Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, ChatGPT 3rd Question, Man Fights SWAT Robot, War Robot The Fury, Microsoft 3 Mile Island, Leadership Vacuum Situations, October Surprises Preview, Tim Walz, NC Mark Robinson, RFK Jr., Olivia Nuzzi, Targeting Pro-Trump People, Diddy Suicide Watch, Painted Panda Dogs, Tesla Truck Warlords, Elon Musk Hoax Rebuttal Technique, Pregnancy Monitoring Hoax, Propaganda Persuasion Words, Voter Roll Irregularities, Election System Security, Kamala's Oprah Interview, CA Anti-DeepFake Law, Russian Gas, Climate Change DeepState Plot, Anti-X Brazil, Free Speech Suppression, Mike Benz, 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
See out there people. Do do do do do do do do do. Rump up a bump bump bump bump bump bump.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, gels or 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
I'll go.
Ah.
Well, let's see if there's any latest news about the health benefits of coffee.
Yes, there is.
It turns out, according to the science alert people, that there's a study that says that drinking coffee and maybe some tea, we don't want to leave the tea drinkers out, could be lowering the risks of dementia, but only if they had high blood pressure.
So the correlation is if you have high blood pressure, It might help you with your lowering your risk of dementia.
So I have high blood pressure and I drink coffee.
So in 10 years, I'm going to give you some feedback and I'm going to tell you if the drinking of the coffee reduced my chance of dementia.
So 10 years from now, if you don't hear anything from me, that means the dementia got me and the coffee didn't work.
But if I do remember for 10 years and 10 years later I say, whoa, it looks like it's September 20th.
It's, uh, yeah, it's 2034.
I thought I'd get back to you and let you know that the dementia did not get me.
So that's one data point.
I have a question for you.
I use or try to use chat GPT in voice mode on my phone.
It seems to be programmed, so it's only going to give me two interactions before it pretends to have a technical problem.
Now, the first 25 times it did this, I said to myself, well, this is some temporary bug that they're going to need to work out.
But now I'm fairly certain that it's intentional.
Does anybody have this experience where if you're typing into chat GPT, it works fine, but if you ask it, Three to five questions.
When you hit about the third question, it goes, bad cell phone connection.
We don't know what's wrong.
We cannot answer.
And it won't work for you again until you come back hours later.
But when you come back hours later, the first two questions, perfect.
And then it will pretend to have a technical problem.
So do you have this?
Oh, okay.
I'm getting yeses.
All right.
So that's intentional, right?
Because I don't see any way that you could talk to it twice reliably every time.
But by the time you get to the third question, it's always broken on the third question.
We cannot talk.
I don't understand your question.
And then it won't work for the rest of the time.
Okay.
All right.
So I'm getting lots of yeses.
So it works fine if you use text, if you're just typing in your question.
It's just the voice mode.
And that's intentional, right?
It's just pretending that it does work when it doesn't really ever work.
And I'll tell you the trouble it gives me.
I'll ask you like health related questions.
And it'll get to the most important part, and then it will glitch out every time.
So I'll just make this one up, but I'll be like, ChatGPT, is there any correlation between people who are baldish and wear glasses and do podcasting?
Do they ever have any medical problems?
Well, yes, there are reports of serious medical problems for people who are bald with glasses who do podcasts.
And I say, really?
How bad is it?
What kind of medical problems?
Well, it's just that.
And then I'll ask the third question.
I'll be like, Was that based on observational studies or, you know, gold standard studies?
Cause that's what you really need to know.
Is it like a good study or just some observational thing?
And then you're like, you're really like, am I going to die?
Am I going to die?
ChatGPT, tell me, am I going to die?
And then ChatGPT will be like, and you're like, dammit ChatGPT, and you'll ask again.
And it will be like, oh, go, go, having good troubles now, can't wait, oh, good question.
And then I go off thinking I'm going to die.
I swear to God, that's happened probably five times where I've gotten to a life-changing, critical part of my investigation of whatever I'm asking the questions about.
And then it just dies on me.
Anyway, I assume that it's intentionally programmed to act like it works when it doesn't.
Um, we've got a situation of a man fighting a robot.
I'm trying to figure out if this is the first time.
Have you ever seen a situation where a man fought a robot?
And I don't mean for sport.
I mean, it was a fight with a robot.
So it's a police robot that was sent because there was a perpetrator that had a gun locked in a hotel room, I think.
And the, So the robot is like, you know, knocking his window out with his big robot arm, and it's trying to tear gas him.
And then the man throws a blanket over it, so it tries to, you know, thwart it.
And then it actually got in a fight with the robot, and the robot pinned him down until the police came.
So I believe he's the first human being to have a legitimate fight with a robot.
Not a joke, not an entertainment, an actual fight for your life.
With a robot.
And the robot won.
So, so far, if you're keeping score, it's robots won, humanity zero.
So I'm looking forward to a rematch.
Because I can't really imagine getting pinned down by a robot on wheels.
I mean, How good is this robot?
Now, I believe the robot was being operated by a human.
So it was not an autonomous robot making its own decisions.
But still, a human lost the fight to a robot.
So that's a real thing.
I wonder if robots are doing any other fighting anywhere.
Well, look at this story from the Express.
Ukraine has a gun-wielding robot.
So they put a machine gun on a robot That's basically just four wheels and a mechanical thing.
It's about half the size of a car.
And they just send it into Russian positions and have it machine gun everybody because when they shoot at it, you know, bullets bounce off.
And apparently it took RPG hits and still kept going.
So that's pretty serious.
It's called the Fury.
Now, if they've got one robot that reportedly, you know, you can't really trust any story out of a war zone, but reportedly it just was wiping out the Russians.
Cause, cause it could go right to the front line and you know where they are.
It's not like everybody doesn't know where the other side is.
You know where they are.
So you just send this robot in and just start shooting everything.
And yeah, it says it took RPG hits.
It said it took more than one and kept going.
I don't know how that's possible.
That doesn't sound real, does it?
I'm going to say I don't believe the RPG part.
I'm going to say no on that.
That sounds like bullshit.
But maybe they have a robot that shoots a machine gun.
That'd be pretty amazing.
In the most unexpected news, which is also the news that tells you everything you need to know about the future.
You want to hear a story that tells you everything about the future?
Here it is.
Microsoft is trying to get Three Mile Island nuclear power plant reopened because they need so much power to run their data centers, especially with the AI needs.
That they're willing to reopen the undamaged parts of Three Mile Island, because some of it was undamaged.
Now, here's the thing.
Can you even imagine any other time in our recent history where any company could have even said the words out loud, we're thinking of reopening Three Mile Island?
And that people would say, you know, that makes sense.
Yeah.
Now that you mentioned it, that makes perfect sense.
So do you ever wonder if the, let's say the opinions about things like climate and the opinions about nuclear power, do you think those are organic?
Do you think that human beings just do their own research and come up with some opinions about things like nuclear power?
Not too much, because correct me if I'm wrong, Nuclear power just went from the worst thing you could ever have in the world, it's going to kill us all, to let's reopen Three Mile Island.
I don't see a problem with that.
And it's Microsoft.
Apparently, the big companies can make you think anything you want whenever they want.
Yeah, no problem.
Open up Three Mile Island.
I don't see how that could be a problem.
And by the way, I don't think it will be a problem.
I do think it's a good idea, just to be clear.
It's just that how quickly the company, the country went from, oh, nuclear will kill us all to, oh, we better do a lot of nuclear to save us all.
And I would like to note.
That, uh, for the past 20 years, I've been saying you better do some nuclear.
You're going to really, really, really regret it.
If you don't, you'd better get going on that.
You better hurry up.
And here we are.
If you wait long enough, eventually everybody agrees with me.
You just have to wait.
Anyway, let's see what else is going on.
This is one of my favorite stories.
I knew about this, but this researcher got an award.
So there's a researcher who got the Ig Nobel Prize.
He debunked the Blue Zones.
Now, Blue Zones are places around the world where, allegedly, There were pockets of people who were living well beyond 100, and the researchers wanted to see why they lived so long.
So they would study them, and they'd say, oh, you eat a lot of fish, do you?
And you lived over 100.
Fish is good.
And then they would look at all the things they did and say, just do what they do.
Don't use a cell phone.
They're living forever.
Well, this researcher, Saul Justin Newman, Decided to go around and see what was up with these so-called blue zones.
Found out they're all fake.
There's no such thing as places where people routinely live to over 100 because they have such good lifestyle choices.
Nope!
Never existed.
What they do have is places where people routinely lie about how old they are.
Because being old is valued in some cultures.
So where there are people who don't have birth certificates and nobody can prove otherwise, they just add 10 to 20 years to their actual age when they reach 80.
So all it was was liars.
We thought we had discovered like the secret to eternal life.
Well, you just eat enough cucumbers and look what you can do.
No, it turns out it's lying.
It's lying.
There's your science for you.
Well, here's the nerdiest thing you're going to hear today.
This is from Horty Daly for horticulture.
Horty Daly.
Over 90% of seed sector insiders.
So these are people who work with seeds.
They say they expect the innovations will breed more resilient and productive varieties of crops within two decades.
Well, I suppose that's just more of what's already been happening.
But here's like the one of the least important sounding fields of science that might be the most important.
So we're all sitting around saying, how can we lower our food prices?
Well, One way, which isn't going to be immediate, is if you had better seeds.
So if you had better seeds, you grow twice as much food in the same amount of space with the same amount of everything.
You get twice as much, so that should lower your costs.
So seeds are a big deal and it made me wonder, I wonder how hard it would be to be a seed experimenter.
Because I don't think they're putting chemicals on the seeds, right?
Aren't they just mixing one kind of plant with another plant and doing selective breeding of some kind?
Because I thought, isn't that the sort of thing you could do at home on your own?
You know, with like one tabletop?
Because all you're doing is planting a bunch of seeds and seeing what works.
I don't know.
Seems like it'd be a good job.
I'm a seed guy.
I just do 20 seeds at a time.
Well, I made a post yesterday that's more about a feeling.
You know the zeitgeist?
Have you ever heard of that word?
German word for how everybody's feeling at the same time for reasons that you can't quite identify, because it's not like there's a specific news in the story.
It's not like there's a specific story in the news.
It's more like just people are feeling a certain way suddenly, and you're not exactly sure what caused it, but you can certainly identify it.
And here's what I feel.
I feel like men have decided who's going to win the presidency.
Now there could be shenanigans.
So I'm only talking about the vote or the attempted vote.
And I think it's over.
I think the decision has already been made.
And I think That Trump will win on votes.
We don't know if he'll become president, because there's too many shenanigans.
It couldn't be more than a coin flip, even if you win the vote.
It couldn't be more than a coin flip.
So, here's why.
Here's what I sense.
Let me explain something about men, and evolution, and biology.
And I'd love to see if you agree with this.
So these are, I'm going to make some general statements about men.
Now, before you say to me, but Scott, this is also true of women.
Yes, it is.
But Scott, why are you leaving the women out?
I'm not.
Scott, why are you saying this is only about men?
I'm not.
Now, even though I've said that, the very first comment is going to be, what about the women?
What about the women?
No, you're included.
It's just that this is more weighted toward men.
But women?
Definitely included.
And here's my statement.
When there is a vacuum of leadership, what do men do?
Do you know what we do when there's a vacuum of leadership?
Well, if there is a leader, what we love to do is just go about our business.
Because we have a leader.
If you give me a leader, I just ignore leadership.
I go, oh, we got one?
Leader's doing okay?
All right, good.
You go lead.
I'll go do my thing.
Make my thing work.
What happens if you can sense that there's no leadership?
Unfortunately, the way we men are wired, and this is my statement, I'd love to see if you believe this, or feel it, or recognize it as true, that when men see a vacuum of leadership, they act.
And we don't even have a choice.
It's not even a choice.
Now again, it's not every man does this, and it's not that every woman doesn't, right?
So we're allowing that all people are individuals, so there could be all kinds of that.
But in general, men cannot abide a vacuum in leadership.
We just can't handle it.
And I think it's biological.
I think we just evolved so that we will have a leader.
So if your pack of wolves doesn't have a leader, one of the wolves is going to say, fuck, I guess, I guess I'm going to have to try out to be leader because you're not going to go leaderless.
You won't go leaderless.
You're going to do it now.
We, we men and plenty of women to feel the vacuum of leadership.
We don't know exactly what's going on, but we can feel that Biden's not running things.
And we can feel that Kamala, not because she's a woman, this doesn't have anything to do with the gender, but her capability.
And how she got there suggests she is not really the leader, even if she gets the job.
So we feel more leader less than we've ever felt before.
Now that doesn't mean that.
That every man has to run for president because we do have a solution.
It's called Trump.
And I believe that there's this unspoken, but men can feel it that we've already decided.
We've decided we're going to have a leader.
It's going to be Trump, and we're just going to make it happen.
And it almost doesn't matter who gets in the way at this point, because it's not a preference, it's a decision.
And I swear to God, I could feel the decision being made this week.
I don't know what it was, and obviously this is just a subjective, you know, mental thing that's happening with me, but I'm just wondering if anybody else feels it.
Do you feel it?
That men have just decided?
And that we're not going to do this anymore.
We're not going to leave the border open.
We're not going to leave the women unprotected in the cities.
We're just going to handle it.
But we don't need to talk about it.
Well, I mean, I do, because I do this for a living.
But men in general don't need to talk about it.
And I'd like to ask you to do the following.
If there are young men in your life, and pretty much everybody at least knows somebody who's young and male, Ask them if they feel it too.
And then help them get registered, because they might not know what the process looks like.
Help them get registered to vote.
Now here's what you don't need to do.
You don't need to tell them who to vote for.
Do you know why?
They can feel it.
The males can feel it.
They can feel the difference in leadership, and they don't need to know the policies.
They need to know that Trump is willing to be a leader and capable.
He's willing and he's capable.
And by the way, it doesn't really have anything to do with him being male.
If it had been, you know, let's just pick a name, Tulsi Gabbard, and she had reached this point and we knew she could be a leader, then she would have all the support of the men as well.
But we need leadership.
And we can feel it in Trump, even if you don't like everything he wants to do.
And I think it's decided.
And I think that here's the part that's going to be weird for you.
If you talk to the young men in your life, I want you to tell them this.
Tell them that I, and you can, you know, they won't know who I am, so you have to describe who I am.
Tell them that I told them it's time.
Just tell them I told them it's time.
And that it's time to register.
And you don't need to tell them who to vote for.
They'll handle it.
Just tell them it's time.
Because every man is waiting for their moment.
Even young men.
Sometimes there's a war, and the young men sign up, because that's their moment.
Sometimes they might need to protest.
Civil rights, for example.
But they'll feel it.
They'll know when it's their time.
This is young men's time.
If young men register in the next month and decide that they would like actual leadership in the country for the first time in a while, they can do it.
It's your time.
Tell them that I said it's their time.
Now, the thing you should be saying to me is, why would I tell them that?
Because they don't even know who you are, which is true.
Here's why.
Men need to be told what to do.
And on one hand, we have a very specific impulse to know what to do.
We know that there's a leadership vacuum and we know we have to fill it.
But we also need to be a little more specific than that.
Can you maybe, can we get on the same page about what we're doing?
Okay.
It's a war.
I got it.
Okay.
It's a war.
I know what to do.
I sign up for the war.
I go to war, but tell us what to do.
So I'm telling them what to do.
Will they listen to me?
Weirdly, yes.
Weirdly, yes.
Even without knowing who I am.
Do you know why?
Because I'm male, and I'm telling them what to do.
And men respond to that.
We like to be told what to do if it makes sense.
If it doesn't make sense, we don't like it at all.
But if it makes sense, we like order.
We like chaos to be solved.
We like to know what works.
We like to know what's happening now and what will happen next.
We want to know that there's cause and effect.
We want to know that we can fix things.
The young men feel all of that.
They just need to know one more thing.
It's their time.
Civilization literally depends on young men waking up in the next 30 days.
Or could.
I mean, there's lots of variables.
But if you fix that one variable, young men, just tell them it's time.
The waiting's over.
It's time.
You need to get registered.
And it's probably going to be by mail, wherever you are.
So it's not like you have to go anywhere.
You don't have to miss a day at work.
You don't have to leave your video games.
You just gotta go to a website, sign up to vote, and a thing comes in the mail in the next few weeks.
So, tell them I said it's time.
Because it's time.
Meanwhile, we've entered... I think the October surprises are coming early.
So, there's a report... There's gonna be a whole bunch of stories in the next month or so that are the most bullshitty of the bullshit.
So the following stories I'm going to tell you, I don't believe any of them.
So these are just claims that popped up in the last 24 hours.
So Tim Walz has his former National Guard colleague who says that some nuclear manuals went missing around the time that Walz returned from a trip to China.
And he believes that Walz stole some nuclear manuals.
Now, the first question I'd ask is, What the hell kind of nuclear manuals would somebody in the National Guard have access to?
I'd like to give my opinion, which is nothing.
If there's anything that he knew in his job, which had nothing to do with anything in the nuclear field, it would have to be something basic like, if a nuclear war breaks out, be sure to do this or that.
It's not like it's secrets on how to build a bomb.
I'm pretty sure that Tim Walz did not have access to the secret manual of how we're going to attack other countries with our nukes or how to build them.
So the first thing you have to ask yourself is, what is this classified nuclear manual?
Probably something, if you and I read it, we'd say, oh, that doesn't look too important.
It's just some official government thing.
So, while it would be wonderfully useful to Republicans if this were true, and he was some kind of a Chinese spy stealing nuclear secrets for China, I'm going to say no on this one.
I'm going to say this is a little too on the nose.
Sounds like just something that comes up a month before a vote.
None of this seems real to me.
All right.
Now, I'm going to be fair.
So I'm going to say Democrats got some fake news.
Republicans got some fake news.
So there's more to come.
There's a, who is Mark Robinson?
Is he a, is he a governor?
Mark Robinson, a black political leader who is GOP or is he in the house?
Anyway, there's a political Republican who's accused of having been in some kind of porn related conversations online prior to running for office.
And allegedly, He called himself a black Nazi.
Now, am I worried about any of that?
Not really.
Do we think it happened?
I don't know.
Does it matter?
Nope.
Nope.
Here's my take.
Suppose it's all true.
There's no claim he did anything illegal.
There's no claim he did anything immoral, given that the context that allegedly happened was people who would talk like that.
So he wouldn't be offending anybody necessarily.
And certainly if you are black and you call yourself a black Nazi, nobody's going to take that seriously.
I mean, nobody's going to take that seriously.
That just sounds like something you'd say online.
So I'm going to say it doesn't matter if he said these things or not.
If it was before he was in office, it was in the context of people playing around online and saying things anonymously.
I don't care.
Does anybody care?
If all of it had been true, because none of it's illegal.
It's just playing a character online to, you know, get a thrill.
I don't care.
Fine.
Run for president.
I'm fine with that.
No problem at all.
Let's see.
There's a story that RFK Jr.
had some kind of a too personal relationship with a reporter who had been working for the New York Magazine.
So, Olivia Nuzzi.
Allegedly was having some messaging or something that got too personal with RFK Jr.
Some people are suggesting that they had an affair, but the evidence does not suggest any kind of physical contact.
So they both deny any physical contact, and apparently they met once during the context of an interview.
I doubt that led to sex immediately following the interview.
So I'm going to say this doesn't sound real to me.
It may be that they became friends and chatted a little bit on text, and I'm not saying they did, I'm just saying, what if?
Because other people are characterizing it without showing us anything.
If you're not going to show us the conversation, don't you dare characterize it for me a month before an election.
Can we agree on that?
If you're not going to show me a screenshot, and by the way, I don't want to see any.
I don't want to see any.
But if you're going to refer to somebody else's conversation and not show it to me, and tell me that it's inappropriate, sorry.
Nope.
Nope.
I'm not going to take Tim Walz and his magical stealing of Nuclear documents?
Doesn't sound real to me.
And no, I'm not going to say that somebody he met once for one interview was an affair.
Nope.
Doesn't sound real to me.
Did they become friends in some kind of text messaging way?
I don't care.
He's allowed to have friends.
He can text people.
He can text anybody he wants.
So let's not make something out of nothing.
And then there's There's some dirt dug up on Christopher Ruffo that looks so unlikely to be true that I'm not going to even repeat what the rumor is.
So here's the larger point.
It does seem to me that there's probably a list of pro-Trump supporters and people leaning in that direction who are being targeted, and that the targeting is sort of concentrated in the month before the election.
Now, does it look like there's been a lot of targeting?
Would you agree?
It's not an accident that just everybody's getting a scandal, and I keep waiting for mine.
Like, every time there's one of these new scandal things, like the scandal about Tim Pool and the others who Who may have been connected, without knowing it, to some money source that was Russian.
I'm just waiting for me to be thrown on some list, you know, with no time to debunk it before the election.
And I think the idea is just to, you know, just screw everybody who would possibly disagree with the deep state at this point.
So you should put a deep level of skepticism on every claim about anybody in the public for the next six weeks.
I mean, you should always be skeptical.
Remember Gelman amnesia where the only things you know are fake news are the ones you know about personally All right, I see that Um, so.
So Diddy is in jail.
Pending trials, I guess.
And some say he was reportedly placed on suicide watch as he awaits trial.
Now, that could be to get him out of the general population.
So he may have just acted like he was going to commit suicide so they didn't have to be around regular prisoners who might be paid to kill him to keep him quiet.
You know, sort of Epstein style.
So it could be a strategy.
But I would also think that given the things he's been charged with, that he actually would be thinking of suicide.
I don't know how you do it easily in jail.
But isn't this also the same thing that the deep state does before they murder somebody in jail?
Isn't the first thing you do is say, well, he is talking about killing himself.
So that later when we find him strangled to death in his cell, they're going to say, well, I mean, we've been priming you for months that this is the sort of guy who was threatening to kill himself.
And sure enough, he strangled himself in his cell.
And that's not easy, but he was very motivated.
So he strangled himself to death.
I feel like that's just obviously coming.
And by the way, We are so primed and beaten down by the illegitimacy of our government and the news and whoever's really running things, that they could actually just kill him and say, yep, he beat himself to death with a stick.
And a hundred percent of the people would say, that's not real.
And then the news would say, oh, it's real.
And then we'd say, it's not real.
And then we do that for a few months and then we get tired and then we just move on to the next outrage.
They can kill him right in front of you.
And honestly, I'd be surprised if they don't at this point, given that there's no way they get caught.
We know it works.
And it's probably life and death for a lot of people who would be willing to pull the trigger, sort of, you know, paying somebody to do it in jail.
So I feel we're at that point where it's like Putin murdering his dissidents.
Like Putin can apparently, if you believe the news, Putin can just poison the dissident, and we'll get really mad for a few months, and then we'll just move on.
And then he can poison another one.
And then we'll get really mad, and then we'll move on.
So I think they could do the same thing to Diddy.
We'll get mad, and then we'll move on, and nobody will go to jail for it.
But there are some bad coincidences happening.
Apparently a bunch of record Or music industry people retired the day after Diddy got arrested.
People are saying, well, that's a weird coincidence.
All these powerful people who probably went to a Diddy party are retiring just at the exact time that some pressure might be coming on them.
Then we hear that the CEO of Nike is going to step down and the CEO of some other company is going to step down.
So people are trying to connect these dots, like, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Have you ever been to a ditty party?
And the answer is probably no.
Probably no.
But if you've been planning for a long time to retire at around this time, because it's a good time to retire, this is like the ultimate time to retire, because then you get Christmas off.
Everybody knows that, right?
If you're going to retire, you want to do it in April, so you get the summer off.
Or you do it in sort of October-ish, you know, September-ish, so you get Christmas off.
Sort of basic strategy for retiring.
So these could be coincidences.
There's a funny story in China that there's a zoo that didn't have any pandas, so they took these fuzzy dogs and they painted them to look like pandas.
And apparently it fooled people until the panda started barking and panting.
Okay, and they were actually selling these as panda dogs, like your version of pandas.
Yeah, they look like dogs, but they're pandas.
But it looks exactly like a dog that you painted.
Yeah, yeah, that's how they look.
That's a panda dog.
Really?
Because it looks like just a dog that you painted.
I know, that's what the panda dogs look like.
They look like painted dogs.
They're called panda dogs, but they're not real.
Meanwhile, a Chechen warlord claims that Elon Musk gave him a cyber truck, he put a machine gun on it and took it into battle, but that that mean old Elon Musk remotely disabled his machine gun Tesla truck, and it needs to be towed off the battlefield.
He's really mad about it.
Now, does that sound like a real story to you?
Do you think that Elon Musk gave a Chechnyan warlord his own Tesla truck and then turned it off so he couldn't use it in battle?
Well, what do you think Elon Musk said?
This was his response to that story.
He said, and I quote, Are you seriously so retarded that you think I donated a Cybertruck to a Russian general?
I have no further questions.
I have no further questions.
Now, remember I keep telling you That the way Trump should respond to some of his hoaxes is with this exact form.
This exact form.
This is Elon Musk answering a hoax with the exact, exact right method.
This is so perfect that you could take a class on this.
Here's what's perfect about it.
You do not say, I did not do that.
Because people don't believe that.
Because people want to believe what they want to believe.
You do not say, it's a hoax and try to just leave it there.
Because people say, well, that's what you say when it's true.
Here's what you don't say if you're trying to hide it.
Quote, are you seriously so retarded that you think I donated a Cybertruck to a Russian general?
Perfect.
Perfect.
What have I been telling you that Trump should say?
Do you really think that as an acting president, I stood in front of the United States and told them and said that neo-Nazis were good people?
Do you think that actually happened in the real world?
Of course it didn't.
Now, you don't want Trump to say, are you so retarded that you think that?
But adding the word we're not supposed to say, which, by the way, I don't like that word in public, but I'm quoting.
So I prefer not using it, although I love the word.
It's just, for some reason, it's the perfect word for a lot of things.
But I understand the sensitivity to it, so I prefer not using it.
But in Musk's case, because it is so It so perfectly capsulates the situation that I approve of it in this context.
I think it was exactly right.
All right.
OpenAI allegedly, I don't know if this is even true, so some users are saying they're getting emails from OpenAI, that would be the chat GPT people, saying that they got to stop Using little tricks to figure out how it thinks.
Basically, it's a chain of thought.
So, if you can figure out its chain of thought, I guess that would either give you some way to thwart it, or copy it, or something.
So, apparently, ChatGPT is monitoring the questions you're asking, and if you ask questions, it would get you to somehow understand how it reasons that they can block you from ever using it again.
Now, I'm not sure this story's true.
It's not quite passing my sniff test, but it could be.
It could be, but I don't believe it.
So I'm going to go no on that one.
But only 55-45 on that one.
I'm going to go 55% not true, meaning that there's something left out.
You know, just some context left out.
And 45% Maybe it's just what it looks like.
Maybe.
Don't know for sure.
Well, another hoax of the day.
Tim Walz keeps saying that Trump wants to create a federal abortion monitor.
And apparently he's been fact-checked by Breitbart, USA Today, Snopes.
Doesn't make any difference.
Still says it.
Because his base doesn't care.
Sounds good enough.
So I think, and I might have to slightly, slightly give him a little bit of cover.
I'm no Tim Walz fan, just to be clear.
But if this were Trump who said that, I might have been tempted—might have been—to say it's a little bit directionally correct.
Now, it's not correct.
It's very much specifically false.
But, is he telling his people, hey, if you get a bunch of Republicans in office, things could change quickly in terms of abortion laws?
And the answer is yes.
Yes.
If you put Republicans in charge, let's say they owned everything, could things change quickly in the abortion world in ways that the left doesn't like?
The answer is yes.
Yes, it could.
Trump is not promising to do anything beyond the things he says he's going to do.
I personally think that he's going to stick to that, because it's consistent with his own beliefs about abortion forever.
Not forever, but for a while.
And so that's believable, because it's just consistent with all the other things he's said.
But I can see why they'd be worried.
And as a persuasion trick, it works.
So in very much the way I don't think a lot of Haitians are eating pets, but it's directionally accurate in terms of making you feel there's a threat of bringing in too many people too quickly, blah blah blah.
So it's not true, but I can see why he's using it politically.
Makes sense.
So Jordan Peterson points out On a post on X, never trust anyone who wields the term disinformation as a weapon.
And what pit of hell did that benighted term emerge from anyway?
What propagandistic genius coined it?
How did it spread so virally?
No one said disinformation 10 years ago.
Well, that's true.
And along those lines, I've pointed out there are some other words that you only hear When people are trying to basically manipulate you without facts.
The other ones I mentioned before are Unhinged Chaos and Ending Democracy.
Because they're just so vague, but you have to make it sound like it's bad.
Thank you, First Gear.
So yes, I would agree.
Whenever you hear these words, disinformation, unhinged, chaos, and ending democracy, and there are a few extra ones there, I would say those are signals that somebody's using propaganda.
And if you are echoing any of these words, if you've heard that propaganda and then you go out and call Trump unhinged or his supporters or any of that, you're just brainwashed.
These are not words that give any meaning to anything.
These are just words.
But Trump also uses some words that the left calls out as being, let's say, symbols of evil.
So he talks about other countries being infested countries.
I think infested with bad behavior or something.
And he says some of the people coming in, the criminals specifically, are vermin.
But of course the left tries to Generalize those terms into he's talking about all the people from this country.
Therefore he's racist now He's obviously not talking about the general citizens of any country.
He's talking about the worst members of those countries Being selectively the ones more likely to come here because they can get out of jail and stuff I don't know what and if there's a truth to the jail part But is it directionally correct that Yeah, it is.
Again, it's directionally correct that unchecked asylum laws and immigration are a real danger to the country.
But I would prefer that Trump did not use words like vermin and infested, because it does echo back to some Hitlerian language, and there's no benefit to it.
So if Trump gets no benefit from it, and it activates people making them think something that isn't true, It's not the best word to use, and I don't think it gets him any extra votes on the Republican side.
There's no Republican who said, you know, until he called them vermin, I wasn't convinced.
It's not persuasive.
If it had been persuasive, like they're eating the pets, that's persuasive.
Not true!
But at least you could argue that it's directionally useful.
This has no use.
There's no utility to using words like vermin and infested when you could use words that tell the same story and would get you the same amount of votes.
So that's my advice.
Don't use those anymore.
Well, I think I saw five different stories of election irregularities before the actual election.
So I'll just mention two.
But I think I said five of them this morning, where there were various either counties or states that had some kind of big issue with voter rolls, or chain of custody, or some change they needed to do to improve it that got not approved.
It's all these different things.
But I'll just read two.
So in Oklahoma, they removed 450,000 ineligible names from the voter rolls.
Let me say that again.
This week, this week, the election's like right around the corner.
They removed 450,000 people from the list of people who would have been allowed to vote if they hadn't removed them.
450,000 in Oklahoma.
That's like a lot of the entire population of Oklahoma.
Do you think this could have changed the result?
Yes!
Yes!
It could have totally changed the result, if there was also, on top of this, some bad behavior to use those names as fake votes.
Now that part we don't know, but we know there was an enormous opportunity for bad behavior.
100,000 of them were dead people, 15,000 of them were duplicates, And a lot of them were just the wrong address.
They don't live at the address that they are registered at.
So, now that's just one state.
So why did they have to get rid of 450,000 names?
Why'd they have to get it off the voter rolls?
Here's what confuses me.
If this is a gigantic problem, Why was our election so definitely fair when we know this existed in the last election?
This didn't just just happen.
This is some kind of long ongoing problem.
So how do we know the election was fair?
What would be the mechanism by which we could know that if we know that this kind of problem existed?
But luckily, Luckily, it's only Oklahoma, right?
Oh, thank goodness.
It's only Oklahoma.
No, it's not.
They all have some kind of problem.
Here's another one.
Election officials in Luzerne County, that's in Pennsylvania, one of the most important state, we think, for the election, have banned all mail-in ballot drop boxes from the county over fears of voter fraud.
Now, you know what I'm going to ask, right?
Why would they need to ban mail-in ballot drop boxes?
Because we were told that when they were used, that was a deeply secure election.
Why would you need to change it if it was secure?
Nothing they told us about the election is real.
It's all fake.
Almost everything we've been told is fake.
And there's almost nothing that makes me more angry Then when I see somebody on the regular news say with confidence, and that fake, stupid-looking confidence, that the election was fair, and that we all know it.
The election was fair, and we all know it.
How?
How could you know that?
It's the most unknowable thing in the country.
In fact, I don't think there's anything less knowable than who won the election.
You couldn't know anything less.
You know, unless it was a landslide, I suppose.
How about this?
Tennessee, they have a new law requiring to use voter verifiable paper audit trails to improve election integrity.
Wait, why does that make sense?
Why would you need to change something in Tennessee?
To have an audit trail when we were told that you can tell if the election was fair without any change at all.
Because it was already perfect and we know it was all fair.
Why would you need to implement a new way to know it was fair if you already know it's fair?
Huh?
Huh?
It's like they've been fucking lying to us about every fucking thing they've said about the election for years.
And do they even know it?
Do the people in the news know that every state is making, apparently, big changes to the election because they had giant holes and vulnerabilities?
And at the same time they say, but the elections have all been fine.
They've been fine.
They've been fine.
Yeah, there are a hundred holes, and we're trying to fix them, and we can't fix them.
But before, fine.
Yeah, we know it.
How about The RNC says Pennsylvania County, there's a Pennsylvania County Daily Wire is reporting this.
They say that there's a county that ignored state law before sending out mail-in ballots.
They The ballots without conducting accuracy tests.
So why do you need to stop these ballots going out and why do you need to do accuracy tests when the system is so secure?
It's not me, right?
Can you tell me this isn't me?
They are telling us the system is great and it's got a thousand holes in it and they're reporting them at the same time?
I'm not imagining that, am I?
But I'll tell you, if you were a Democrat, how many of these stories would you have seen?
So I just read you, what, five?
And I saw several more.
Just today.
This is today.
This is not this week or this month.
Today.
Just today, these are the headline stories.
How many Democrats saw these stories?
None?
It's like it doesn't exist.
Anyway, there's a story about a New York City COVID advisor during the pandemic.
So he was advising people on what to do about COVID, you know, with the, make sure you're six feet apart and wear your mask and all that stuff.
And apparently he was going to secret drug-fueled sex parties and he had to be sneaky.
Now, on one hand, I say to myself, well, that's a terrible hypocrite leader, doctor guy, when he was telling people to be careful, but then he was going off and not being careful himself.
To which I say, I'll bet that was universal.
Or close to it.
My guess, well, let me put a percentage on it.
My guess is that something like 20 or 25% of the public was genuinely scared and genuinely wore masks and genuinely stayed away from people and all that.
But that 80% We're 75.
We're more like my house.
If I went out in public, sometimes I'd wear a mask if I didn't want to cause trouble.
But as soon as I came home, I'd take them off and I required no masks in my house.
And, you know, at kids, kids, you know, friends of kids and stuff running through all the time.
So, so it was basically like, you know, reams of people completely ignoring all, all of that privately.
I just publicly, I pretended to go along, you know, until I couldn't do that anymore.
And then, then I had to become a mask rebel for a while.
So I think, I think that was closer to universal.
I don't even, I really don't even care that this guy was telling us to do one thing and doing something else.
Cause I think everybody was doing the same thing.
Um, so Kamala was on Oprah.
You'd think this would be the friendliest interview in the world, and it was, but here are some things that came out of it.
Number one, it's very clear that Kamala Harris is an idiot, because all it did is produce clips that Republicans showed without comment.
If you do an interview and your opponents can show clips from it.
Multiple clips.
It's not even one thing.
And you don't need to add a comment.
You just say, look at this, which is basically what social media was doing.
It's like, look at this.
And it shows her just how well the passage of time.
And, uh, I grew up in a small town and, uh, I own a gun and, and it just looked like an idiot.
And, In my opinion, she looked inebriated.
Does anybody else think she looked inebriated on Oprah?
I would say obviously.
Again, I'm going to say, why are you pretending you don't see it?
Is that what's happening?
Are you pretending you don't see it?
Now, most of you do see it, but I'm talking about the rest of the world.
Is the entire Democratic Party pretending they don't see this?
Because I think they are.
I think they're actually pretending.
Now, there's a reason that the, let's say, the legitimate corporate news is not talking about this at all.
It's because they can't prove it.
And if you can't prove it, it would be a hell of a thing to say if you're a legitimate news organization.
But you and I are just citizens, right?
I mean, I do this on a podcast, but I'm a citizen.
Nobody gives me a paycheck from a corporate entity, and when I look at her, to me it's obvious she's inebriated.
Now, you could argue about what the source of the inebriation is, but we've seen her clearly not inebriated.
If we'd seen her always acting like this every time she went public, I'd say, well, maybe she just has sort of a goofy, cackling personality, and that's just who she is.
But we've seen her not inebriated quite a few times in the debate, for example.
Definitely not inebriated.
Definitely not.
But on Oprah?
You tell me that's not inebriated.
I want you to say, you know, I'd love somebody to say that to my face.
I just want to look in your eyes and say, really?
Really?
That looks totally fine to you, right?
To me, this so matches how they treated Biden, like they didn't see a problem.
I don't see a problem.
What are you talking about?
Well, no, you see, he's obviously got dementia and he displays it on a regular basis.
Really?
I'm not seeing it.
I don't know.
What are you talking about?
So we're just doing it again.
The funniest part was looking at Oprah's face.
Now, I can't read her mind.
But other people had the same comment, you know, without me bringing it up first.
So when I watched that, I looked at Oprah and I thought, is Oprah looking at her like, oh my God, what have I done?
It looked like Oprah, who others said has, you know, a 20 or 30 point IQ advantage on Kamala.
Say what you will about Oprah.
She's really smart.
And I saw her sitting there looking at her like, oh my God, is this really happening?
That's the face I saw.
Now, remember, I'm biased.
So I'm probably, you know, mind reading isn't real.
We don't know what she was really thinking.
But that's how I received it.
Like it felt like, it felt like, Oprah knew exactly what was happening, and it was just what you and I think, which is, she looks drunk, and she's full of word salad, and she's not very smart.
So, you decide.
Well, there's this interesting question of whether California made AI parodies illegal.
Um, like most laws, it's written so you can't tell exactly what it means.
But I'm drilling down into this because I've put a stake in the ground that is opposite to what the news is telling you.
So, at least the social media news.
The social media is saying That a maker of an AI parody video of Kamala Harris is going to sue California for their new law that says you can't do AI parodies.
Now, I say, well, they don't mean that.
They mean you can't do AI that looks like a real thing.
And then people who are also smart and know more than I do say, no, Scott, they really actually made it illegal to do A parody.
And then I say, no, that couldn't have happened.
That's impossible.
Because, you know, there'd be no point doing it.
It would be thrown out as unconstitutional.
And then somebody showed me the phrase in it that says that parody is not included.
Here's what I think is happening.
So this will be my working hypothesis.
I think the reason that we can't tell if California banned parody is this very little gray area that's very tiny.
And that would be an AI election-related piece that you legitimately couldn't tell was fake.
That's definitely illegal.
So if you make a parody that would look to somebody like a real thing, and you don't label a parody, and it's about something important like an election, that appears to be what is now illegal.
I don't have a big problem with that.
I generally like it when the government says you can't lie to the public about important things.
So, for example, there's truth in labeling.
I like that.
I like that there's a law that says you can't just lie on your label what you have in there.
I like that banks have to calculate their interest rates in the same way.
It's called the API.
Because there are multiple ways you could calculate things to game it so it looks like your interest rate is better or worse than your competition.
So I like the fact that the government says, no, you have to tell them what your actual comparable interest rate is.
Good.
I also like it if somebody made something that really looked real and that really could change my vote.
No, I want that labeled.
I definitely want that label.
That's not free speech.
I mean, it's not free speech the way I understand it.
It would be damaging and created for damage.
So that's different.
But the specific AI in question was so obviously a parody, in my opinion, That it could not have been illegal.
And that parody that's obvious, even if it's about an election, that's not going to be anything you're going to get arrested for.
So, there may be some ambiguity in it, and I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my legal interpretations, but I can't believe I live in a world in which an obvious parody would be illegal.
I think it's only the ones that are not obviously a parody.
So, and I don't have a problem with that.
I think they should be labeled.
I don't think you should go to jail if you don't label it.
You know, maybe you should get a, uh, you know, maybe you're blocked from social media or you're suspended for a week or something, but not jail.
I don't think jail is an option actually.
Um, all right, here's the, Here's the most fun, provocative thought I'd like to give you today.
How many of you are familiar now with the work of Mike Benz?
You'll see him mostly on X. He talks about how there's this huge, let's say, web or mesh of disinformation people around the world.
how that's all coordinated and there's a military industrial complex and the state department is trying to control every country through controlling their elections and every other thing. But mostly the people in charge in the United States want to control everybody's information.
But the the biggest theme of the people who are really in charge behind the curtain, the military industrial complex, the state department, etc.
seems to be an anti-Russia thing.
Now, not everything they do.
But so many things are connected to this larger multi-decade plot to weaken Russia so that Russia doesn't have hydrocarbon, meaning gas and oil, leverage over Europe.
Because if they got that much leverage, they could just turn off the gas if Europe doesn't give Russia everything they want.
And basically they could conquer Europe without firing a bullet.
So, Does the State Department want that?
No, it wants Americans to sell, you know, liquefied gas instead, even though it's more expensive, just so Russia doesn't have control of the Europe.
But is it so much about control, or is it even more about getting Americans to have access to Russian resources in a colonial way, basically?
Or a colonizing way, I should say.
And suppose you say that's true.
How many of you would accept as a general proposition that a whole bunch of things that happen in America that you don't understand are related to making sure Russia is degraded?
Do you all see that the anti-Russia thing has been from ever since Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, it's been anti-Putin, anti, you know, the rumors are anti-Russia.
Ukraine is about energy grab more than it's about anything else.
So you all get that for decades.
The people who are really running things, the State Department, CIA, those people, it's been anti-Russia primarily, right?
Now, I'm going to blow your mind.
Why was climate change invented?
And I don't mean the invention of the fact that the climate temperature is changing, because that's going to happen no matter what.
I mean as a topic.
Have you noticed that if Europe started using solar panels and windmills, that that would degrade Russia?
Is it possible that the reason you and I don't understand anything about why we're doing this climate change business, because it doesn't look like good economics, and it doesn't look like good science, is that the real reason has always been Russia?
Because we could build, because we do technology, we could build stuff where we make money on solar and maybe wind, but Russia doesn't really manufacture too well.
So if you're not buying their hydrocarbons, they're basically out of business.
So could it be that climate change was never real?
And that it was always a deep state plot?
It was just one other angle of attack against Russia?
Is it entirely an anti-Russia play?
And none of it's ever been real?
Meaning that the models that they use are known not to be real?
Is that possible?
Now, I'm not stating this as my belief.
I'm saying it's consistent with observation.
And what's not consistent with observation is that everybody thinks the climate change stuff is a good idea, meaning 98% of the experts.
I don't think... Yeah.
And, you know, was Al Gore operating on his own?
Or was Al Gore part of the, you know, deep state, State Department, anti-Russia thing?
I don't know.
Scott, you doubt California infringed on your rights?
No.
Did I say that?
No.
Ask a better question.
Here's what I doubt.
I doubt that they would infringe on my right in such an ineffective way that would be unconstitutional and it would be thrown out anyway, it'd be a waste of time.
But if they could infringe on my rights in a way they could get away with, yeah, they'd do it all day long.
So it's not about whether they would or would not infringe on my rights.
I think they wouldn't do it in a way that couldn't possibly work and they would know that.
That's what I'm saying.
You don't do something that you would know couldn't possibly work.
Yeah.
Anyway, here's more Mike Benz, if you want to understand how the U.S.
State Department all works, and it's like a few paragraphs, and I want to read it because if you haven't been exposed to the Mike Benz, you know, Benz pilling, for how the real world works.
This will be just an introduction.
Now, he talks more generally about larger topics.
This is just about Brazil, but you'll get the sense of it just from this one story.
All right, so this is from Mike Benz on X. He says, details how the US State Department is actively working to subvert X in Brazil.
So as you know, Brazil is canceling X.
And is mad at Musk.
He says that the State Department is working with Brazil against X. Now that's the opposite of what the State Department should be doing.
They should be working to make it easier for American companies to operate overseas.
Not working with a country that's stopping it?
Why would they do that?
Well, it's because X is the source of free speech.
And the people who control things behind the curtain cannot have free speech, because we've never really had it.
This is maybe the first time.
And it's dangerous, because they can't control the narrative.
So, the State Department is allegedly working with the Brazilian government and installed their current leader.
So here's how Ben says it.
He says the State Department job is to protect the welfare of U.S.
citizens' interests in the U.S.
corporate interests and U.S.
national interests in the region.
Instead, they just let Brazil seize Starlink's assets.
So Brazil, because it was mad at Axe, seized the assets from an entirely different company, Starlink, because Musk is running both.
Now, why in the world would the United States be okay with that?
Like, that's just mind-blowing that we'd be okay with that as a country.
He says that X is caught in a proxy war between the State Department and Bolsonaro, the leader who was deposed there.
You can bet if Bolsonaro had banned Twitter 1, that was when Twitter was more managed by the people behind the curtain, The whole litany of our Department of Dirty Tricks toolkit would have been crammed down Bolsonaro's throat so fast.
The U.S.
wanted Lula to win.
That's the one who did win.
It's as simple as that.
What's happening in Brazil has much less to do with free speech as has to do with the State Department and the blob's designs for who needs to win that election.
After the State Department overthrows a country who runs tens of millions of dollars to do a political opposition, and they barely win an election, we have the new policy of transitional justice, where we arrest all the opposition leaders.
Bolsonaro right now is under countless indictments, just as Trump is here.
So it's the bad guys in America.
Overthrow a country, whether it's the U.S.
or another country, the first thing they need to do is jail the people who barely lost so they can't come back.
And we're seeing it.
Then they can prevent the mobilization and coordination of the defeated party's resurgence, of course.
And the U.S.
is doing with foreign countries in order to contort the economics of the U.S.
X platform to force them to put the old censorship mechanisms back in place.
So the idea is that the State Department wants X to no longer be a free speech platform.
And they can't do it directly, so they work with Brazil, which we've overthrown their government to get our own person in there, allegedly.
And working with them, which is basically us, because we took over their government, apparently.
Or at least we're having a friendly working there.
And that the two of them, the State Department and Brazil, would cut X out, and maybe they'd try the same thing in Europe.
And then X becomes no longer financially viable, because too many countries stop using it.
At that point, free speech is done.
So that's what your State Department is doing, removing free speech according to this narrative.
Anyway, the thing that protects the bad people in our government is that it's all too complicated, and your average citizen just can't get engaged.
It's like, well, Mike, how many different organizations did you just mention?
25.
And if you don't understand how all 25 operate, you know, in a semi-coordinated way, you don't know anything.
You would have no understanding of how the world is working.
So it's too complicated.
Alright, so there are reports that Israel killed the Deputy Secretary General of Hezbollah.
I do not know how high-ranking a Deputy Secretary General is.
Is that below or above the Assistant Deputy Secretary General?
Is it below a Secretary General?
But is there more than something between Deputy?
I don't know.
But somewhere in the higher up.
Allegedly killed in an airstrike in Beirut.
And apparently there's quite a battle going on.
Hezbollah is firing lots of rockets into Israel as we speak, and Israel is getting pretty fierce in their attack.
Now Israel, having blown up all those pagers and walkie-talkies, Are probably bombing people who can't coordinate their attack with each other.
And I don't know how much difference that makes.
You know, maybe all they did is send a runner out and say, OK, everybody start shooting.
And maybe that's all Hezbollah needed.
But.
We shall see.
We shall see.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
October is going to have a lot of surprises.
I know of one of them, and I'm not going to tell you I'm just teasing you, but I do know one of them, and you're going to love it.
So there's a surprise coming that's just going to be so sweet that you're going to laugh out loud.
But when you see a surprise, don't assume that's the one I'm talking about.
Because there's going to be a bunch of them, and they're going to go both directions.
We're seeing it already.
They're starting early.
So there's going to be... I wouldn't be surprised if there's a story about me in the news that's completely made up.
Because I don't know that there are any real things I would care about.
So you should expect to see more hit pieces on more people with not enough time to, you know, to debunk them.
You're going to see just incredible claims of working with other countries and affairs and just all kinds of stuff.
So it's going to get crazy, but I will tell you that there's just one I know about that you're going to laugh at.
You're just going to think it's funny.
All right.
And it will basically give you everything you want.
Let's just say that will be the day that you're going to say to yourself, oh, oh, looks like things might work out.
So there is some cause for optimism.
A lot of it, actually.
There's a lot of cause for optimism.
And that doesn't mean it's going to happen automatically.
Still gonna have to fight like hell.
Which is a phrase that normal people use that has nothing to do with physical violence.
It's just a phrase that people use when they mean you should try very hard.
Fight like hell.
All right, that's all I got for now.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately because they're so awesome.
