Democrats.
He puts Democrats in quotation marks because it's so anti-democratic.
Well, let's see.
Is there anything else that's happening in the country that would suggest that Elon Musk is on to something and that the Democrats are doing something that, you know, you might mildly label as undemocratic?
Is there anything coming from the Democrat side of the world that's scary or alarming or undemocratic?
Anything?
Well, I'm going to play for you a clip from Hillary Clinton.
This is new.
And it's one of the scariest things you'll ever see in your life.
I just want you to listen to her voice and look at her face and see if this doesn't scare the shit out of you.
And all she's doing is talking on TV.
It's frightening.
Uh, and let me show you.
Propaganda and whether they should be civilly or even in some cases, criminally charged as something that would be a better deterrence because and boosting Trump back in 2016, but I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda.
And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases, criminally charged as something that would be a better deterrence because and boosting.
Bye.
I mean, is that scary?
Just listen to her voice and her mannerism while she's talking about Republicans going to jail for saying things she doesn't like.
And she's saying that in a full-throated, non-embarrassed, non-hedged way, that the people saying things she doesn't like should probably go to jail or be charged.
I'm assuming jail would be, you know, the penalty.
She is scary.
Oh my God.
Wow.
And she also said that we should take, in a separate clip from the same interview, she said that we should take Trump literally, not just figuratively.
And she used the example that when he says he wants to be a dictator for one day, that you should take that literally.
She said that in public.
That you should take it literally when he says, I want to be a dictator for one day.
How in the world could you take that literally?
I mean, that sounds like, it just sounds like a joke.
I mean, it sounds like a joke that she would even tell you that you should take that literally.
Who could be a dictator for one day?
How in the world could you take that seriously?
But she's tried to sell that to her, her sheep.
And then she used that chaos thing.
You know, we should reject chaos and we won't go back.
And then I looked at the May's account on X, had a Joy Reid clip, where she was talking about how the Russians have been grooming Trump since 1977.
Like, every time you see this Russian stuff, it just makes you think, wait a minute, are all the Russia collusion people the same team?
Like a subgroup within the Democrat party.
And I think they are.
And I think that sometimes you can see a web of connections reveal itself by who becomes visible in what situations.
So whenever you see this Russia collusion thing, I feel like there's the same subset of Democrats who all emerged to talk about it.
Joy Reid is one.
Clinton is one.
Brennan is one.
You know, the The designated liars always pop up.
That's how you can tell which networks are operating within the Democrat Party.
Anyway.
Here is my take on how to identify the brainwashers, such as the Hillary Clintons and Joy Reid, etc.
And by the way, I'm not using that as hyperbole.
When I say that Hillary Clinton and MSNBC are brainwashers, I mean that in the most literal sense.
It's not just propaganda.
It's propaganda with such Thickness and repetition and consistency that it is just nothing but brainwashing now if you wanted to say but Scott That's the same thing that Hannity does on X. You can make your argument.
I'm just saying that in this case.
It's obviously brainwashing So I'm not I'm not I'm not saying it only happens from one side but one side is doing it in a way that is so comprehensive and And it looks like a weaponized form.
It's just more powerful than what you see on the right.
But here is your tips for knowing when you're dealing with the brainwashers or the brainwashed.
So the brainwashers are introducing a set of terms that I'm going to tell you, and then the brainwashed are the ones who use the terms.
So you can very easily identify the key people doing the brainwashing, by using these terms, and then you can tell when it worked by seeing the individuals repeat them.
Here are the terms that guarantee it's coming from a brainwasher or brainwashed.
These are terms that almost nobody uses outside that context of being a brainwasher or being brainwashed.
They just aren't terms that you hear otherwise.
Number one, chaos.
Number two, unhinged.
Number three, the danger to democracy, or steal your democracy, or it's the end of democracy, they're all the same.
He's only in it for himself, and we won't go back, or we can't go back, or he's trying to take you backwards.
Do you know what all of those things have in common?
Well, number one, they're, well, the main thing is that they can't be proven.
What exactly would be your measure of chaos and who caused it and why it's being caused?
You could never measure it.
You'd never know if it happened, but you can easily imagine.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's a lot of chaos looking things and maybe it's Trump.
How about unhinged?
Do you, do you see that word much in your normal life when you're talking about your coworkers?
It's a real word.
I mean, It's just that you don't say unhinged very often.
You say crazy, stupid.
I mean, there's lots of words that we use.
Unhinged seems sort of just something they're using for Trump at the moment.
Danger to democracy.
What's that mean?
It's anything he wanted to mean.
What does only in it for himself mean?
It means they're pretending they can read his mind, And that he would be the only person who thinks he could be president and do things only for himself and that would work out for him.
It doesn't even make sense.
These are non-sensible things.
Or it can't go back.
Now, I've told you that this is one I may have introduced back in the Clinton era.
But when you talk about going back versus forward, it's really easy to imagine that some stuff is backwards looking and some stuff is forwards looking.
So these are all confirmation bias traps.
What that means is, back in 2016 when I pointed out that their persuasion, the Democrat persuasion, was all using the word dark.
Well, it's the same thing.
Dark, chaos, unhinged, danger to democracy, only in it for himself, can't go back.
They're all the same.
They're all the same in that they're vague, but they're traps for confirmation bias.
So if I prime you with these words, and I say, hey, whenever you're looking at these Republicans, but especially Trump, there's darkness, chaos, unhinged, danger to democracy, only in it for himself, can't go back.
Every single thing that he does, no matter how Good it is, is going to fit into one of these.
You can just force fit it into any one of these.
Well, sure, that might sound good on paper, but I think he's only in it for himself.
Well, how, how would you know that?
And, and if it's also good for us, why do we care if it's also good for him?
You know, all of these have that same quality.
They're very unspecific.
They're vague.
They can't be measured, but you're sure you're seeing it.
Because you've been primed.
The priming is everything.
If you took the priming away, nobody would see it.
I'm going to use this example again, because it's such a clean one.
I've used this before, but then you'll see it in this context as well.
When Trump was on January 6th, when he said, you know, fight like hell.
If nobody had told you that that's a call to violence, never would have occurred to you.
If you take the priming away, it's just talk, because it's the way ordinary people talk all the time.
We're going to fight like hell for this, fight like hell for that.
Even people say dangerous things like, yeah, we got to kill that.
Nobody takes that as violence.
But if your news sources prime you, like, oh, that violent, violent talk.
He's full of chaos and he's an unhinged.
He's a danger to democracy.
He wants to take us back.
He's only in it for himself.
Now, listen to what he said.
Gotta fight like hell.
Oh my God!
Now that I've been primed for all that chaos, unhinged darkness, danger to democracy, only in it for himself, can't go back stuff, that sounds pretty bad.
It's the priming that makes it bad.
It's not what he says.
Now, this is the greatest trick that the Democrats are playing.
And they're doing it really hard now after the second assassination attempt, because they're trying to blame him for the chaos that they're creating.
If you took away their framing of Trump, there wouldn't be any of this.
There would be no darkness.
Nobody would think it was a danger to democracy.
None of it.
Now, it also has a second benefit, this type of framing and persuasion, is that it's the classic blaming one side for what you're doing, so it hides what you're doing.
What are they doing?
Well, made you a little list.
So while Trump is trying to quote, steal your democracy by running for office the way everybody runs for office, you know, going through a primary and getting votes and saying what he wants to do and getting people to like it, you know, all that stealing your democracy stuff.
Here's what the Democrats are doing.
Now you, you fact check me.
You tell me if I've gone too far.
I'm just going to name a bunch of things that I think are just obvious and in the news.
You know, nothing I've researched.
I don't need to.
It's just headline stuff.
Tell me if any of these are not true.
Have they imported a million of fake asylum seekers?
They are fake.
To political background, battleground states to create a one-party Democrat rule.
According to Musk, He says that's exactly what they're doing.
A lot of smart people agree.
It looks like it.
It has every sign of it.
Are they looking to pack the Supreme Court so they can effectively remove an entire branch of government?
Yes.
They're saying it directly.
We want to pack the courts.
We want to reform the courts with the idea of getting rid of the conservative majority.
In other words, to get rid of an entire branch of government by making you simply agree with the executive, which they would hope to completely control forever.
How about removing the filibuster?
Well, if they get control of everything, it would neuter the minority party.
Is neutering the minority party part of your democracy?
No, it's the opposite.
Are they looking to censor and jail dissenters because of their misinformation?
Yes.
Hillary Clinton just said this directly and clearly that she wants to put in jail people who disagree, which she would call dissenters or misinformation people.
Are the Democrats trying to control the entire news industry to keep the public uninformed via mesh network of hoaxes?
Everything from the fine people hoax to the January 6th insurrection hoax.
Yes.
They're trying to remove the one check on bad behavior, which is a free and fair press.
They're essentially, have completely neutered the press.
Now, you might say to me, but Scott, there's still Fox News and Breitbart.
Yes, but they've made sure That their people never see them.
So they only have to get to 51%.
Yeah.
Roughly speaking, I'm talking in sort of conceptual, not mathematical terms, but if they can get just enough majority of voters to stay in office, then they can just control the entire information landscape and stay there forever.
Um, Are they trying to bankrupt and jail independent political voices that disagree with them?
Yes.
Yes, they are law-faring and using other political and economic pressure to destroy people like, you know, Bannon and Navarro and me and Trump and anybody they can get their hands on.
So yes, that's happening.
Are they maintaining a voting system that cannot be fully audited?
And there's only one reason for that.
Yes, yes.
Every one of us knows, because we follow this stuff, that if we wanted our voting system to be credible to everybody, give us a fast result that could be easily audited, we would have a day off for voting, it would only be in person, and it would be on paper, and there would be observers.
And we'd be able to audit it as much as you want, and every time you counted it, you'd be able to get the same number.
We have the opposite of that.
We don't have any way to know even if the machines did the right things internally.
We don't know if somebody dumped a bunch of mail-in ballots that look good but aren't.
We have a system that's designed to conceal cheating.
It's not an accident.
If you think that after decades of looking at how to do things right and how to do things wrong, after decades, That we intentionally picked the wrong one, and that that was an accident?
That is so far beyond a reasonable assumption.
The reasonable assumption is that if every single observer knows the right way to do it, and every single observer knows the wrong way to do it, and after decades you still choose, really really hard you choose, to do it the wrong way, Well, there's only one fucking reason for that.
And, you know, people who are paying attention are aware, but most of the public doesn't know.
Most of the public thinks that the elections can be fully audited, and therefore we know for sure that they're fair.
Which is kind of amazing, because people live in the real world, and if you've spent five minutes in the real world, you know nothing works like that.
Nothing works like that.
No, you can't measure the temperature of the earth and you can't know for sure that your election is clean with our system.
There could be a system in which you would know, but we don't have that one.
How about, do we have any fake pollsters so that they would support any suspicious outcomes in the election?
Yes.
Even today there's a pollster that puts Harris up by six.
Do you think that's real?
And do they think they were even trying to be real?
Do you think they put any attempt into making that the actual realistic poll?
Well, I don't know.
But it doesn't look like it.
It looks like it's fake.
And the other polls that are just wildly pro-Harris, they all look fake.
And that would be what you'd expect if somebody is trying to steal your democracy.
Well, telling you, well, this poll said it was okay.
So if the vote says it's like that, well, the pollster said so.
So that's pretty sketchy.
Are they trying to take away your most useful firearms?
So all you have left is a pistol?
Yes, they want to take away your most useful, dangerous, your most dangerous firearms, which would be one way you could protect yourself against this government.
Hypothetically.
Are they trying to weaponize assassins to kill their political opponents?
When I say weaponize them, I mean use the type of rhetoric That you'd better kill Hitler.
If you don't, you're going to have a big old Holocaust coming.
Yes, they do that.
They are trying to, in my opinion, it seems obvious that the Democrats are trying to kill Trump and they're trying to use legal speech to do it.
Now, is it legal to use their free speech in a way that greatly enhances the chance that somebody crazy will try to kill him?
Probably yes.
It probably is legal.
I'm not sure I would change it because you wouldn't be able to get rid of that without getting rid of too many things.
That's the problem with free speech.
But if we like free speech, and I do, probably have to live with that.
However, we get to call it out as well.
So if you look at the news today, it's mostly Republicans saying, hey, you've weaponized these assassins.
Stop doing that.
And them saying, but, but Trump is Hitler.
They're doubling down.
There's not a single Democrat who's saying, you know what?
You know, maybe it might make sense to do a little bit less of this divisive kill him, kill him rhetoric.
Not one.
Has anybody seen any political figure or news figure say, maybe we've gone too far?
I've seen none.
And the reason is the moment they say, maybe I've gone too far, they're complicit with attempted murder.
Like, actually, literally.
So if CNN tomorrow said, you know what?
All things considered, we've looked at all of our past actions.
We've decided that we've platformed too many people who said things that are just going to try to get somebody killed.
If they said that, we'd say, well, if they do get killed, aren't you an accessory?
Now, is there not some precedent where somebody on social media, just a regular person, can go to jail?
For convincing somebody to kill themselves.
That's real, right?
You can go to jail if you persuaded somebody to kill themselves.
I think that happened recently.
I'm sure you could go to jail for persuading somebody to commit murder if they actually went and did it.
But why can't the news be convicted or go to jail for very clearly, in my opinion, Joy Reid, Is very clearly weaponizing crazy people to kill Republicans.
I think it's still legal because she has free speech so she can make up any stuff she wants.
But, um, you should be aware that it looks like attempted murder to me.
I just don't think there's a way to have the justice system do anything about it because if they did, then that, that standard would be extended too far and it'd come back and bite you in the ass.
So the best you can do is speak out about it, but you're mostly speaking to your own little silo.
All right.
According to Nate Silver, who is one of the ones I trust in this world of polling and statistical odds, he's got Trump pretty much way up.
And he has Trump looking at Winning 312 electoral votes to Harris' 226, based on today's current polling.
But, like I said, there's another poll that says Harris is up by six.
They're not both right.
I don't think they're both right.
As you may have heard, you know, the Haiti migrants, the asylum seekers, I guess they would be, who were in Springfield.
And some people said that some of them were eating pets, but I don't have any information to confirm that.
And then other people said, that's racist.
So that's just the situation.
There were a bunch of bomb threats in Springfield, which were immediately blamed on all that speech about the Haiti migrants eating pets, which I don't have any evidence of.
Now, when I say I don't have any evidence of, I don't mean that there wasn't one.
I don't know.
Anything's possible.
But I'm not going to blame an entire group of people if a few people did something wrong.
That's sort of a standard I'd like to maintain.
So I don't know.
But as a proxy for the argument that the uncontrolled immigration is dangerous in a variety of ways, it works really well.
So, I see the pet argument not as something that's necessarily backed up by enough anecdotes that I would call it some kind of a top-line worry.
I mean, if it was your pet, it's a top-line worry, but it seems like the numbers are probably manageable, whatever it is.
Anyway, it turns out that those hoaxes, the bomb threats, were all coming from overseas.
There were 33 of them.
There was nothing to them.
And the Republicans were not doing that.
Now, here's the question.
Have any Republicans been weaponized against the Haiti migrants because of the patent stuff?
Because I hope not.
I wouldn't want to be associated with that in any way.
But I haven't heard of it either.
Now, I know the Proud Boys went there, but there were like 12 of them who marched around with a flag and went home, right?
Because there was nothing to see.
And the reports I'm getting from the Haitian migrants is that they're getting employed by people who wanted, you know, low-paid workers.
So, we'll see what happens with all of that.
Anyway, so talking about that, uh, tempted, uh, assassin who tried to get a shot at, uh, Trump didn't get a shot.
Um, let me clarify something I said yesterday, um, from the early reporting in the fog of war, it sounded like the shooter, the potential shooter might've had, uh, sites on Trump from one hole away.
And they were saying, well, at that distance, you know, it's a longer shot, but you know, somebody with a scope could make that shot.
But apparently he, they never had line of sight.
So I want to compliment the Secret Service for their system, which maybe should be beefed up, but the system as it was implemented worked somewhat the way it should have.
Meaning that they checked the advanced hole before it got there.
They found something there.
They neutralized it.
That looks like pretty good work.
So I want to make sure that I did not accidentally or intentionally malign the Secret Service for their work on that job.
Because there does seem to be evidence that they had a system.
The system operated as they wanted it.
It caught the danger.
It neutralized it.
I'm going to say compliments.
Now, if you say to me, but Scott, Shouldn't somebody have sort of walked around that fence, you know, way before then?
Because that was a known vulnerability.
You know, it was right next to a fence where anybody could have walked up and looked at the president.
Yeah, maybe.
But to me, that looks like a resource constraint.
Meaning that if they were going to definitely look at it close closely before he got there, Then you have a resource question.
Was it also important that maybe somebody had been there the whole time?
Now, if money is infinite and everything's free, then yeah, put somebody there the whole time.
But in the real world, you're always making those choices.
So if they made choices and the choices didn't hurt them, literally, then I'm going to give them, based on what we know, I'm going to give them a good review.
Now, I don't know enough to know if there's anything that also was done wrong.
I would change my opinion if it was.
But at the moment, well, somebody said no drones, but I believe that there were.
I think there was some report of some aerial assets they were kind of vague about.
So I think it's unclear whether drones were there, but I would agree with you.
I very much agree.
If there were no drones there, That would be a problem.
I don't know that the drone would have spotted somebody who was in the bushes for 12 hours, hiding in the bushes.
Now, to the question of how did the potential assassin know that Trump would be golfing and golfing at that golf course and sometime within his 12-hour window?
And I don't know the answer to that, but let me suggest some possibilities.
If your first thinking is that the only way you can know is from the Secret Service, I would say that's not true, because there'd be plenty of non-Secret Service people who would know before it happened.
But they might not know 12 hours before.
So here's my question.
It sounds like he might have been hiding and waiting before Trump had even decided to play golf.
We don't know that yet, right?
So that's not a confirmed statement, but it looks like if it was a impromptu, what they call the ad hoc last minute plan, that would suggest if the guy had been waiting for 12 hours from the night before, that he might've been waiting there before Trump decided to golf there.
Now, does that make sense?
Maybe.
Let's say you knew the following, and I don't know if this is true, but I'm just going to speculate that there is a way he could have gotten lucky without any inside information.
I think there's some public place you can find out if the candidate is scheduled to be somewhere, right?
Don't we generally know where Trump is going?
There's some source for that?
So I'm going to assume that there's some way that you could tell, if you wanted to, that Trump's going to be out of town or in town.
If you knew he was going to be in town, they were saying that it sounded like That there'd be some way the public would know if he's golfing.
But, suppose you knew he was going to be in town, that he always golfs on a Sunday, but there was no advance notice that he was going to golf.
But he always golfs on a Sunday, and there was nothing else scheduled as far as you know.
What would you assume might happen?
Well, if it's me, and especially if you had any inside information, you might say to yourself, you know what?
He's probably going to decide to golf anyway, because there's nothing that would stop him from doing it.
So where would he golf if he has to make a last minute decision?
Probably his own golf course that's nearby is the only one that would work.
So if you were going to guess, Will he golf on Sunday when nothing else seems to be planned?
And he's at Mar-a-Lago, which you could know.
That seems knowable.
Could you also guess that he's very likely to do a last-minute I think I'll just golf at my own course because I can just close that one down and control it.
And I don't have to worry that I don't have a, you know, which force of them I'm kicking off or anything.
So it seems to me there could have been enough breadcrumbs there that a motivated person with a little bit of sort of general insight information, but not specific information could have guessed that there was a 30% chance he'd be golfing that day at that golf course.
Does that sound fair?
Yeah.
They said the golf was unscheduled, but that it could be different from whether he knew the night before he was going to do it.
So Trump may have decided the night before and told people the night before, but maybe didn't put it on the schedule.
So that would suggest that there might be multiple insiders Who might be able to tell somebody who would tell somebody who would tell the shooter, potential shooter.
So the point is, there is more than one way that that could have happened.
One of them is he guessed right, and maybe he had a 30% chance of being right, just based on Trump always golfs, and if he's in town and he doesn't have it scheduled, it's going to have to be there, because where else are you going to do it if it's unscheduled?
So, anyway, we don't know enough about that.
Mike Benz is asking some provocative questions.
So apparently this Routh guy was going to Ukraine and trying to get visas for Afghan or ISIS fighters to come in and fight against the Russians in Ukraine.
Now, Mike Benz points out that John Brennan had been the, I guess, the station chief for the CIA in Saudi Arabia when the 9-11 terrorists got their visas.
And so there's this weird connection of a guy that looks like the sort of guy that intelligence people might at least have a, maybe a little bit of a handle on.
Doing something that looks like something the CIA does, which is not enough to say that it's some kind of CIA operation, of course.
There's just some pattern recognition going on.
But I would go further and say that if John Brennan is one of the first people that appears on MSNBC to talk about a story, I just always assume the CIA is involved.
That's my signal.
Wait a minute.
It's MSNBC.
There's a story that needs to be reversed or managed.
The narrative has to be shifted.
And John Brennan comes on.
To me, that's a giant signal that some intelligence-related people are involved.
Remember, he brought us the Russia collusion hoax, and the 51 people said the laptop is Russia collusion.
And then suddenly he pops up, when this guy pops up, who was fighting against Russians.
So in three anti-Russia instances, Brennan popped up.
He popped up with Russia collusion.
He popped up with the laptop that he said was Russian.
Now he's popped up where there's a guy who was trying to fight against Russians.
So this is three times that the same guy popped up when there's some Russia connection, which he would be opposed to Russia.
Apparently, Routh was well known among volunteer aid groups as a fraudster, criminal, conman, whack job.
Sarah Adams, no relation to me, a former CIA officer, She said that he claimed to be working with the Ukrainian government, but wasn't.
And the Ukraine's International Legion, which handled foreign volunteers, denied having any tie to him, and they would have had to have a tie to him if he was doing any official recruiting on behalf of Ukraine.
So here are the questions that people ask.
How did he afford to fly to Ukraine?
When he had no money and no assets.
Two trucks in Hawaii, I guess.
And how did he fly to Hawaii and back?
How did he do anything?
Now, one way would be he's an intelligence asset for our country or some other country and they're funding him.
Maybe.
The other way is that he was a criminal.
So he has a long criminal record, including a weapon of mass destruction, they call it.
But it's basically a fully automatic rifle.
So he's got a long criminal record, including doing things that look like for money.
So maybe he just stole something and got himself a plane ticket.
Might have been that simple.
Let's see.
So who is the FBI agent in charge of investigating the second assassination attempt?
Well, it's Jeffrey Veltri, who allegedly had to scrub his social media before he got his current job because it was so anti-Trump.
That's right.
Somebody with a known public hatred for Trump.
Who thinks he should be nowhere near the Oval Office, is in charge of making sure that Trump stays safe.
And that we find out what we, in a sense, because we'd have to find out what we can find out about this attempt.
Crazy stuff.
I saw Chris Cuomo from News Nation talking about a post that Elon Musk made, but then later after getting some Negative attention on it, he deleted it.
Now, here's what Musk said, and then I'm going to tell you how Chris Cuomo and others interpreted it, and I want to see if you interpret it the same way they did.
So the post that Musk did that was taken down, taken down pretty quickly, he said, quote, and no one is even trying to assassinate Biden-Harris.
No one is even trying to assassinate him.
Now, Cuomo and others apparently interpreted that as a call to, you know, evening out the danger.
Like, you know, maybe somebody should, you know, consider doing something bad to the other team.
Now, that's batshit crazy.
That's not what that says.
Do any of you interpret that as a suggestion or a hint or an encouragement for violence?
Does anybody hear it that way?
And why would you hear it that way?
How could you hear it that way?
The only way you can even hear it that way is if you've been primed to think that Musk is some kind of bad guy or chaotic or unhinged or something.
How in the world do you hear that?
Here's what I hear.
There's a pattern.
Maybe it matters.
Right?
There's a pattern.
The pattern is it's happening to one side but not the other.
Is it important to understand the pattern?
Yes!
Yes!
It's a perfectly good observation.
That if it's only happening to one side, you need to understand that.
My hypothesis is that the bad guys, the top Democrats, and the persuaders and the news that they control, Are intentionally weaponizing crazy people to take out Trump.
To me, it looks like that.
Now, I can't read minds.
If I could read minds and I could look in their heads and say, oh, you do mean that, but I can't do that.
But I do notice the pattern.
Right now, let me be clear.
So I'm not taking out of context.
I do not want anybody to do any violence to anybody.
Especially, you know, people running for president.
That's the last place I want to see that.
So, I mean, I don't want it anywhere else either.
But how in the world could you even see that as a call to violence?
Your brain would have to be really stuck over in some little, you know, weird darkened room to even interpret it that way.
Now, are you agreeing with me?
I can't help it in the comments yet.
But you see it as just a pattern that needs to be explained, right?
It's not a call to violence.
Now, why would Elon Musk quickly delete it?
Because people were interpreting it as a call to violence.
Now, I trust Andrew Cuomo to not be just making up a, you know, point of view.
I think it's his actual point of view.
I think he's a pretty straight shooter.
Um, I'm not sure about his CNN days.
Those look different, but his current incarnation looks like a straight shooter.
I think he actually interpreted it that way.
So it's a, it's a good demonstration of how priming can change what you see and feel.
Washington Times is reporting that Silicon Valley smart people are sounding the alarm over drone warfare.
You've heard this before.
But that we would last less than two months in a war.
Now that applies to most of our weapons.
I think Lucky Palmer has been saying this.
And it applies to the fact that we don't manufacture our own weapons.
And where we do, We rely on China to supply some of the parts that we use to manufacture our weapons.
Meaning that if we ever got in an extended war with China, they could manufacture weapons after a few months and we couldn't.
So now I don't know if we would ever get in a conventional war with anybody who has that manufacturing capability.
It would be the dumbest thing for both of us.
So I don't think it's going to happen.
It's very low on my list of worries.
Right near the bottom is war with China.
Because war with China would require one thing guaranteed, which is that China thought it was in a war with us.
And they're not going to do it, because they're not crazy.
There's just no signal from China That they have some kind of death wish.
There's nothing.
They are the most engineering, long-term, what's-good-for-China, smart country you've ever seen in your life.
And so to imagine that they would do something just literally suicidal.
Where would that come from?
There's not any impulse in their country to do that, I don't think.
That's my view.
Now, of course, things can change fast and crazy people can come to power, but there's nothing about Xi that suggests he wants a war with a superpower.
I saw Naval Ravikant mention on X that these swarms of Swarms of drones will be the next nuclear war or weapon of mass destruction, let's say.
So the weapon of mass destruction will be, you know, a hundred thousand drones darkening the sky above an enemy and just wreaking chaos.
So I think that's true.
The thing I worry about is that the United States has a really good drone offense and defense at some point.
And it encourages us to use it against somebody who has nuclear weapons.
So I worry about getting in a drone war with somebody who could nuke you, but I worry about getting in a drone war in general.
So maybe the drones would be a good reason not to get in a war, but I feel like the world is going to go through at least a brief period, that may be years, But not forever.
In which going outside into a crowded area will just not be smart.
So I've long predicted that stadium sports, you know, outdoor stadium sports, I feel like there's just no chance that that can last.
Because as soon as everybody can send a poison-filled drone anywhere they want, I just don't see how people can gather together.
It's going to be too dangerous.
Anyway, there's a study that found this shocking fact that parents believe that a lot of their kids don't have even one friend.
So they think that one in five kids have literally no friends.
Does that track with anything that you've experienced?
One in five kids have no friends.
I think that's real.
It might be low.
Because I think the ones who say they have friends probably don't spend much time with them.
But I would like to give you a way to cure loneliness.
Because I saw there was a post of a gentleman on Axe who was saying that he had no friends.
He was an adult.
He had no friends.
And that whenever he tried to make a friend, it got awkward and he wasn't good at it and it didn't work out.
Now, is there anybody who's watching who has that problem?
That they want to have friends, but they just can't do it.
They just don't know why and it's not working for them.
Would you like me to solve that for you?
There is a solution and I believe there's only one.
Here's something that never will work for a man.
By the way, I think it's different for females.
So I'm going to give advice that's more, more suited for men, but I think women could use it successfully as well, but a little more targeted to men, maybe 60, 40.
And that is that men don't make friends because you want to be friends.
That's not a thing.
I like you.
Let's be friends.
Nope.
Nope.
Can't do it.
Can women do that?
I don't know.
Maybe.
I've seen examples where women do that.
Like, we met this one time and then we became friends forever.
And I think, what?
How do you do that?
I've never met somebody one time and then became friends forever.
Here's how men need to do it.
Activities.
Now, I always say, just join a club, an activity, something that will expose you to a changing pool of people, because it's about numbers.
If you meet enough people, and you meet them in the context of a common interest, like a sport or a hobby or volunteering for something, or even work, if you meet them and you have at least that one thing to talk about, you have a good chance that you could turn that into something.
But, A lot of people don't have anything they'd want to join.
So here's the solution.
And I might say a lot more about this in the future.
The solution is you have to be the organizer.
You have to be the organizer.
Now, don't start with inviting one person to do one thing.
That doesn't work as well.
Unless it's a sport, like inviting somebody to golf.
That totally works.
Or to play tennis.
That totally works.
But be an organizer of a group.
Figure out something that you enjoy doing, and especially if you're good at it.
So, I'll give you an example.
When I played more tennis, I was good at it.
So it wouldn't be unusual that I might, you know, be part of organizing some little tennis get-together.
And then I would know the people that I'd invited over.
And then, you know, you get closer to them through the shared activity.
But here's the magic of it.
Here's the math of it.
If you're a little bit on the spectrum and you don't quite see how powerful this is, let me explain it to you with math.
You create a event or some kind of a thing that you know people would say yes to, not because of you, but because they want to do the thing.
So you might have a, I don't know, a Super Bowl viewing party and you invite some co-workers.
You might invite some people who do the same sport.
You might say, hey, let's get together to watch the, I don't know, debate.
But you invite some people over and let's say you get a dozen people to come over and do a thing.
It costs you some money.
You're going to put some time in.
You're going to provide some beverages.
It could be potluck and it doesn't cost so much.
When you're done, You've got 12 people who, when they have an event, are going to invite you.
Because you invited them.
You activated reciprocity.
And I'll tell you that when I've held events at my home, one of the most common things that happens is somewhere toward the end of the night when people are winding down, before they leave, people I don't know that well would come over and say, You know, we're having an event two weeks from now.
Would you like to come?
And you sometimes will get three invitations to events just that night.
And the only reason is because you put on a good event.
Now, you don't even have to be the one who's good at conversation.
If you're the one who puts on the event, you're sort of busy doing stuff.
And that can take away all your awkwardness.
Because if you're the one who's making sure somebody has a drink, you don't have much to talk about.
Hey, can I fill your drink?
Have you found the bar?
Did you get something to eat?
Can I introduce me to your friend?
So you always have something to talk about if you're the organizer.
So that cures all your awkward conversation problems and then gets you 12 people per event who might invite you to something and you'll meet some more people you don't know.
So that's the trick.
You have to provide value.
And by the way, this is way more true for men than women.
Men, your only value to anybody, whether it's your mate, your children, or your friends, is what you provide.
So, the gentleman who was saying in public, and it was very sad, that he couldn't make friends, The way he talked about it, I saw somebody else make the same comment, the way he talked about it was, why don't other people give me this thing?
Why can't somebody give me friendship?
I keep making myself available, but nobody's giving me this friendship.
And I say, oh, you don't understand how any of that works.
That doesn't work.
You can't wait for somebody to be your friend.
You've got to go add some value to the world, And then connect people to you through that value.
So if you're good to your kids, they'll probably stay with you after they leave the house.
They'll visit you often.
If you're good to your wife, she might stay with you.
If you put on events and you organize things, people are really going to want to stay with you and be your friend and connect with you all the way.
But you should be thinking, provide value.
If you're thinking, where's my friends?
You're not even on the right question.
You can't succeed on something that doesn't even make any sense, and nobody's made work ever in the history of the world.
Go do something useful, and then people will be attracted to you.
And it'll keep you busy while you're lonely, I guess.
The other story I saw that I'm not so sure is true, because I just saw it before I came on, is that somehow, cleverly, one assumes, Israel had gotten exploding pagers.
Who uses pagers?
This is why I'm concerned this isn't real.
That a bunch of Hezbollah people up in Lebanon, uh, all their pagers exploded at the same time and injured them.
And that they were somehow got a bunch of fake exploding pagers.
I'm going to put a pin in this and say, I only saw the stories right before I went live and I don't believe them.
Cause I'm not so sure why anybody would have any pagers.
It could be that cell phones are too easy to detect.
And you know, the, the real, the real terrorists have to have a pager for some reason to get a secret code maybe, but it's a little, I don't know.
It's a little too spy movie.
I mean, if it's true, it's kind of impressive, but I'm just going to say maybe on that story.
All right, you may or may not know that the Dilbert calendar for 2025 is coming back, and this time it's printed in America for the very first time.
So go to Dilbert.com if you want to get a link.
Go to the link for the presale.
And I recommend, because the shipping for anything is crazy now, the shipping will look unreasonable to you.
So it works best if you're getting more than one, and then the shipping looks a lot more reasonable.
So it's a gift item.
Most of you buying them will be buying them for somebody else and get two or three because I'm sure you know at least three people who like Dilbert and work in an office or used to work in office.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
I'm going to go talk to the locals people, subscribers, who are special and see extra content that the rest of you don't get to see, including my comic, Robots Read News, the funniest thing that's ever been created.
And if you're on X or YouTube or Rumble, thanks for joining.
I will see you again tomorrow, same time, same place.