God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Illness Loneliness, AZ Non-Citizen Registered Voters, Election Integrity Expectations, 23andMe Board Resigns, Migrant Terrorist Numbers, Evanston Illinois Reparations, CA DeepFake Law, Trump Gutfeld Appearance, Trump Fentanyl Dealer Policy, US Military Fentanyl Support, Hillary Clinton, Save Act, Hezbollah Walkie Talkies, Aurora CO, Springfield OH, Vivek Ramaswamy, Butler Assassin Details, Sean Combs, RFK Jr., Trump Transition Team, Tucson Trump Rally, 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 called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their shiny, tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a 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, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's gonna happen now So good Bye.
Well, I took a class on how to present the way that Kamala Harris does, and I picked up some tips.
So I'd like to do today's show using some of the things I learned from the Kamala Harris presentation class.
The fourth story?
I am going to tell you the funny accent for no reason.
I don't even know what the accent is.
But I learned that if I use a different accent every single time I talk to an audience, for some reason, nobody even notices.
All right, that's enough of that.
What are you thinking?
My God, don't do that the whole time.
Don't do that the whole time.
No, I'm thinking of you.
I won't do that the whole time.
Well, there's a news medical that says there's a genetic analysis that challenges the idea that loneliness causes diseases.
Because they found a correlation.
Lonely people have more health problems.
But they speculate, based on their scientific-y stuff, that maybe, just maybe, it's that the diseases are causing the loneliness.
To which I say, well, you could have saved a little bit of time by talking to Scott, because it probably works both ways.
Why?
Well, remember I've told you that all of our behaviors Or some kind of echo of our mating instinct, even if we don't know it.
The reason I work is, you know, I can give you logical, rational reasons.
Oh, I like it.
And maybe I'm useful and all that, but basically it's just showing off because it's part of my mating instinct, even though I'm not looking to mate.
So I think that people who know they're not healthy, um, spend less time around other people because they don't have the same Mating impulse because they're not thinking that they are a good mate So I think if you feel like your body is a hundred percent Your natural instinct is to want to be with people
And if you feel like your body is hurting or defective in any way, you got a disease or a condition, you're way less interested in spending time with other people.
And I think that that's probably just built into us in our DNA.
You know, if you ever see when animals are sick, they don't like to be around anybody.
It might be the same thing.
Anyway, Rolls-Royce.
Is winning some kind of big deal to build many nuclear plants in the Czech Republic.
So you've heard of this before, right?
Rolls-Royce is now in the tiny nuclear reactor business and they're trying to do it commercially.
And it looks like things are going to work out.
It looks like it's a genuine business and they're getting deals.
But here's the thing that jumps out at me.
Why in the world is the most important technology for the future, the one that would drive AI.
I mean, you could say AI is the most important, but it's not going anywhere without massive, you know, electricity upgrades.
So I would argue that tiny nuclear reactors are kind of pretty close to the most important thing.
Didn't you remember a time when the United States, or maybe it would be Japan or something, would be number one in something like this?
And now it's Great Britain making a deal with the Czech Republic.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
I wish them the best.
But I feel like the United States has really, really lost anything to do with manufacturing.
We're just pathetic.
And I don't know what's happening to improve that, actually.
Anyway, according to Blaze Media, Arizona officials have discovered that close to 100,000 registered voters may not have provided any proof that they are citizens.
And we're finding this out now?
How many of you trust that the states have accurate lists of voters and that they did a good job checking to make sure they're all citizens and that they'll also make sure that no illegal people vote?
It doesn't look like anybody's trying, does it?
Every time I hear one of these stories, and by the way, I see probably three stories like this every day.
And it's because I'm in my little silo of information on social media, so people know that I'm interested in it, so they send it to me.
But I'll bet you if you're a Democrat, you have not heard one of these stories.
I hear every day, I hear some other state did something that clearly is incompetent or illegal, relative to the election specifically.
And it's happening right up to a few weeks before the election.
How in the world does anybody think these elections are going to be nice and credible and we're all going to believe the outcome when it happens?
There's nothing happening that would make us believe the outcome of the election.
Every single news event pushes us further from it.
How is that possible unless it's intentional?
It doesn't look like we're trying to have a real election.
And that's weird.
I mean, usually you think, okay, well, you know, somebody's corrupt and Somebody's incompetent, sure, that's normal.
But at least they're trying to have a good, solid, safe election.
I don't see that.
I'm not even picking up the intention.
Now, it might be there.
All I'm saying is, shouldn't it be crystal clear that the intention is to have the cleanest, best, credible election?
I don't see it.
I don't see anything that suggests there's even an intention.
And that's weird.
You expect good intentions but maybe bad execution.
I don't see anything that looks right about the election at this point.
I don't know if you're following the 23andMe saga.
So 23andMe, the company that will take your DNA sample and then tell you about yourself.
Apparently they're close to going out of business the entire Board except for the leader the founder every one of them resigned and The the problem is they had a problem that I Predicted on day one of this company But I thought well, they must have figured this out just because it's not obvious to me.
Here's the problem once you've had your DNA tested and What else do you need to buy from this company?
Ever.
It's once for the rest of your life.
You'll never have another reason to buy their product again.
Now they tried to figure out some, you know, related things that could make money, but they didn't work out.
But that is a big problem.
Once you know what your DNA is and you're done, you don't need more.
So there's that.
I think they had some other problems.
And they were battling with the CEO and all that.
But then, of course, all the conspiracy theories come out and they say, here's my favorite conspiracy theory.
I don't believe this, by the way.
But the theory was that the government was always the ones, you know, the Intel, the CIA was behind this because they were using it to collect DNA on all the citizens.
But then when the pandemic came, The pandemic was used to collect all the DNA, so 23andMe wasn't needed anymore, so it's being thrown under the bus.
I don't believe any of that, because I'm pretty sure that nobody collected my DNA during the pandemic.
Not that I'm aware of.
Did they take the needle and go swab it afterwards or something?
No, I don't think they took my DNA during the pandemic.
I don't think so.
I mean, maybe they did.
Maybe.
It's not impossible, but I don't think so.
Anyway, according to the Daily Wire, there's some big top border patrol person who says that the Biden-Harris team, or the administration, told them to hide the number of terrorists crossing the border, because it would sound bad.
So they're not allowed to say how many potential terrorists are coming into the country.
I feel like we need to know that.
Does it surprise you that the administration would say, why don't you tamper it down a little bit on the whole terrorists coming into the country?
Let's put a little less attention on the terrorists.
Maybe.
Maybe that happened.
However, I would like to add this question slash observation.
When I read the stories about the Alleged terrorists coming across the border, usually they fall into the category of they came from a country we don't trust.
It's not like we knew something specific in each case.
I think in some cases we know about the individual, but I think in most cases Isn't it just a presumption about the place they came from?
And we don't really know, you know, if we get a hundred people from a country that is a terrorist-aligned country, we don't know that those hundred are all terrorists, but they would be all on the same list, wouldn't they?
As potential terrorists, just because they came from a country.
Now, if it is a terrorist country, that has bad designs for the United States, you would expect That if we let a hundred people in from a terrorist country, some of them would be actual bona fide terrorists.
Not every time, but out of a hundred?
If the country knew they could get in that way, and they knew they had bad designs for the United States, I feel like it's a guarantee.
Maybe not for a hundred people, but if a thousand people came in from the wrong country, Yeah, there would be a few terrorists in there.
I feel like that's close to a guarantee, statistically, risk management-wise.
So, there is something about the numbers that's misleading.
So, in theory, the total number of potential terrorists should be 10 times, 20 times the number of actual terrorists.
But, I'm not underselling it.
If only 10% of them are actual terrorists, I mean, that's enough to destroy the entire country.
So they don't need more than that.
I've always said a handful of terrorists could destroy the United States.
They would just have to be smart.
Well, so Judicial Watch, the group Judicial Watch, they're doing a class action lawsuit against the reparation policy that came out of Evanston, Illinois.
So apparently if you can show that you were a descendant of slaves, you'd get $25,000.
And Judicial Watch is trying to say that that's a big old racist unconstitutional thing, which it obviously is.
And, uh, good, good for them.
So, um, so good work, Judicial Watch.
I like that.
Well, you've heard the news, it's all over social media, that California made it illegal to do parody of political figures.
Are you all up with that news?
That Newsom signed a thing to make it illegal to do parody?
That didn't happen.
That's all fake news.
I'll bet every one of you heard that and thought it was true.
No, there's not any chance in the real world that parody became illegal anywhere.
No, parody is not illegal.
Never will be.
I mean, unless we actually got a dictator.
But no, nobody tried to make parody illegal.
In fact, the bill that we're talking about says in direct language, parody is not included in this.
Parody is still legal.
How many of you knew that?
How many of you knew that story was completely fake?
Here's what they made illegal.
You can't mislead people with something that's important.
And that's it.
So something that's important is that there's an election, there's a certain time for the election, and there are certain individuals who are running for election.
If you were to do a video, a deep fake, let's say, that showed Trump looking exactly like Trump and saying something that he didn't say, because it would make him look bad, And there was no indication it was parody.
That should be illegal.
I agree, that should be illegal.
Because that's important.
It keeps the country together.
You know, the integrity of the electoral system.
And if you're doing a fraud, and you're creating something that has the intention of fraud, and then you execute it?
Feels like that should be illegal to me.
Now, I don't think you should necessarily go to jail for it.
You know, the level of the penalty is a separate question.
But yeah, I don't think people should make things that look real that are meant to change the outcome of an election.
I'm not cool with that.
But if you do something where it's just very obviously parody, no, that's no risk.
You're never going to see anybody get jailed for an obvious parody.
So I think that's fake news coming from the right.
Have you heard the new song called Fighter that features Trump?
There's sort of an anthem showing Trump in a very positive light with a video and music.
It's from John Kahn, K-H-N.
And apparently he works at Breitbart.
I think he's COO.
And on the side, he wanted to be a rock singer, but he had a corporate kind of a job, like A lot of people do.
And he comes out with this song and apparently it's just killing it.
It's in the top 10 on iTunes.
Somebody said it was top 1.
I don't know if that's the case.
Top 5 in pop.
Now, I also reposted it, and when I started to listen to it, I thought to myself, oh, this is going to be another one of these corny, you know, there's no way this is going to reach me in any emotional way.
I thought, well, okay, I'm glad somebody got to, you know, showcase their music.
I didn't have any interest in it at all, but I turned it on.
It immediately grabbed me.
And I watched every second of it.
And it's great.
So I recommend it.
So look for it.
John Kahn.
K-A-H-N.
And I think it's, if you just search for fighter and Trump and video or something, it'll pop right up.
It's in my feed.
You can find it.
I posted it either this morning or last night.
I can't remember.
Last night, I guess.
Very, very good, John Kahn.
Great job.
How many of you saw Trump's surprise, semi-surprise, appearance on Gutfeld, the TV show on Fox News?
Anybody watch it?
Well, it turns out it might be the best Trump appearance that we've ever seen.
And there's lots to choose from.
Here's what I liked about it.
We underestimate Trump's skill in the domain of communication and, you know, public events and stuff.
Do you know how hard it is to be on that specific show where people are, you know, trying to be funny, but they're also talking about the news?
Do you know how hard it is to look presidential and also fit in with a bunch of jokers?
That's really, really hard.
And not only did he fit in, but he was part of the joking.
And the fact that he could just walk into that environment, completely unlike really any other environment, even in media, it's unlike anything, and that he just slayed it, just killed it.
He looked completely comfortable.
And here's the part, if you don't want to watch it for any other reason, I'm going to tell you the one reason you have to watch it.
When Trump is introduced by Greg, he's giving him a funny introduction.
Trump smiles in a way that he's doing, he's like half laughing and smiling.
And throughout the event, Trump couldn't get the smile off his face.
And you know, when Trump's in his serious, you know, political mode, he can do the mugshot look, you know, where he's all serious.
And people have even asked, Why have we never seen him laugh?
And I thought, huh, you know that I do wonder about that.
But you saw him clearly amused and laughing, you know, in his own way.
He's not a he's not like a lead his head back and laugh kind of guy, but he was clearly laughing.
And I've never seen him.
I've never seen him enjoy A public interaction that much.
So highly recommended if you can watch the videos.
The videos are on social media today.
I loved every second of it.
And here's the fun part.
You know how it's hard to break through with any policy stuff?
He said this before, but somehow I think saying it in this environment gave it that little extra, you know, little extra juice.
He was asked about fentanyl.
And here's what I don't expect.
I don't expect anybody to say anything useful on fentanyl.
Because it's always like, oh, we'll control the border better.
And then I say, you can't control the border enough to stop a microscopic object.
The amount of fentanyl it would take to kill a person is smaller than you can see with your eyes.
You could have enough fentanyl in something the size of a baseball to practically serve a city, and you could just toss it over the fence anywhere you wanted to.
You're not really going to stop fentanyl with a border policy.
It's just the wrong tool.
So if he had said, well, I'm going to build a wall, I would have said, you don't even understand this topic.
And I expected him to say that.
Honestly, I expect him to say a build wall.
Then the other one is a number of the Republicans said they would send the military in to act against the cartels, to which I used to think that was a good idea.
But now I think that presidents get the talk if they get too serious about something like that.
And I think the talk involves, we kind of work with the cartels behind the scenes because that's how we control the countries.
And it's more important that we control these countries than it is that some drug people die.
I think that's the actual talk.
And so I don't expect anybody to answer the question with anything that could work.
Even when you say stuff like, well, we'll, you know, have treatment centers.
I think RFK Jr.
says that we'll have lots of treatment centers.
I say to myself, well, that's good.
But we should have lots of treatment centers just in general.
So it's just sort of this generic stuff.
And what does Trump say?
He says we need the death sentence for fentanyl dealers.
He says it's the only thing that'll stop it.
He tells a story about talking to President Xi in China, and Xi is just laughing about, now who knows how much of this is exactly true, but it's a good context.
And he says that Xi says there's no drug problem in China because they just execute the dealers.
And Trump says there's no other way.
And I say to myself, I don't know of another way.
I mean, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.
I don't know of any other way to stop it.
And then I say to myself, but can we be the country we need to be if we're literally murdering, well, killing, let's say, not murdering, if we're killing fentanyl dealers?
Trump uses a data point that I think is, you know, his normal exaggeration, but it's directionally correct.
He says that one dealer can kill 500 people.
Now, obviously that would have to be a top dealer.
You know, somebody who's moving a big quantity to a lot of different people.
That's not the, that's not the one guy in the street who bought twice as much and sold half of it.
That's different.
But yes, if somebody is killing 500 people, absolutely.
If somebody's main job, like it's something they do on a regular basis, is selling fentanyl, I think they should be killed.
And I would even go further, I think you should execute them at the border.
If the car is full of fentanyl, And it's obvious that it's just a bunch of drug dealers.
You know, if it were up to me, you could drag them out and put a bullet in their head right by the side of the road.
And no, that's never going to happen, so it's not like a serious recommendation.
I'm just telling you, if you're looking for what's going to work, you're going to have to go pretty dark.
Because everything that's not dark isn't going to work.
Now, I love the fact that there's some, you know, drugs that people are developing to, you know, to make it hard to get addicted, and maybe that has its role too, but the people doing the addiction is because they want the feeling.
They want the addiction.
And if you killed all the drug dealers, would they just find some other way to get it and come in the mail instead of being handed to you, and then you don't know who the dealer is anyway, so nobody can catch him?
So I don't know if there's any solution, but as someone who's lost a family member to fentanyl, watching the bodies hit the ground would feel good to me.
So I'm not, let me admit, I'm not objective.
I would literally feel good to know that fentanyl dealers were being executed.
Every time I heard it, I'd feel good.
Now, you should not listen to me on this topic.
Because I just told you that the death of human beings would make me feel good in this context.
Clearly, I'm not being objective.
Nor do I apologize for that.
If you lose your child to fentanyl, you'll want to kill everybody involved.
I do.
Now, not in any illegal way, of course.
But I think that if you're selling fentanyl, you have volunteered to be killed.
And if the government does it in a perfectly legal way, I would enjoy every one of them.
And I'll go further.
If they need somebody to pull the lever, I'll pull every one of them.
I'd never get tired of it.
Every single time I pulled that lever and watched the life drain out of their fucking eyes, I would have a good day.
And I'm not proud of it.
It's not something I'm bragging about.
But let me tell you where your brain and your body goes.
When this happens to you, right?
Changes your thinking quite radically.
So yes, kill the dealers.
And if there were no other topics, I would vote for Trump just for that.
I don't know if he can get that done.
There'd have to be a lot of state laws, federal laws.
I mean, he can't make the laws himself.
But if he could get it done to declare fentanyl dealers as terrorists, then maybe there is a way to kill them in the field before they get to court, which would be fine with me.
Absolutely fine.
Kill them, kill them where you find them.
So there's that.
Mike Benz has a contrarian opinion here on the fentanyl stuff.
And he says that, quote, once again, you're going to find the highest ranking four-star Pentagon officials opposing this with every fiber of their over-embroidered souls.
And you say to yourself, what?
Mike Benz, this sounds so crazy.
Why would our military oppose getting tough on the fentanyl trade?
It's because we're in on it.
It's how we control the other governments in the other countries.
Because the cartels control the governments south of our border.
So if we want to control the government, it means working with the cartels.
So I think that our government has said, hey, Scott, your stepson is not important to us.
We've got bigger fish to fry.
So 70,000 young people, mostly young, are going to be dying.
Yeah, every year.
And we've looked at that and we think that that's worth it because we get a lot of control over the Southern Hemisphere.
I think that's the actual situation.
That it's a conscious trade-off.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC because there's no such thing as too much evil in one place.
And she tells us that Trump can't be trusted with nuclear weapons If he can be triggered by a tweet.
Well, Hillary, let me explain a few things.
If Trump had been triggered by a tweet to grab a blunt object and try to beat to death the person who did the tweet, I'd say, well, you've got a good point here.
If Trump had ordered the assassination of somebody who had made a tweet he didn't like, then again, I would say, Hillary Clinton, you've got a good point there.
If however, He responded to words about him with words about the person who said the words about him that I have no fucking problem.
That is a completely stable person who understands that dealing with words, you use words and you don't use a nuclear bomb against the words.
Now he's been in office for four years, the safest four years we've ever had, I would argue.
And she still can sell to her fucking brainwashed idiot MSNBC audience that he's the dangerous one.
She is the most evil person in politics, subjectively speaking.
Now, I, you know, I look at politics all day long, and there's some characters I enjoy and some I don't.
And, but, I don't get any kind of feeling from anybody else in politics, including, you know, Adam Schiff and Swalwell and Raskin and Brennan and, you know, the ones that I think are the deepest problems.
They don't make me hate them at a cellular level.
When I see Hillary Clinton, lately especially, I don't just disagree with her policies.
I hate her at a level that I don't feel for anybody else anywhere.
Not in person, certainly.
There's nobody in person that I hate that much.
And there's nobody in the public domain I hate that much.
And I don't know why.
I'm trying to figure out why.
I don't have hatred for Kamala Harris.
I have a strong preference that she's not my president.
But I don't have any hatred at all.
Not for anybody else I've disagreed with.
She's the only one.
And I think it's because she just oozes evil.
I don't even know how to put a word on it.
There's something about her smile that looks like I'm planning to kill my enemies.
It's going to be so enjoyable to watch their lifeless bodies bounce off the ground.
The smile and the creepiness are just so disturbing.
And when she goes on MSNBC, it's like double disturbing.
And by the way, and again, I want to say, it's not about disagreeing with me.
If I turn on CNN, I like to use this as my classic example.
If I see Van Jones saying a bunch of stuff that seems political and biased and he's doing team play, I never think that he's evil or bad.
Or like there's something wrong with him at a cellular level?
I just think, oh, he's a smart, you know, interesting guy who disagrees on politics.
He's doing his job.
That's all I think.
And mostly that's what I think when I see other people.
But when I see Hillary, oh my God, I mean, I feel it's like Voldemort.
I just feel a terror in my soul.
Why only her?
Because maybe I feel that she's behind most of the bad stuff, but I don't have any direct evidence of that.
I mean, the fact that she got away with the Russia collusion hoax, and has still gotten away with it.
Am I wrong that she ran the worst thing that we've seen happen to the American public in a long time, and just gets invited on MSNBC?
Nobody even brings it up.
The only thing they should ask her is, why did you do this to the country?
Except they did it to the country too.
So they can't ask that question.
They were complicit.
Anyway, I think MSNBC also has the stupidest pundits and guests.
If you were just to compare CNN's pundits, you would also disagree with them in many cases.
Nothing wrong with that.
People disagree on politics.
But they don't look stupid.
When MSNBC brings on pundits, I disagree with them, but they also seem really stupid.
What's up with that? MSNBC had a guest yesterday or today that said that Kamala Harris being a black woman, the product of a mixed marriage, it will boost America's credibility and deter Putin.
Now, come on.
That's somebody way too stupid to be on CNN.
You could only book that kind of a guest on MSNBC.
That's like the highest level of stupid.
I mean, it's so ridiculous, I can't believe that this was ever on any kind of public broadcasting anything.
Really?
That Putin's going to be totally impressed by the mixed marriage?
I don't know Putin that well, but it doesn't seem like that would be too high on his list before he decided to, you know, nuke us.
Well, I was going to nuke him, but wait a minute.
The president has a mixed marriage?
Ha!
I surrender.
I didn't know they were that awesome.
Well, Rand Paul was on Fox saying that CNN and MSNBC need to tone it down with their violent sounding rhetoric.
And I asked myself, given that CNN and MSNBC have had guests and hosts who compare Trump to Hitler and a dictator every few seconds, at what point does that become illegal?
I didn't know.
So I asked ChatGPT, and maybe you can fact check me here, those of you who are lawyers and smart, But my understanding is that hate speech would be actually protected, so the First Amendment protects hate speech, with one exception.
Well, I won't say one exception.
I'll say there's an exception.
So the exception where speech is protected in terms of hate speech is that you can't be directly inciting people to do something right away that's dangerous.
So you can't say, Go stab that person tomorrow.
That would be clear intention for harm.
And there's an immediacy to it.
It's not like a general statement.
A general statement would be okay.
A general statement would be like, well, you know, in the long run, we're going to have to do something about this group of people.
Right?
It's not specific and it's not immediate.
So that's okay.
So let me ask you this.
With all the incitement to violence that's coming out of CNN and MSNBC and the Democrats in general, would you say that there's a clear intention to kill Trump?
Can you determine that, let's say MSNBC, let's just use them.
Does MSNBC display a clear intention to get Trump killed?
I would say yes.
Because intentions You know, not the easiest thing to prove, right?
Because we can't read minds.
But if somebody does something that would get somebody killed, and they do it every day, and people are pointing it down all the time, hey, hey, if you keep doing that, you're going to get somebody killed, specifically Trump.
And then they keep doing it every day, and then you bring it up again, oh wait, you know, we're going to have to put somebody who is a prominent member of Congress up here to make sure you've heard the message.
That this is very clearly going to incite violence.
Now, if they keep doing it after Congress, you know, members of Congress, have said, you are clearly inciting violence here, what would you say about their intention?
Well, their defense would have to be, we didn't believe those Republican guys, we thought we were just talking.
I suppose.
Now, how about the immediacy?
Well, if you were just talking about your political opponent being unworthy, there's no immediacy there.
But, if you see two specific assassination attempts that happen to be compressed at the tightest part before the actual election, where the election is acting like a deadline, you have immediacy.
So I see both intention and immediacy.
They want him to be taken out before the actual election.
To me, it couldn't be more clear.
Now, they don't say the words, somebody go take him out before the election.
But how else do you interpret, he's going to steal your democracy, he's Hillary's going to be a dictator, and we mean it, we're not joking.
Because Hillary Clinton said that directly.
She said that he should be taken seriously and literally when he says he wants to be a dictator.
If you tell me That Hillary Clinton doesn't want him to be killed, I would say, what are you watching?
Because what I'm watching, there's a clear intention.
Looks pretty clear to me.
Now, could you have a legal action based on that?
Probably not.
And maybe we're better off if you don't, because it gets pretty close to the free speech.
But I see it.
If you're going to judge them morally and ethically, Yes, they have both the intention and the immediacy.
So they have satisfied the, in my mind, this is just subjective, in my mind, they've satisfied both requirements of intention and real danger, I mean, you don't have to wonder, because there have been two assassination attempts, and immediacy.
So, I guess what it lacks is some specificity, but that's not part of the law.
So the law doesn't say you have to specify how it's going to be done.
No, you just have to want it to be done.
And you want it to be done soon, you know, at a specific time.
And both of those are satisfied.
Anyway, that's why I'm not a lawyer.
The Teamsters, as you've probably heard, Normally they back the Democrat, and by now they would be saying, we back Kamala Harris.
But the Teamsters have decided that this time they're not going to endorse a presidential candidate, which is very unusual.
I think it's never happened before.
Certainly hasn't happened in decades.
And that is interpreted as sort of a pocket endorsement for Trump.
It just means that the leaders aren't ready to endorse Trump.
But there was a poll.
I don't think it was scientific.
But it did show that the Teamsters seem to be heavily in favor of Trump.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe the rank and file of the members are heavily in favor of Trump?
I believe that.
I don't have a confirmation of that because I wouldn't believe any unscientific poll, but it feels right.
I mean, it satisfies observation.
You know, when I look around, it feels like the people in those kinds of jobs are more likely to be pro-Trump.
So, if everything worked the way it should work, that should be the end of Kamala Harris.
If you're the head of the Democrats and you lose the Teamsters, That should be the end of you.
And that's a pretty strong factor in our elections.
Well, in other nonsense, so Speaker Johnson tried to connect to a continuing resolution.
Now, a continuing resolution is when Congress decides right in front of you not to do their job, which is figuring out how much to spend.
They'll do a continuing resolution, Which says, how about we just sort of keep spending what we're already spending, and maybe a little bit more.
And then both sides get a little bit more, and then they don't get into the weeds, which would be cutting things that you don't need anymore, or you don't need as much.
And so basically, the whole continuing resolution is Congress agreeing not to do the job they were elected for.
Now, Thomas Massey is doing a great job of calling them out for that, and saying, essentially, we were elected to do this work.
The work is deciding how much to spend on what.
If they decide to not do that work, well, isn't that about half of everything that we hired them to do?
You know, the other half being making laws.
But at least half of it is, how are you going to spend our money?
It's got to be at least half.
And they've just decided not to do it.
Ever.
Ever.
They're just not doing it.
I think all of their pay should be cut by 50%.
Because they're still making laws.
I like that part.
But if they're not going to do half of their job, why are we paying them?
So we should at least float the idea of cutting their job 50% if they do continuing resolutions.
And then it would go back to normal as soon as they do their job, which is to decide what to spend.
But Johnson thought he was being clever, or maybe it was political.
He was going to attach to this continuing resolution, the SAVE Act, which would, if I understand it, would put pressure on the states to make sure that only people who had proven they are citizens can vote.
Now, if you love that part, the part about making sure only citizens can vote, then you probably, or maybe, were in favor of a continuing resolution, because they're just going to attach those two things and get them both.
You know, you don't love the continuing resolution, but maybe you love the SAVE Act.
You know, only citizens vote.
So that would be to get you to vote for something you didn't like.
Well, apparently, All of this was lying bullshit.
So apparently the SAVE Act could be attached to the continuing resolution.
And then when it got to the Senate, Schumer could just say, hey, that's great.
We're going to ignore the SAVE Act.
Now, I'm not sure I totally understand how that works.
Somebody's going to have to explain to me how Schumer can just ignore part of something and like it didn't happen.
But apparently he's already doing it.
So, you know, I guess there's some nuance of what the Senate can do to a House bill that I don't have all the details of.
But apparently this was never going to happen.
So if you thought, damn them, They lost a chance to pass this valuable act.
There was never any chance that it could be implemented.
It was all bullshit.
The whole thing is just bullshit.
The whole SAVE Act and the continuing resolution, every bit of it, is Congress just avoiding their job.
None of it is real.
So now we have no budget, no SAVE Act, and no path to get either one.
So, the incompetence level in this country is shocking.
Shocking, I say!
Meanwhile, speaking of useless institutions, the United Nations voted 124 to 14 to strip Israel, well, according to the Jerusalem Post, this is their take, to strip Israel of its right of self-defense in Gaza.
Now, that's a subjective interpretation.
So what it calls for is for the member states not to sell.
So the UN would say, all you members of the UN don't sell any weapons to Israel that would be used in Gaza.
Now, apparently this has no teeth.
So it doesn't matter that it's just words.
It's a proclamation kind of thing.
There's no penalties.
You know, nothing would stop anybody from doing what they want.
And, of course, the 14 who voted against it are just the ones that the United States has in its pockets, and a lot of people abstain.
So none of it will make any difference, but it makes the United Nations feel better, I guess.
It's being reported that Israel used some kind of a shell company or companies to booby-trap those Hezbollah pagers.
And now we're hearing that walkie-talkies Over there we're also exploding.
Now, if it's true that explosives were added to the batteries of all the pagers, and that's what made them blow up, along with a software prompt to do it, then would it make sense that the walkie-talkies would have a lot more explosives in them?
Seems if you could use that same technique for walkie-talkies, you're going to put a lot more, you know, explody stuff in there.
So, and some pictures that are not confirmed showed it looked like the blasts were bigger.
Now, I say again, if Israel just managed to wipe out the entire communication structure of their enemy, and I believe that they have approval internally to attack, Don't you expect it to happen really fast?
Now, I saw one report that it doesn't look like Israel is massing forces, as in they're not showing that they're ready to attack, but maybe that's part of their cleverness too.
So I'm not sure what it would look like to show that you're ready for attack.
Now, one of the reasons they might wait, and I'm just going to speculate, if you blew up all of the communication tools of the bad guys, What would the bad guys do if they couldn't use their pagers and they couldn't use their walkie-talkies and the cell phones had been warned against?
Here's what I think they'll do.
I think they'll use their cell phones.
Because they can't not communicate.
So I think they'll use their cell phones and then Israel will just wait and then pick up the locations based on their cell phones because the individual terrorists will think, well, if I just turn it on for a minute and send my message and then turn it off, I should be safe.
They're going to have hypotheses that maybe don't check out.
And if Israel just waits another week, I think a lot of those people are just going to pick up their cell phones and turn them on.
Because they just have to communicate.
And then Israel will once again know where they all are.
And maybe that's when the attack comes.
Don't know.
But I don't know why they would have waited as long as they have.
Because, well, it makes sense that they waited until they blew up the walkie-talkies.
So that made sense.
But what's keeping them from attacking now?
I'm seeing a message that it started an hour ago.
Is that true?
Can somebody give me a confirmation?
Did Israel start a major attack?
Just right now?
Because that's what I'm expecting.
Am I that good at predicting?
We don't know.
Anyway, there's a good compilation of Kamala Harris making her fake accents, which is pretty hilarious.
Yeah.
Yeah, I would say that the Lincoln Project is a little closer to intention to get Trump killed.
That's true.
Their language is a little more direct.
Well, you know, you heard the story about a town, Aurora, Colorado, that allegedly had Venezuelans taking over their apartment buildings.
But we're getting more about that, and it wasn't that the Venezuelans took over, it was that the management of the apartment buildings decided not to stay.
So whoever it was who was managing the apartments, the management company, they just pulled out.
Now I don't know the details of why they pulled out, But I would think it might have something to do with the danger of managing a building full of people who had weapons and bad intentions.
So what you heard, which was the Venezuelans were collecting rent.
So that part is not, there's no evidence of that.
But There is evidence that maybe their presence caused the only other adults in the room to run away, which would leave a vacuum, which would mean the Venezuelans could do anything they wanted, and it wouldn't be reported to management in any effective way, because there was no management.
So we're learning more about that, and then we heard somebody said that Trump is going to visit Springfield, Ohio, where the Haitian Pet eating was alleged, but not proven.
And Aurora.
And I think that would be a good thing.
And you know what?
You know what would be good?
If Trump went to those places and said, you know what?
Maybe it was a little overblown, but directionally, we've got a real problem.
I would kind of enjoy it if Trump went there, listened to the people himself, And let's say some of the people say, well, you know, the apartment wasn't taken over, but it's a dangerous situation.
And then just have him modify, say, all right, you know, maybe, maybe in the fog of war, we heard some things that weren't right, but this is a terrible situation.
Doesn't really change a lot.
Doesn't change much.
Directionally, it's the same thing.
So let's just do something about it.
Then you can imagine going to, uh, going to Springfield, Ohio.
Again, talking to the citizens, they tell him, you know, we're worried about this thing, but, you know, none of us have seen it.
You know, we haven't seen any, you know, verified evidence of anybody eating a pet.
Then, that gives Trump the same out, which is, you know, now that we've looked into it more, we see that directionally, people are having a real tough time with the influx of massive number of people, and that's a problem.
Now, whether or not there was somebody eating a pet, it looks like we don't have evidence of that.
Sorry I said that.
He doesn't say sorry, but you know what I mean.
But let's fix it.
We've drawn attention to the problem.
The problem is still the problem.
Give or take a cat, that's not changing the situation.
You may be one or two cats wrong.
That's a funny way to say it, though.
Maybe I was wrong by a couple of cats.
But directionally, We can't do this anymore.
In fact, that would be the funniest way to say it.
I was off by a few cats.
That's on me.
But we gotta fix this problem.
Imagine MSNBC trying to dump on him, and they play the clip of him saying, OK, honestly, I think I was off by a few cats.
You couldn't get mad at that.
It would be impossible to be mad at somebody who said, you know, honestly, I was off by a few cats, but we still have to fix this.
Anyway.
Uh, apparently Vivek is going to a town hall in Springfield.
I think his instincts are, again, perfect.
I think Vivek, again, I can't read mine, so I'm just going to speculate based on what we've seen of him and, you know, what we, what we think is his character.
I think he knows that being part of the, you know, let's say the Democrat, not Democrat, but being part of the Republican royalty.
Can I call him that?
You know, Vivek is sort of a Republican royalty at the moment, just because he's done such a good job, people appreciate him.
And I think his instincts are exactly right.
He should go there and he should make sure that Republicans don't look like idiots.
And the way he can do that is to get to the bottom of what is and is not true and do it as a prominent Republican supporter of Trump.
Now it gives Trump a little bit of breathing room, because he doesn't have to do that himself, if in fact the debunking happens, and Vivek can say, well look, there were reports, we responded to the reports, then we looked into it, now we have a better idea, here's our current opinion.
I'm okay with that.
A lot of people know that the whole eating of pets was part of what I call a recreational belief.
Some people believed it literally, other people said, well, this is a fun story, so let's repeat this.
I'm in the recreational belief category.
I never believed it literally, although I don't rule out there was one pet, you know, it could have been one or two pets, who knows, but not some widespread problem.
Anyway, Matt Walsh was on Joe Rogan, and they were talking about the first shooter from the Butler Pennsylvania event.
And here are some things that, I don't know if I knew all of these, but when you put them together, they tell a story.
Allegedly, the shooter's apartment was found professionally cleaned and with no silverware.
What would be the explanation of a professionally cleaned apartment for somebody who probably couldn't afford a maid and no silverware?
Why would there ever be no silverware?
Well, what if he's a young guy who just eats fast food and he has plastic utensils?
I have a pile of plastic utensils downstairs because when I DoorDash they send them to me and I don't want to throw them away because they look perfectly usable.
I just don't have a use for them.
Well, I have a technique, by the way.
I use DoorDash Who gives me plastic utensils that I don't want, because I'm home, I'm going to use a fork.
But then I save their plastic forks, because in California, the Starbucks are not allowed to give you plastic forks, even though you need it to eat the food, unless you ask for it.
But the process is usually to drop your thing and yell a name and walk away.
So if you need a fork, it's hard to get it if they don't give it to you in advance.
So I get the forks that I'm not supposed to have from DoorDash that I didn't want.
And I use them in Starbucks because the state won't give me a fork.
So I beat the system.
I'm pretty happy about it.
You can tell by how much time I spent talking about something that has no purpose in your life whatsoever.
That's how proud I am of my plastic fork solution.
Anyway...
So I imagine you could come up with some weird reason why a weird young man would not have silverware, but it is a question.
There's that question about the phone connected to the shooter that was tracked moving between the FBI office and the shooter's location.
That could also be wrong information or any weird thing.
I don't know what to think about that.
And he came to the event with a rangefinder and nobody said much about it.
His body was quickly cremated and there was no toxicology exam.
So, yes, there are questions about this.
There are questions.
I want to see if there's any NPCs watching.
There's an NPC test that I do.
That if I mention eating at a Starbucks, the NPCs will say that I should use a French press and don't eat that crappy Starbucks stuff.
Anybody?
French press?
NPCs?
Activate!
You should use a French press!
Alright, I'm sure you'll say it.
There's a report that Iranian hackers Got information from Trump's campaign somehow, and tried to provide it to Democrats that we don't know if they actually opened their messages.
So we don't know if Democrats actually saw any of it, but allegedly Iranian hackers got it and sent it to them.
How do we know they're Iranian hackers?
You ever wonder that?
I just saw a Charlie Hebdo reference, so it's hilarious, but you don't need to know about it.
Anyway, can we really tell?
If somebody is a good enough hacker to hack into a foreign country and get the right accounts and get into them, they can't hide their identity.
Is there just no way?
There's just no way to be an Iranian hacker that somebody thinks is somebody else?
I mean, I don't know enough about hacking, but I'm very curious as to how we know these are Iranians.
Is that knowable?
I feel like it is by its nature not knowable.
I don't know.
I'm curious.
All right, well, another judge has refused bail to Sean Diddy Combs, saying the possibility that he'll tamper with witnesses.
The possibility?
If ever there was a situation where somebody might tamper with a witness, I don't think I could come up with a better example, since the charges include the fact that he might have blackmail on all of his guests, which would be witnesses.
You might have blackmail on all of them.
And maybe they don't know what he has, so if they let him out... But it seems to me that Sean Diddy Coens would have people on the outside, who are not in jail, who could do all the threatening of the witnesses that he needs, so... Do you remember that when he first got in trouble?
It was a while ago.
And he did this weird video that you didn't understand.
Where he sat with his daughter and he read a long list of celebrities who were not coming to his defense.
And I think Oprah was on it and a bunch of other black rappers, musicians and stuff.
And when we heard it, we said to ourselves, that is an interesting way to handle the fact that you've been accused of things.
And what do the people on this list that you're reading have in common?
Well, I don't know what they have in common, but one thing I can imagine they have in common is that he has blackmail material on all of them.
And I think he was telling them, hey, you guys, if I'm reading your name, you know I have blackmail on you.
You better go use all of your resources to corrupt the Justice Department and the political system and get me out of jail.
That's what it looks like.
Now, I can't read his mind, so I don't know that that's why he was reading the names.
But given, well, what we do know is that people speculate he had cameras in every room and he had lots of blackmail, and he was kind of an Epstein blackmail asset.
And if he's reading the names of people who have been to his house, and I think they've all been to his house, and we think there were cameras in every room, how else are you going to interpret him reading those names and saying, you guys are a little silent on this?
I don't know that there's a second way to interpret that.
Not a sensible way.
And then, of course, people will speculate these, you know, like Epstein, he's working for some intelligence operation, and I wouldn't rule that out.
Do you remember that Kanye, in some appearance, referred to Diddy as a Fed?
Do you remember that?
Now, Ye would be in a position, unlike us, where he's probably seen behind the curtain.
And he might know.
He might know there's some Fed involvement of some kind.
Because if you're the Feds, not the Feds, let's say CIA, if you're the CIA, wouldn't you want to have control over anybody who had control over lots of people with blackmail?
I think you would.
I think you would.
Not impossible that they're connected.
RFK Jr.
said specifically what I think we knew, but not with these details, that he is part of the transition team for Trump and that he would help pick the leaders of the FDA, NIH, and CDC.
And I think that would put Tulsi as part of the transition team.
We don't know who else is on the transition team.
And we also don't know, is it a formal transition team, or is it just he talked to some people and he's going to take the recommendations?
So I don't know how formal it is, but I doubt RFK Jr.
would say it with such specificity, unless it was real.
So I believe it's real.
I could not be happier about that.
The fact that we have this enormous problem, But we also have a solution sitting right there.
RFK Jr.
is the only person that I know of in the whole country that would have the knowledge of, you know, who should be in and who should be out.
He would be politically independent enough for my purposes.
Like, I don't think he's going to put a hardcore Democrat in there because he used to be a Democrat.
And here's the important part.
This fucking guy is so brave that it's hard to even wrap your head around it.
I mean, he's risking the ultimate destruction.
Personal reputation, family maybe.
Well, family of course turned on him already.
And his extended family, not his nuclear family.
Oh, and Don Jr.
was on the transition team as well.
So everything about this I just love.
I just love this.
This is one of the most optimistic, uplifting things because it's all doable and it does solve, solves a big problem of the conflict of interest.
There's a report that in Tucson at a rally Trump just gave last night About 20 people who were sitting behind him had some kind of maybe chemical or other exposure that caused them to go to the emergency room.
So they had blurry vision, swelling, bad reactions.
So some people are saying, was this the third attempt on Trump's life?
If it was an attempt on Trump's life, None of them died, so I don't know what kind of poison it would be if it's not deadly.
So, I don't know what to think about this.
I was asked if it's a mass hysteria.
A mass hysteria takes a different form.
So, if you saw the pictures, you could see that the afflicted had, you know, like puffed up faces.
So there was no question that a real thing happened to them.
Here's where a mass hysteria can hide, and it's not there.
With the alleged secret sonic Russian weapon used at the embassies that nobody will ever find and never confirm, that could be a mass hysteria, because when people say, my brain is different or I feel different, and then they do a brain scan, they'll always find something.
Cause brains are not exactly alike.
And they'll be like, Oh yes, here's some scarring.
Oh, this one has some problems in the same zone.
So that's sort of a confirmation bias trap where if you don't see it, obviously on the outside, you don't see like a burn or something on the outside of the body.
And you have to report, you have to rely on the person's subjective reporting and then a brain scan, which is, you know, could show some, some problems that had already been there that they didn't know about.
So that's where a mass hysteria can hide.
It can hide in that situation really well, but it can't really hide if people are going to the emergency room with an external physical problem that everybody can see.
That's a chemical problem.
That's not in their minds.
Now, here I'm assuming that the reporting is accurate, that something like 20 people went to the emergency room, and the doctors can very easily see, That they were affected.
It wasn't in their minds.
So that would be not a mass hysteria.
Anyway.
Um, if there is a triggered mass hysteria that comes from it, it would look like this.
It would be other people who were not in that area that got affected.
And they would, they would be like, wow, my, my eyes are itchy today too.
And then other people would say, you know, when I woke up this morning, my eyes were itchy too.
I wasn't in the blast zone of the bad effects, but maybe some of that wafted over to where I was.
Now that would be mass hysteria.
Because you couldn't really prove that their eyes felt a little drier this morning.
So if you can't see it, it might be in their minds.
Anyway, those are the big stories of the day.
Even Dana Bash on CNN was questioning Kamala Harris's economic plans, noting that she doesn't have a plan to lower prices, but that when Trump talks about lowering prices, he actually is specific.
I'm going to do this or this in the energy area.
Energy is about 40% of all your prices.
I'll take the price down, which is different from inflation.
Right?
Inflation is the rate that you continue to increase that's not out of control at the moment.
But the base price already went up, you know, 40-50% depending on the category.
So you got to get that down as well.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my prepared remarks.
If you haven't seen it yet in my X profile pinned at the top is a video I did in what I call the Dilbert Museum.
The Dilbert Museum is a room in my house with a bunch of Dilbert stuff in it.
And I explained, showing you the items that were important to my journey, how Dilbert started.
So you can see the original materials, how it was done on paper, and how I figured a way into the business.
So it's only 11 minutes.
Not too painful.
I've got about four more videos from the museum that I'll be releasing, if you like it.
And I also use them as a reminder that the Dilbert 2025 calendar is already available for pre-sale.
So if you want to get some gifts for Christmas, the shipping's kind of high for everything.
So if you get more than one, the shipping will be a little more modest that way.
So go to Dilbert.com and you'll see the link for purchasing.
And it's the only link that you can purchase it from.
Can't get it from Amazon and you can't get it from a bookstore.
And that's because in order to make it in America for the first time, um, I had to get rid of the regular publisher and the regular distributors.
So getting rid of their, their percentage allowed me to do it at a You know, reasonable economic price to you.
And there are twice as many comics.
So there's front and back.
And Dilbert Reborn is on the back.
It's a little edgier.
So that's all I wanted to tell you.
I'm going to go talk to the locals people now privately.
Thanks for joining everybody on X and Rumble and YouTube.
