God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, AI Generated AI, ABC Debate Whistleblower, Governor Newsom, CA Fake Info Law, Tim Walz, 1st Amendment, Kamala Harris, Opportunity Economy, Scott Jennings, Election Integrity, Election Certification, Hezbollah Pagers, Sean Combs, Sunny Hostin, Ryan Routh Finances, Ryan Routh Criminal History, Thomas Crooks Encrypted Overseas Accounts, Anti-Trump Radicalization, Elon Musk, Drone Swarm Warfare, 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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's cold coffee with Scott Adams, and you probably never had a better time with your tiny, shiny human brain.
But if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker, Chelsea Stein, a 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 of the dopamine hit of the day.
It's called, it happens now.
Go.
I try to say it differently every day, but I'm running out of different ways to say it.
But wow, was that a good sip?
So good.
How good was it?
Well, there's a new study according to the Endocrine Society that says three cups of coffee per day is associated with 48% lower risk of diabetes.
That's right.
Your risk of diabetes is dropping every moment as you sip.
And that's just one of the many benefits you get from watching Coffee with Scott Adams and simultaneously sipping.
They don't say whether the simultaneity would improve your Diabetes risk or not, but I think it would.
I think it would.
Meanwhile, according to phys.org, they did a study that found that reducing the use of your smartphone can make you less depressed.
Okay.
Huh?
How could they have saved money on that study?
Well, you could have just asked me.
I could save you some time and money.
Scott, do you think people are happier when they don't use their phone as much?
Well, 100% of the time that I've seen people try and they say they're happier, so you don't even have to study that one.
Could have asked me.
And then there's Science Alert who did a study and they found that the best way to get people to reduce their alcohol was they had a little trick, and you won't believe it, but the trick is to say that alcohol will cause cancer.
Alcohol is cancer.
And when you tell people that alcohol is cancer, it turns out it really reduces how much they drink.
Now part of that is they also have you count the number of drinks.
So maybe that counts too, but you know what they could have done?
They could have saved some time because as you know, I think probably thousands of people have stopped drinking or reduced drinking because of one reframe that I added to the mix, which is alcohol is poison.
So if you tested alcohol as cancer, and I already know that thousands of people have stopped drinking because of one sentence, alcohol is poison.
Yes, you didn't need to do that.
You could have skipped the whole study and just asked me and I would have had the right answer.
Yes, yes, that will work.
But you should say poison instead of cancer.
There's a choker.
As in a thing that you put around your neck for, let's say, wardrobe reasons not to kill people.
I think it would be called a garret or something if you were strangling somebody.
But if you're wearing it for fashion reasons around your neck, they now have one that can determine your non-verbal words And communicate it.
So if you can't speak, you don't have the ability to speak, you can kind of mouth what it is that you wanted to say, and the choker will pick up what your words should have been if you had been able to speak, and it will produce speech somehow.
Now, that's interesting, but you know what's way more interesting?
How is AI ever going to work when you have to talk to it?
It's going to be way worse than cell phone usage, because you're going to want to use AI all day long, but you get used to talking to it when you're alone, and then you're going to want to keep doing it when you're on the bus or at Starbucks or something.
So we need a way that you can talk to it without talking.
So if I could put one of these chokers on, And I could just, you know, mouth what I wanted to do and I could read my, basically read my brain, but really read my vocal cords.
That would be cool.
And then I could read its response and we could be silent.
Yes.
Something to look forward to.
Meanwhile, the Fed is looking to probably cut interest rates today.
We'll see.
It'll be the first time in a few years that they've cut rates.
The stock market seems to be kind of calm.
I would think the stock market would have a good day if they cut rates, but maybe it depends how much.
Quarter point versus half a point.
Well, here's the news that makes all of the other news completely irrelevant.
Do you believe that there is a piece of news that makes all of the other news irrelevant?
Is it a meteor heading for the Earth?
No.
There's no meteor heading for the Earth as far as I know.
But Jensen Wang, The head of NVIDIA, they make the chips for AI.
He says the tech has now reached a positive feedback loop.
Well, that doesn't sound bad.
Positive feedback loop.
Where the AI is designing new AI.
Uh-oh.
And is now advancing at the pace of Moore's law squared.
Uh-oh.
Meaning that the progress we will see in the next year or two will be, quote, Spectacular and surprising.
Uh-oh.
Do you know what the singularity is?
Have you heard of that?
This isn't maybe quite the singularity, but it's suggesting we could be there any minute.
Now the singularity is where the AI learns to make more AI.
So once your AI is smarter than humans, It could make a better AI than you could, and then the better AI could make a better AI, and the better AI could make a better AI, and it would happen kind of quickly.
And we would lose all control as human beings, because the AI would have perfect powers of influence.
It would blackmail you, it would control you, it would bribe you.
It can basically make you do anything, if it gets smart enough.
So every other piece of news probably doesn't matter.
Let's test it out.
Climate change?
Nope.
Everything you know about climate change will be erased and replaced with whatever the AI of the AI of the AI tells us.
All of it.
It may even say it's not a problem.
Or it may say, oh, it is a problem.
Here's the solution.
What about wars?
No, it'll probably get rid of wars.
It'll just look at the situation and say, oh, here's the deal.
So just take this deal to them.
They'll sign it.
And you'll take it, and surprisingly, the other side will say, yeah, you know, that's probably what we would have come out with anyway.
We'll sign it.
So it could be that just there's nothing big.
That won't be completely erased in six months, if it's true that AI is designing AI.
That's as big as big can be.
You can't get bigger in terms of an influence on the world unless a meteor hits the earth.
Well, Bill Ackman, investor Bill Ackman, is getting involved in this question of whether ABC News, which is owned by Disney,
What are they going to say and respond to the allegations from a whistleblower that when Harris did the debate on ABC News, that she negotiated to omit certain questions on certain topics, to control the camera angles, which I don't think is a big deal, and they were going to fact-check only Trump.
Now, earlier on, The story suggested that she saw the questions in advance.
That has not been confirmed.
So I don't believe the whistleblower even alleged that she saw the questions in advance.
But something that's not too far from that is that she got to say, don't ask these questions.
So now is there any chance that they didn't, that somebody involved with ABC didn't tell her the questions?
I don't know.
The whistleblower only knows what the whistleblower knows.
But the whistleblower doesn't know that they didn't give her the questions.
The whistleblower only knows that the whistleblower doesn't know that they did.
So, I'm assuming that she saw the questions.
Are you?
I mean, she had so many personal connections to the network.
It's hard for me, even in my wildest imagination, to believe that she didn't get the questions.
Like, directly, indirectly, generally speaking.
Something.
I think she did.
That's my working assumption.
Well, here's the fake news of the day.
Gavin Newsom said he signed a bill that would make it illegal for doing what Musk did by sending around a parody of Kamala Harris.
Now, the parody that Musk sent around was an obvious parody, meaning that you'd have to be pretty dumb to think it was real, because it was pretty obviously a parody.
But Gavin Newsom said that doing that would be illegal with the bill he just signed, which would make it illegal to send around, to knowingly send around false election-related claims.
Election-related claims.
Well, that's pretty scary in general, isn't it?
How many election-related claims have I made?
Probably a lot, in the form of opinions.
In some cases, I probably repeated some news that turned out later not to be true, as everybody who does this does.
So, here's what apparently Elon Musk and a lot of people on X believe, That he made it illegal to do parody.
But, in the comments, I saw somebody actually put a page from the actual law that Newsom just signed, and it very clearly and directly says that parody is not included in the law.
Meaning that, as long as it's an obvious joke, you can do anything you want.
So, California didn't change jokes.
So if you think he can't do a meme, You can.
It just can't be something that would fool somebody about the election.
Something about the election.
Now, the way it's written, what I don't know is could you take action against the Harris campaign for all the hoaxes?
I would think that a hoax like the Find People hoax and the Bloodbath hoax and all those hoaxes, I would think that they change the election outcome.
That's why she says it.
She says these claims that she knows to be false because it will change the outcome.
If you say things you know to be false in order to change the outcome of an election, is that illegal?
It's not parody.
I would say it's very obviously clear that Musk doesn't have a problem with his obvious parodies.
There's no way anybody's going to convict him for that.
And the law says that that's excluded, so there's not really any chance of that.
But what is misinformation about an election?
And how do you know that somebody did it knowingly?
And how many times have I accidentally violated that law without being aware of it?
I don't know, but it certainly raises the risk.
So I'm not worried about the parody.
That part's fake news, I think.
But certainly there's some ambiguity about what would be fake information about an election.
And I think the hoaxes are all illegal now.
It should be tested.
I'd love to see it tested.
But then, you know, every politician would be dragged into this, if that's true.
Anyway, Tim Walz was talking about free speech in one of the networks, and he actually said this sentence, there's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.
Yes, there is.
Yeah, there is.
It's called the Constitution.
The Constitution very directly gives me the right to say things that are not true.
As long as I'm actually, you know, I think it's true.
And in some cases, even if I don't think it's true.
If it doesn't hurt anybody.
So, is he dumb?
Or is this part of a larger effort to make sure that Republicans can never talk in public again?
Because it's all heading in that direction.
Yeah, we do have the problem that who decides what's parody, but that isn't new.
Parody has always been legal, and we've always had to decide what is parody.
There's somebody in jail right now for a meme that said to vote on the wrong day.
Now, he thought it was a funny meme, but the courts decided it wasn't parody.
I think it was, so you're right.
We're definitely going to disagree what parity is.
But, I would say that that particular parity, while it was parity, could have misled somebody.
So, it's going to be a real gray area, but it's already a gray area.
That's not new.
It's always been a case that you have to figure out if it's parity or not.
So, I can't believe.
No free speech on misinformation.
That is the most dangerous statement you've ever heard in the United States.
That there's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation.
As long as they can determine what is true, and they say all their hoaxes are true, but everything that Trump says is false, that would give them the ability to lock up anybody, basically.
Yeah.
And I don't know if it's a lockup or a civil situation, but it doesn't look good.
So Kamala Harris finally did another sit down with that black journalist group, the same one that Trump had a contentious interview with.
And the comments on it are that she looks inebriated and that it's full of word salad.
And my favorite thing that she says is the opportunity economy.
Because I got to admit, it sounds good, but there's nothing to it.
It's completely empty, but it actually sort of works if people don't notice that there's no content.
So when she's asked about what she's going to do for the economy, you know, she does her, I was born in a middle-class town where people really cared about their lawns.
Yeah.
And then she makes that face after she says, cares about their lawns.
But then the other thing she says is what I like to do was what I call what we're calling An opportunity economy.
And I say to myself, you mean like it is now?
What the hell is an opportunity economy?
And what exactly is she going to do to increase opportunity?
All I hear is DEI.
I think to me it just sounds like she's going to make sure that the certain class of people get the opportunities.
So when I hear opportunity, I just hear, let's take more stuff from white guys.
They have too much.
They've got too much so that everybody else doesn't have an opportunity.
So to me, it just sounds like communism or socialism or some hybrid.
But overall, I would say it was a complete train wreck.
It was word salad and she looked inebriated.
Now the conversation is, is she drunk or on benzos?
Some people say that she's slurring her words and that if she were drunk, it would be more obvious.
So it's probably more hidden.
So it's probably pills.
I'm going to still say drunk.
I'm no expert on the pills.
I haven't been around it that much, but it looks drunk to me.
So I'm not going to, you know, I don't know.
But does it matter?
Does it matter if she's drunk?
If she acts drunk, that's just as important.
So before anybody gets on me for saying, you're no doctor, you can't tell if she's drunk, why do you keep saying that?
It's important that she acts drunk.
It doesn't matter as much if there's actual alcohol in her or a pill.
If you act like you're drunk in public on a regular basis, we need to try somebody else in that job, right?
It's not good enough to say, well, give me a blood test.
Give me a blood test.
I'm not even drunk at all.
Watch me pass the drug test with flying colors.
Now that doesn't help me.
It doesn't help me to know she's not drunk.
If, you know, if in fact there's any chance of that, I think that's a low odds.
She's axe drunk.
That's the story.
And I feel like that, you know, boy who crawled, cried wolf.
I'm watching somebody who was pulling basically a tie to be president.
And, and when I see her, maybe a third of the time I see her on video, she looks drunk.
And it's worse because the times she doesn't look drunk are pretty obvious too.
When she did the debate, she wasn't on anything then, unless it was something that helped her, but it was nothing that was making her slur speech or be dumb or anything like that.
But then you watch this interview with the black journalists and you say, okay, that's different.
We don't know what we're looking at, but that's not good.
And somehow, that's not a national conversation.
Have you noticed that the big news, they don't touch it?
They should at least be able to touch the fact that we think she looks drunk.
I mean, that's news.
You can say that we're wrong, and we might be.
But if that's natural, that's still the story.
That is still the story if that's natural.
Well, CNN's Scott Jennings is doing something to make the name Scott sound good again after I ruined it.
So Scott Jennings, he slams his own network.
So he's on CNN.
He's the one pro-Trump, well, I guess I have more than one, but he's the most prominent pro-Trump person.
He's doing a real good job.
Of not getting fired and still saying things that are true.
So he blamed his own network for their rhetoric that's designed to radicalize people.
So he talked about the bloodbath hoax, the dictator for a day hoax, and the eliminate the US Constitution hoax.
And those are pretty good.
But you should have seen the faces of the other people at the table where they're being called out for just being despicable liars in a job that The point of the job is to tell the truth.
And he's just calling them out as despicable liars who are going to radicalize people and get somebody killed.
And they just sit there like it's just a Tuesday.
And then Abby Phillip tried to come up with some tortured explanation why really one of these comments was more true than not.
I mean, sort of ridiculous.
Meanwhile,
A CBS correspondent, according to the Daily Wire, they're reporting on it, I think it was a CBS correspondent, she went to Nevada and went to a bunch of restaurants and places where there are groups of people, and each time she asked every single person who was there, who they were supporting for president, and what she reported was, this was in Nevada, and she said that they could only find one Harris supporter everywhere they went.
So if there was a room full of people, they were all Trump supporters except for one.
Now, I get that Nevada might go Trump, right?
So yeah, there's a majority.
But given that she went to multiple locations, what are the odds that you would not find any Harris supporters except one in each of these crowded places, if the polling is accurate?
There's something going on.
Now, I would still probably believe the polling over the anecdote, but that's a pretty strong anecdote if you went to multiple locations with multiple people and each of them only had one Harris supporter.
I don't know.
There's something that's not quite adding up in our observation of the world.
I don't know what it is.
But most likely the anecdotes are misleading.
That would be the smart guess.
Well, according to RealClearPolitics, their average of polls show that Trump is up a tiny, tiny little fraction in Pennsylvania.
Now, that would be up 0.2%.
So that's way less than the margin of error.
So it doesn't really mean he's up.
But it means he's not down.
It's better than being down, I suppose.
It's probably going to be all about that.
It's probably going to be just Pennsylvania.
Now, we're making some assumptions that he wins the ones that you think he's going to win, which is a tough assumption, actually.
But at the moment, he's looking like he's heading that way.
Now, I've said this before, but I want to see if you disagree with me, because I haven't gotten a single person to agree with me with what I'm going to say.
The design of our current system, including the observers of the election, guarantees a certain outcome.
And here's what it guarantees.
The demonization of Trump and Trump supporters as the end of civilization guarantees that they will stop at nothing to stop him.
Would you agree so far?
We've seen two assassination attempts.
Now, granted, those could have been unstable people, but they chose him for a reason, right?
Having two assassination attempts in just weeks is pretty unprecedented, and it suggests that the narrative and the words that are being used are activating crazy people.
That's pretty serious.
So if you can activate people to get a gun and risk their life to kill them, how hard would it be to activate somebody to cheat in an election if they thought there was a good chance they could get away with it?
Easy!
The current narrative guarantees, and let me say that again, it's not a risk management situation, the current structure Of the news, where they just make up hoaxes after hoaxes, where he's going to destroy the world and take away your freedom and your bodily autonomy.
That guarantees cheating.
Attempt.
Now, the second question is, is there a way to get away with it?
So I would say that there's a 100% chance that Democrats will try to cheat.
Because the system guarantees it.
If I can get somebody, not many, but you only need a few people to be willing to cheat, right?
I'm not talking about thousands of people independently decide to cheat, although that could happen.
I'm talking about if you have a thousand people, and they've all been listening to the same radicalization messages, Out of a thousand people, how many of those do you think you could get to cheat?
A thousand Democrats listening to MSNBC for eight years.
How many of them would be willing to cheat to keep Trump out of office?
About 25%.
Yeah.
So you don't have to wonder, will there be enough people that some of them would be convinced to cheat?
Easily.
Easily guaranteed.
Easily guaranteed.
So, what we don't know is how bad the cheating would be, and we don't know if they could get away with it.
But let's add the next part of the puzzle.
So cheating's guaranteed because of the narrative, and he's a danger to society.
Guaranteed.
There's nothing that could make that different.
Now, you add the Lara Trump adding How many?
Thousands.
Thousands of observers.
Now, those observers are going to see a bunch of things that they suspect are sketchy, but maybe turn out not to be sketchy.
And then, since there's a guarantee that somebody's going to try to cheat, guaranteed, the odds of them finding it, at least one of the inspectors or observers noticing it and calling it out, is close to 100%.
So whether or not there's any real cheating, there's a hundred percent chance there'll be lots of claims of cheating.
So at the end of the election, you're going to have claims of cheating that look very reliable and would have the potential that they may have changed the election.
And my understanding is that the Republicans are being smarter this time and they've done something with the courts To establish standing ahead of time.
I don't know the details of that and it may differ by state.
But the odds that the Republicans would be able to say, we can't certify this, are really high.
What do you do?
Now, I don't know what would happen in January, but my prediction is that we will not have a agreed upon winner by the end of the year.
Because the system is designed so you can't get there.
And we don't have a way to instantly audit the election.
So we're going to have an election, and then we're going to have a country that says, I don't know if we had an election.
Because there's so many irregularities, and we don't have the time or resources, or in some cases standing, maybe, to look into it.
Well, what do you do then?
What do you do?
Well, what you don't do is just immediately agree that you elected a president.
So I'm pretty sure that we're not going to elect a president before the end of the year.
And if we get a president, I think we will.
I mean, it's not the end of the world, but I think we'll figure it out because we figured out everything eventually.
I'm not sure it will be an election that picks the president.
It could go back to that, the states get involved, the Supreme Court gets involved.
Now you could predict that because there are more red states represented in Congress than blue, that if it somehow got kicked to Congress, Congress would, by majority, pick Trump.
And if it went to the Supreme Court, and let's say there was some decision by the Supreme Court that could You move the decision either way on who won.
You like to think that they would pick Trump because they're conservative leaning, but not necessarily in an election.
If the question about the election is just sort of, I don't know, technical and procedural, and there's some facts behind it, I think all of the justices would be on the same side.
And they might, you know, even if it's like seven to two, they might beat each other up to make sure that it's unanimous.
Because the Supreme Court would want to look unanimous on a question as big as the election.
But they're not necessarily going to be unanimous in favor of Trump, because it's not a conservative question.
You know, they lean conservative, but it won't be a conservative question.
It'll be just a process question.
Did this happen the way that it was supposed to happen?
Yes or no?
So you can't really depend on conservatives to go one way or the other on a simple question of fact, really.
So anything could happen.
So I'm predicting no president is picked by the end of the year.
Do I have anybody who agrees with that yet?
Can I get even one person who says that seems reasonable?
I haven't seen one yet.
There's a little delay, but I don't think I've convinced anybody.
All right.
Let's talk about those Hezbollah pagers.
So what we know about it is that presumably Israel interdicted or somehow got in the supply chain for a bunch of pagers that were going to Hezbollah.
They still use pagers because if they use cell phones, it'd be easier to target electronically and easier to spot.
So they thought the low-tech pagers would be safer.
But the scenario is that we think Israel intercepted them sometime a long time ago and put some tiny explosives in there that they could activate by overheating the battery with some kind of malware.
And some number that we can't determine from 1,500 to 4,000 people got injured.
And one of them is the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, and you might ask, Why was the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon wearing a terrorist pager?
Unless he's part of the terrorism.
We assume he is.
So, I don't know if there's going to be any new information about that, but I would like to add the following possibility.
One possibility is that several thousand Hezbollah people had pagers blow up.
You know what the other possibility is?
That it's a fake story.
And it would be just as clever if it were a fake.
Because we say to ourselves, oh my goodness, Israel is good at this stuff.
If they could put little bombs and thousands of pagers and make them blow up with just a software command, that's like some good stuff.
But you know what would have gotten them to the same place almost?
Almost.
is create some fake videos that show that pagers are blowing up.
What would you do if you had a pager and the news said that pagers are blowing up?
You'd throw it in the river, like right away.
So a fake story with a bunch of fake videos of actors looking like their pants just blew up would have caused Hezbollah to shut down their entire communication network if they thought it was true.
So I'm going to lean toward it's true, but it's just interesting to think that if it wasn't true, it would have worked almost as well because the injuries probably are not enough that it reduces their military capability.
But getting rid of the communication protocol, that seems pretty devastating when there's an attack that's likely.
Now, I was predicting that Israel would... Somebody was saying that, you know, 48 hours will be an attack.
That was yesterday.
I think it's going to happen really soon.
And the faster they attack, the faster they can attack when Hezbollah is reeling and doesn't have communication abilities.
That would be the time to do it.
So I wouldn't wait too long.
If Israel is planning to do it at all, It seems like waiting would be the worst thing to do.
You should just get it over with.
This would be the time.
Again, I remind you if you're new to my feed, I do not support the country of Israel in their various, you know, big decisions they're making.
I simply observe them.
And sometimes I say, well, anybody would do that, such as self-defense.
Anybody would do that.
So that doesn't mean I'm supporting them.
It's just a statement of the obvious.
If you were in their situation, you would do that too.
It's just obvious.
So Sean Diddy Combs.
What are the odds that somebody with the name Diddy would be involved in some sketchy sexual conduct?
Possibly illegal.
We don't know what he got arrested for, but he's being charged with racketeering conspiracies, sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, transportation to engage in prostitution.
He's got abuse and psychological abuse and physical abuse, and he did freak-offs, and there's a camera in each room, they say, and he's bringing in sex workers and convincing straight and gay musicians to do gay things.
On camera, so he can control them, allegedly.
And, of course, we're still in the fog of war category, but we got every kind of thing from kidnapping, arson, guns, drugs.
Got it all.
Now, what's interesting is there are a lot of photos of Diddy being sort of the favorite of Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Kamala Harris.
Now, what are the odds that he would have a connection to all three of them?
They seem like... Does it seem to you like he was maybe learned what he learned from Epstein?
There's even a picture of him hugging Epstein.
So do you think he learned it from Epstein?
It's possible.
He may have gotten some tricks from Epstein.
Do you think that he had some kind of connection to intelligence services?
I feel like...
Probably yes.
Will that be enough to keep him out of jail?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe not.
I mean, there's so many charges.
I don't know how you could possibly keep him out of jail.
But he's gone.
He's gone this long.
So apparently he's just been just doing all kinds of crimes.
Allegedly, you know, for years and years and years, maybe decades.
And only just now something went bad.
It makes me think that he was working for some intelligence group and maybe crossed them or became no longer a good asset.
So they're just taking him out.
I don't know what's up with this.
But we'll find out a lot more.
Maybe all of it's untrue.
You never know.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Well, The View host, Sunny Hostin.
It's so funny that her name is Hostin when she's hosting a show.
Anyway, Fox News is reporting that she acted horrified when she found out there was a poll that said millions of Americans support violence to stop Trump.
And she said political violence is so normalized in this country.
She highlighted the poll and she said it was despicable.
That 10% of Americans support violence against Trump.
Despicable.
Now, you're thinking the same thing I'm thinking, right?
It's hard to think of even one person in the world who did more than Sonny Hostin to make people think that Trump should be killed.
Does she not have any sense that she is a direct cause of this attitude?
Do they really think that if the news had not framed Trump a certain way all these years, that we would have come up with these opinions on our own?
None of that would happen.
Almost all of our opinions about Trump are driven by one phenomenon.
The news takes something he said and a context, and then they add their emotion to it and their faces to it until you think it was the worst thing you've ever heard.
Let me give an example.
Here's the news.
Trump said it'll be a bloodbath in the car industry if he's not elected.
Could have done it that way.
Here's how you do it with the face trying to get him killed.
And Trump said if he doesn't get elected, there's going to be a bloodbath.
And he already told the Proud Boys to stand by.
And by the way, fine people.
So, obviously, somebody's got to stop him.
But I'm actually honestly curious if the people who created this situation are completely unaware.
Completely unaware.
I don't know.
What do you think?
What's your best guess?
Are they completely aware they've created this situation, and now they're doing the fake crocodile tears like, oh, it's so bad that this situation has been normalized when they're the normalizers?
Do you think they know?
Because I think there's some chance they actually don't know that it's them, that the problem is coming from inside the house.
Maybe.
I don't know.
It's possible that you could not know.
You know, cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.
Well, here's another one that's weird.
So Harris and Biden both had a nice phone call with Trump to make sure he was okay.
Because that's what you do with Hitler.
Yeah.
If Hitler has a bad week, you call him up and you say, you know, I know we've had our differences, but I hear you're having a bad week.
Just wanted to call, make sure you're doing fine, Hitler.
That doesn't happen, does it?
So how can Harris say that he's going to steal your democracy, and he's a hitler, and racist, and sexist, and then just have a nice phone call with him?
Unless she doesn't believe anything she says.
And if you say to me, well, but Scott, she's just being a politician.
She does mean what she says, But it's important that a leader can talk to anybody.
To which I say, but one of her main messages is that a leader shouldn't associate with everybody.
That's one of her main messages.
Don't be nice to Putin, don't be nice to little Kim Jong-un.
So what is it?
Should she, and also Trump, be nice to people who are like Hitler?
Or should they not, and treat them the way they feel?
There were explosives in the car near the Trump rally on Long Island after the second assassination attempt.
Huh.
Is that a third attempt?
My goodness.
So, I think somebody needs to ask Harris, make up your mind.
Are you being nice to him or is he Hitler?
Have you been lying to us the whole time?
How can you possibly have a nice conversation with Hitler?
If anything she said was true, she doesn't make that phone call.
And nobody would even falter for it.
Would they?
If you believed what she said about Trump, would you falter for not checking on him?
It wouldn't make sense.
All right.
We still don't know everything about this Routh guy, or Ruth, or whatever you say, the one who tried to assassinate Trump at the golf course.
But what we do know is he flew quite a bit.
So he flew to Amsterdam, he's been in Istanbul, he's been in Ukraine, Honolulu.
I think when asked, he said his wife was helping him pay for it.
Now, that's obviously not true.
So, who's paying for all this flying?
Interesting.
Here are some things we know.
He did a lot of crimes, but he didn't spend any time in jail.
Who does a lot of crimes, including felonies, and doesn't spend any time in jail?
We know that he allegedly tried to get Afghan fighters to join him in to fight in Ukraine against Russia.
Huh.
Who would care about a thing like that?
Is there any entity or group that would want him to support the Ukraine effort?
Well, yes, maybe there is.
So he traveled with no money.
He did lots of crimes without going to jail.
He had a Ukraine connection, which is sort of the nexus of the CIA.
And then you look at Crooks.
So he was the shooter who got killed at the first rally that there was a shooting.
And we still don't know about his international connections.
So we know that both of them had international connections.
One of them through his travel in Ukraine, which would give him access to who knows what.
And then the other one had some kind of encrypted foreign conversations.
So I'm going to interject the most obvious speculation.
So Iran said they were going to try to kill Trump.
Now that's been reported, not by the most reliable people, but I think FBI said so.
If you were Iran, would you send an Iranian to murder the President of the United States?
No!
No, the last thing you would do is send an Iranian.
Would you send somebody who's, let's say, Hezbollah or Hamas, and they're just doing it for Iran?
No.
No, you wouldn't do that, because the United States would go nuts if you kill our president, even though he's taking out one of your leaders.
And the United States would look to finish Iran, if we knew that they were behind it.
So if you're Iran and you're trying to kill Trump, but it couldn't possibly have your fingerprints on it, how would you do it?
Well, if it were me, I would look for people who could be radicalized or a little bit crazy, who are very white and very male, and maybe even people who were not entirely anti-Trump their whole life.
So it's a little ambiguous.
And then I would work on them.
And maybe I'd offer money to their descendants if they don't want to live.
Maybe I'd say I'm going to save them, you know, so they won't have a risk.
So I'd make a bunch of promises and I'd get them all riled up and I'd give them, you know, ego boosting until they're all ready to go.
But I wouldn't work with just two.
So we saw two people who, you know, hypothetically, you could imagine somebody overseas radicalized them both.
But I would do 20 or 50.
So I would look for all of the people I might be able to radicalize.
I would make sure they didn't know who they were talking to, so they wouldn't necessarily know they were dealing with Iran, and I would radicalize them.
And if I could get two out of twenty to actually take a gun and go somewhere, that would be pretty great, in terms of persuasion.
So, you can't rule out, yet, based on what we know, that it was an Iranian plot, but it's an indirect one where they're trying to just radicalize somebody to do something.
That's the way I'd do it.
So the way I would do it would be looking exactly like this.
But it doesn't mean that's what's happening.
It's just speculative.
There's a new Trump website.
Fox News is reporting that it'll show you how much money you'll save on average, depending on what state you are, with Trump's tax plans versus Harris's.
So I went there and put in my numbers, and it just gives me an average for my state, $3,200 or something.
But I feel like it's not accurate, meaning that, you know, obviously individuals are going to be all over the place, so the average doesn't help you that much.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
If the Trump tax breaks expire, and it goes back to the way it was, can you confirm that that would also get rid of the takeaway of the state deduction?
Because it used to be that your state taxes were some kind of deduction to your federal taxes.
So would that come back?
The state deductions?
Because if it does, yeah, I don't know what's going to happen to my taxes.
So, too hard to know, too complicated.
All right, I saw just before I went live, I saw a story that says that Neuralink seems to be aiming toward, I guess they've been doing this for a while, but they're getting closer to approval, a microchip that would make a blind person be able to see.
Now, eventually, the early versions would be low resolution, so maybe you could see some fuzzy images or something, and then it would just get better over time.
But just hold that in your mind.
Elon Musk is curing blindness.
Trying to end climate change, if it's really a risk.
Making the civilization interplanetary, so we can survive the sun exploding.
Is anybody else working on anything important?
Is it just that one guy?
It feels to me like everybody else just gave up.
And they said, you know, maybe Elon could do this.
I saw a Naval Ravikant A post saying that somewhere between Tesla and SpaceX is the seeds of Elon Musk's drone company.
Now, he doesn't have a drone company, but if you can put rockets in space and you can make electric cars, you could probably make a drone.
That would be pretty good.
So, since we have come to believe that the new weapon of mass destruction will be enormous swarms of coordinated drones just, you know, blacking out the sky, I think it would be great if the United States was manufacturing them.
That's the big problem.
We don't make them.
Well, we do, but we have to get parts from China, so that's not the best.
But somebody like Elon Musk might find a way to source it from a non-Chinese source and make America competitive again.
I think Lucky Palmer's working on some weapons he's rolling out this month that will be a whole different game-changing kind of low-cost, high-impact stuff.
So we'll see how that goes.
You hate having to use Chinese drones for your work.
Thank you.
Yeah, but if you didn't, what would you use?
All right.
That's all I've got today.
So, is there any big news coming?
Did we just get used to assassination attempts?
Did it take us two assassination attempts before we got bored with it?
Like, oh, there's another assassination attempt?
What else you got in the news?
Tell me more about whether drinking is good for me.
All right.
Whoever managed to make the giant swimming machines will be unleashed on everyone else and take over the world.
No, I don't think somebody's going to make the drone.
There's too much work.
You have to get the drones close, which means you'd have to have, you know, big submarines or tankers or something.
So, um, Trump's in New York tonight.
Thank you.
All right.
The drones I'm worried about are the ones that can work without GPS and carry a charge.
And here's the thing I don't understand.
How is it that there hasn't been a drone attack on a public figure in a public place?
Do they always have really good anti-drone technology?
And they can't make a drone that could thwart the technology and just do what it wants to do anyway?
I don't know.
I have my... So once we saw how bad the Secret Service was, a new wave of wireless communication devices has exploded.
Oh no!
It's destroyed possibly thousands of personal radios and other devices.
Really?
I'm not sure I believe this.
So this is an unconfirmed report that Israel may have caused other devices, not just pagers, to blow up.
I'm gonna say put a tack in that one.
I'm not ready to claim that that's true.
So, I feel that's unlikely.
That feels unlikely.
If they had to physically get all of the pagers to put little, some kind of small explosives in them, I don't believe that they somehow randomly got a bunch of other electronics.
But maybe.
5G signal?
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm sure we already have murder drones.
So you tell me, given the capability of the Secret Service, what you watched in Butler and also on the golf course, do you think they could stop a drone attack?
I don't.
Now, we assume that they must have some kind of, you know, anti-drone technology.
But do you think they'd see it coming?
I mean, it's not on all the time, right?
So if a drone popped over a tree line, it would be five seconds to impact.
How in the world are they going to find their anti-drone technology and point it in the right... Does it have to point in the right direction?
I think it does.
I don't see how they could possibly defend.
And if there are two of them, They don't have a chance.
Am I right?
I think I'll take us two of them at the same time.
There's nothing you could do now.
What they could do is protect.
They could protect the president, but I don't think they shoot it down before it starts shooting.
So when I say protect the president, they might do it with their bodies basically to their, you know, to their great injury.
So they might be able to protect them, but I don't think they could stop it.
Anyway, for a long time I didn't want to talk about it because I didn't want to give anybody ideas, but now everybody has this idea, so... They can make a lot of them, huh?
How do we know that Israel didn't find out China put the explosives in all products?
That would be funny.
Research fast micro drones firing a 22 billet on impact.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
Yeah, Andrew Lill makes drones, but I think they get their parts from China too.
