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, Cats For Prisoners, Omega 3 Benefit, Billionaire Nuclear Power Plants, UK Offensive Tweets Law, Unflattering Lighting, Sean Combs, Air Force Discrimination, Legacy Media Election Interference, Diversified Evil Strategy, Bill Maher, Stephanie Ruhle, Bret Stephens, Kamala Harris, Adrienne Elrod, Vivek Ramaswamy, Starlink News Ban, Matt Gaetz, 5 Assassination Teams Hunting Trump, Georgia Hand Count, Patty McMurray, Overseas Ballot Fraud, Election Fraud Options, Non-Citizen Voting, J6 Insurrection Debunked, 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 there's never been a better time in the 14 billion years you've been around, at least in some form.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that the universe has never seen, ever, and humans cannot understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a cistern, 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.
It's the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better with a little oxytocin mixed in today.
Go.
Ah, so good.
All right.
Here's a question.
If you could buy a laugh for cash, what would you pay for it?
Suppose you knew that you'd have one good laugh.
If I put a price on it, what would you pay?
And I ask because the people who subscribe to the Dilver Reborn comic, especially if they're on the local site, They get several comics a day, because you get my classic calendar, you get my new comic, Dilver Reborn, and you get Robots Read News, which might have three to five jokes in it.
So I did a little calculation, and it's somewhere around five cents a joke.
So if you would pay five cents for a laugh every day, Well, you might get like seven laughs a day for five cents a piece.
Totally a good deal, I think.
Anyway, so that's all on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
You can also get just Dilbert and the Dilbert older calendar.
Um, you can get those on, uh, also subscribing on X. And, uh, I should remind you that the 2025 Dilbert desktop page day calendar.
is now available for pre-sale at Dilbert.com.
So get it now and you can be sure you'll get your gift copies before Christmas.
Alright, there's a prison, and for some reason I didn't see the city or the place this prison is, but there's a prison in America that has cats.
So instead of taking the cats for euthanization or whatever, if you have too many of them, they let prisoners adopt them.
So prisoners can have their own cat.
Now you have to be a good prisoner, not a dangerous one, and show that you're worthy of a cat.
And then you get a cat.
Now, my first impression is, that's pretty awesome for the cats.
Because if you're a cat, you've got a lot of people to pet you that don't have much else going on.
So it could be a win-win.
And I do think that people who are in prison probably could get softened by pets.
I think that if you have something that you need to care for, it just changes everything.
And if you had a reason to live, you know, even in jail, it's like, oh, I can take, I can make a cat happy today.
Could be good.
I like that idea.
Well, do you take an omega-3 supplement, according to Cypost?
Maybe you should, because it makes mice less stressful, less anxiety.
Now, you may say to yourself, why do I need my mice to have less anxiety?
Well, one example would be if your mice lived in that prison that now is full of cats.
You used to be thinking, hmm, I got a good thing going here.
There's always food on the ground and a bunch of prisoners who leave me alone.
Now it's full of cats.
Well, the way to compensate for that would be to take more omega-3 fatty acids.
Yeah, fatty acids.
Why is it a fatty acid?
I don't know.
It doesn't even make sense to me.
But if you're a mouse and you're feeling bad, try omega-3, especially if there are too many cats in your prison.
Amazon is looking to hire a principal nuclear engineer.
Because all the cool companies that are really big have their own data centers and they're going to need so much electricity that the traditional companies that are not in the business of making nuclear energy are going to have to build their own nuclear power plants.
Now, I don't know if anybody saw that coming.
Did anybody see that coming?
I didn't.
So now, is it Oracle and Amazon?
And of course, Bill Gates separately has big investments in a Gen 4 nuclear.
So I think if you're a billionaire, you've got to build a nuclear power plant.
Who's missing?
Is there anybody notable who is missing from the, hey, I think I'll build a nuclear power plant?
Who's missing?
There's somebody obvious who should be building a nuclear power plant, but we haven't heard anything about it.
Yeah.
How can Elon Musk be going hard at AI when we know AI is going to give monstrous amounts of electricity?
How could he be doing that without considering building his own nuclear power plant?
I feel I feel like maybe there's something brewing that we might learn about later, because it seems to me that you can't do an AI data center without a nuclear power plant of your own.
So yeah, he's invested in solar, and I get that, but he wouldn't be anti-nuclear.
He would be pro-nuclear, I assume, because I don't know if he could ever get enough solar.
Anyway, we'll see if that turns into anything.
Here's a small story that's a big story.
According to The Economist, soon, maybe in 10 years, we could be getting most of our electric car battery parts from recycling old ones.
Because you know you're worried.
It's like, hey, these electric cars are good, but what do you do with all these old batteries?
Well, some large portion of them is recyclable.
And that's because they're experimenting with all kinds of new techniques to do it.
And some of them look good.
Look promising.
Meanwhile, I remind you that Great Britain is arresting people for posting offensive tweets.
Or offensive posts.
But did you know that you could also be arrested just for reposting them?
I'm not sure I really thought about that.
But apparently, It's not just the creator of the fake post.
Now, I did understand that if you created a fake post that you could be in trouble.
But apparently just reposting something that's fake could get you in jail in Great Britain.
Let me reiterate, there's no chance I would ever go to Great Britain.
Again, I've been there, but I would never go there again for any reason.
Not for business, not for pleasure, as long as you can go to jail for reposting something.
That's insane!
Like, I would never allow myself to be in their jurisdiction.
That's just way beyond civilized.
I don't even consider it as civilized.
It's like whatever is pre-civilization, basically.
So Great Britain has fallen, in my opinion.
There was a little story that got more attention than I thought it would.
There's a lighting expert Miguel Quiles, hard to say his name, Q-U-I-L-E-S, but he did a video on X in which he explained how you can light somebody in public to make them look better or worse, and then you look at examples, and it does look like maybe the Trump team, both Vance and Trump, are being intentionally poorly lit.
Now, I'm not Quite sure I'm going to buy this 100%.
But he showed his work and there are other people agreeing with it.
And, and I can tell you that even before I saw this, that they were being lighted, lit wrong, I had noticed.
So I had noticed before this was a story.
Now I didn't notice with Trump, but I did notice recently there was a JD Vance interview.
And his eyes were black with shade.
You know, so his face was not uplit, it was only downlit.
Now here's a little secret I learned from the restaurant business.
You ready for this?
This is a deep inside restaurant business fact that is so non-obvious, if I didn't tell you, you would never know it.
One of the most important factors to make a restaurant successful, it's right at the top.
You would think it would be like the fifth or sixth down.
It's at the top, is the lighting.
The lighting.
The lighting actually has such an effect on people that it's more important than the service and the food and the price.
I know, it just sounds like that could be impossible.
But when I built my second restaurant, we did not Do the lighting right because there was too much external light Which made it hard to see anybody inside the restaurant if you had if you had the blinds open So there's too much like glary light coming in from every direction So just seeing the person on the other side of the table was sometimes actually difficult.
It was the worst lighting ever and the restaurant failed Maybe for other reasons as well.
But definitely getting the writing wrong makes a difference.
Now, what is the wrongest lighting?
Do you know what that is?
The most wrong lighting.
If you want somebody to look unattractive, you do top lighting only.
So if the only lights you have on, or the dominant lights, are your top lights, it It makes your eyebrows shade your eyes.
And it gives you an older, just less healthy look.
If you want somebody to look good, you would light them from the sides or basically right in front of them.
And you'd want to do more of an orange light.
The last thing you want to do is bright white lights from the ceiling, like in an office.
In an office, everybody looks worse.
But in a restaurant, if you give them orange light and you do it from the side, your date looks better.
Do you know what happens when your date looks more attractive?
Here's the part you'll never guess.
The food tastes way better.
Let me say that again.
This is very true and you've all noticed it.
You go on a date with somebody that you're really attracted to, the food tastes better.
It really does.
I mean, it's really noticeable.
Here's the second thing.
If you're on a date with somebody who's looking great and you're attracted to them, do you want the service to be fast?
No, you don't.
So when I tell you that the lighting is more important than the service, your first reaction to that is that it can't possibly be true.
But ask yourself, if the person on the other side of the table looks extra good, you kind of want that to last.
You actually care about the lighting more than the service, and more than the taste of the food, because the other person, if they look good, will make your food taste better.
I know, it's the most non-obvious effect you could ever imagine.
But if you get the light right, the service and the food increase so much better, it's like they were already good.
So, does it make a difference when they light, allegedly, when they intentionally light Vance or Trump wrong?
Yes, yes.
If you think it's a small difference, you haven't run a restaurant, or at least you haven't been that deep into the weeds of it.
the light can absolutely change what you think about these humans.
So if the claims are correct, and this is coming from a lighting expert who says it's obvious, Trump and Vance are both being incorrectly lit intentionally.
By both, ABC would be the, this would be the allegation and CNN.
Now, when I looked at the Trump ones at the ABC, a debate, I'm not sure I saw the wrong lighting.
So I'm not gonna go so far as to say I saw it on that one.
But in the CNN interview with Vance, I mean, I spotted it before I even knew it was an issue.
I was like, whoa, they've lit him completely wrong.
He looks like he has like satanic eyes.
So there's something to it.
I just don't know how intentional it is.
Let's talk about P. Diddy.
If you have not gone down the P. Diddy rabbit hole on social media, where people who are not allowed on regular news get to say whatever they want, Oh, my God!
Is there anybody here who hasn't had any look at what the claims are?
They're really, really interesting.
Horrible beyond anything you... Actually, so horrible that it's hard to hold them in your head.
Meaning that your brain wants to tell you that they're not real.
Because if they are real, You're living in a much worse world than you imagined, no matter how bad you thought it was.
So my brain's not letting me think any of it's true.
Well, my brain is letting me think some percentage of it is true.
But I'm rejecting at least half of it, maybe, as too far beyond the pale.
But I'll give you a taste of it.
Just a little taste.
The allegations of crimes are really deep.
So it'd be everything from emotional and physical abuse and trafficking and underage people and every kind of illegal drug, there'd be blackmailing, beatings, blackmailing, threats, basically everything.
And what we don't know is if there's any connection to any intelligence entities in the United States or foreign or anything else.
But the implication, which I'm not yet ready to accept, is that it would be almost impossible to succeed in the music business unless somebody had fucked you in the ass in front of other people.
No, I think that's too far.
But that's the narrative that's emerging.
I think there's probably people who succeeded without doing that.
But the suggestion that a number of people succeeded because they did do that, I have to say it's kind of convincing, just because there's so many of them.
But remember, you've got the laundry list persuasion working.
If you see a laundry list of celebrities, and then a laundry list of claims, your brain says, well, maybe some of it's wrong, but if it's that big old laundry list, it's probably mostly true.
But that doesn't mean it's mostly true.
Because confirmation bias gets you to exactly the same place.
I saw somebody else I don't want to call them an apologist for these celebrities, but there's probably not a better word.
He explained that the way the parties would work is that the really famous people, which were going to do these parties, they might go there for three hours, but they'd be gone before midnight, and midnight is when, you know, all the sketchy stuff happened.
And that everybody knew, don't be here after midnight unless you want to be part of the sketchy stuff.
So it could be that 95% of the celebrity names you hear literally didn't see or participate in anything.
So I would like to first say, it's really, really bad when specific names are attached to this until you actually know.
Because it's the worst thing you could ever be attached to.
And believe me, I've been attached to some bad things.
But nothing this bad.
So I feel extra, extra sketchy naming any names, but they're all in public now, so I'm sure you've seen them yourself.
But anyway, it looks like every single crime that you could possibly be accused of, Diddy will be accused of.
And then there's a claim by 50 Cent, rapper 50 Cent, that maybe J-Lo and Ben Affleck's relationship May have suffered because of something that Ben found out about her association with Diddy parties, because she used to be with Diddy.
And some say that she was the gun mule.
In other words, the person who would carry the firearm so that Diddy would not be, you know, having a firearm.
And there's some alleged incident where somebody thinks maybe she was involved in some kind of a shooting as the carrier of the gun, not as a shooter.
But I don't think any of that's proven.
These are all allegations.
And whatever Ben Affleck and JLo are going through, I would think that they probably have a pretty long list of things to worry about relationship-wise.
Because I can't imagine the two of them ever being in a successful relationship.
They're just too big for each other.
How do you find somebody who will You know, go along with what those two people would both want to go along with all the time.
I don't know.
I mean, there's no accusations about Ben Affleck, but you'd be a strong personality.
It'd be, it's just hard to be with a strong personality.
Anyway.
According to the Daily Caller, there's some new documents that are Shedding light on the Air Force trying to reduce the number of white males in the officer ranks.
They got PowerPoints showing how much they want to reduce the number of white people in the military, specifically the Air Force officer ranks.
Now, let me say as clearly as I can, I do not respect the military.
I respect the people who serve.
So the individual members of the military, of course, maximum respect.
But if you're talking about it as an organization, and you're talking about the leadership, I've lost all respect for it.
Just all of it.
When Trump used to call his generals stupid, I thought, well that's too far.
And then I heard him talk in public, and then I thought, oh, oh yeah, they sound stupid.
It's not even just the ones who were, you know, working for Trump.
You know, the retired ones that worked for Obama.
And they'll come on, and I'll listen to them, and I'll think, but why do you sound so stupid?
Like, that's not true of pundits.
When pundits come on, they'll sound smart, but very biased.
Or they'll sound smart, but maybe they have some TDS.
But honestly, I've seen a lot of generals who just seem fucking stupid.
Like, I'll listen to them and I'll think, how did you ever become a general?
Like, you just don't even sound a little bit smart.
And those are not DEI hires.
Those are just all kinds of people.
So yeah, I don't have any respect for the military leadership, but maximum respect for the members who served in the military, of course.
But I would advise if you're white, I wouldn't join the military.
Unless you really, really don't have any other options.
Because don't join any organization that has a PowerPoint that says they're going to discriminate against you.
Right?
Now, I would also advise that if you had a suspicion or there were rumors that somebody was going to discriminate against you, you should stay away from that.
But if they have a PowerPoint presentation that says they're going to discriminate against you for the top jobs, don't go anywhere near that.
This is the best advice I'll ever give you.
Don't go anywhere near somebody who has PowerPoint presentations of how they're going to discriminate against you.
Don't go near that.
And by the way, the correct amount of white people joining the military under these conditions is zero.
It should go to zero, because otherwise they'll just keep doing it.
If they can run the military with zero white people, go ahead.
Go nuts.
But if you're white and you're joining the military when they actively are telling you in writing and presenting it proudly that they're going to discriminate against you, that would be stupid.
It would be stupid.
To join an organization that says explicitly, we're going to discriminate against you.
Don't be stupid.
Now, if white enrollment in the military drops to zero, then they might change their act.
But anything short of that's not going to change anything.
Why would it?
There's no pressure.
They can just do what they want to do.
So, I saw a post by DogeDesigner that Musk gave his 100% agreement repost.
And here was the message.
The people voting for Kamala Harris are the same people who believe everything they see in the legacy media.
Now if that's true, if the people who are voting for Kamala Harris are the ones who believe the legacy media—and by the way, that's completely true.
You could not vote for her unless you believed the legacy media, which is not a good look for you.
If you believe the legacy media—let me go further.
If you believe the legacy media is attempting to be accurate, you're lost.
If you don't understand that it's not accidental, you're really lost.
So, but then Doge's designer goes further, and remember, Musk gave this 100%, you know, I agree with that thing.
He says, legacy media is openly engaging in the largest act of election interference in history.
Well, that is correct.
If the legacy media has essentially brainwashed, I don't know, 50% of the country.
That is the biggest act of election interference of all time.
It's not even close.
But one of the things the Democrats have learned is this diversified evil Where they don't put all their evil in one person or one organization.
Instead, they fund hundreds of, like, fact-checkers and, you know, watchers and, you know, the media, so that the evil is so distributed, you don't really find anything or any one person to go after.
So you can complain that CNN and ABC may have lit the candidates wrong, but what's going to happen?
Anything?
It's not a lawsuit, is it?
Nobody's going to sue them, nobody's going to arrest them.
And it worked, allegedly.
Again, I'm not claiming that it was intentional.
But if it were, why would they stop doing it?
If it's working, people complained and then nothing happened.
So just keep doing it.
And I don't think that you can really tell how aware people are By how they talk about the news?
You know, and I've said this before, when you're a little kid, you first learn that, oh, truth, everything I know is coming from these parents.
So parents are a good source of accurate information.
And then you find out they lied to you about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.
And you're like, wait a minute.
Parents can sometimes completely make stuff up.
For their own reasons, whatever those reasons are.
And then you think, well, I'm much smarter now, because I know that people sometimes can lie.
And then you turn on the TV, and you're watching the news, and you think, all right, but the news must be real, or else people would have noticed it by now.
But you don't know that people have noticed it.
You just are not noticing the noticing.
Because if you're not on right-leaning media, you don't notice the noticing.
Because it's only being noticed by half the country and the other half oblivious to it.
And I think maybe half the country knows it's not exactly true, but it agrees with what they think they want, so that's good enough.
So your next level of awareness is you realize that one side is lying, and it's the other side.
If you're trapped in that, you've got work to do.
Both sides are lying, but maybe for different reasons.
In other words, one might be biased in selling you a narrative, but one might be just making shit up.
Just completely made up.
Now, both sides would accuse the others of just making stuff up, and they would have examples that you would agree with, actually.
So, once you learn that you can't trust any narrative, At all?
From anyone?
Then you're close to being able to have a reasonable conversation about politics.
But when you see the people who just, like, snap the grid on an argument that they just heard on TV or read in their biased media, you can't have a political conversation with somebody who believes that their news sources are real and yours are fake.
That's not a thing.
You cannot have a conversation with that person.
Anyway, Bill Maher continues to make news, so his show was last night.
And here are the fun parts that I liked.
So he had on MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle and then Bret Stephens, I think, writes for the New York Times.
Now, Bret, you should know, if I'm remembering right, I hope I'm not misremembering, I think Bret Stephens Would be famous for being able to see both sides more often than most people.
Meaning that, I think he leans Democrat, but when he writes, I think people have said, okay, you're seeing both sides.
Is that fair?
Because I'm only just vaguely going from memory of things I've seen and heard in the past.
But I think he has a reputation of somebody who is not wed to one point of view, and he showed that on the show.
So I get, I respect that.
But Stephanie Ruhl was there.
She's one of the MSNB hosts and MSNBC hosts.
And what I loved was she brought up the project 2025 thing and Bill Maher just slapped that down.
Like it was just an obvious lie and made her sit there and smile while he did it.
Cause she's on his show.
So he just says, Oh, the project 2025 thing is bullshit.
Right to her face.
And then she has to do the face like... I wasn't just proven to be a gigantic liar, and my job is a complete sham, and it was just revealed to all the people who watch Bill Maher, who also watch my show.
I think I'll have to put on a smile, because I don't know what to do now, because he already changed the subject.
He already changed the subject, but he just revealed that I'm a gigantic liar on national TV.
I'm smiling.
Oh, I'm having fun here.
I'm having so much fun now that you called me out as a grotesque liar of a news shelf.
Well, look at my smile.
I'm not even bothered, you can tell, because I'm smiling.
It's not creepy.
It's not creepy.
So that was my favorite.
But there was more.
So it's fun watching Bill Maher because he, too, Is uniquely capable of seeing both sides of arguments, not as much as you'd like, because his TDS is kind of extreme.
Uh, but, but he actually said that, that the two sides were somewhat equivalent in terms of the narratives.
And he gave some examples of Trump saying things that would sound dangerous to the untrained mind and that it's no worse.
So basically he was saying it's similar, you know, so for Trump to say that the way people talk about him could have caused the assassination attempts seemed ridiculous to Bill Maher because Trump says terrible things and the other side says terrible things and it's not that different.
To which I say, you have to be fucking crazy to think those are the same.
How about the fact that you can see the difference?
I mean, the way people act.
They do, in fact, act like one side is actually Hitler and supporting Hitler.
And I've never seen a single, not once, have I seen any Republicans who said, well, we're going to have to go, you know, put them in jail or, I don't know, shoot them or something, because they disagree with us.
It is not equivalent.
It's not even close to equivalent.
That's pure TDS.
Anyway.
And the example that Mario used is that Trump says all the tough guys are on his side.
That he has the police and the military and, you know, the bikers.
He made fun of that.
To which I say, that's just ordinary political talk, that people are on his side and they're cool.
To imagine that that's the same as saying that somebody is Hitler and literally will take the democracy away and the United States will cease to be a country.
That's different than saying somebody has Marxist policies when their father is a Marxist professor.
Or Marxist leanings, let's say.
Anyway.
I have to read this entire exchange because it's so stupid it's fun.
So then Bret Stephens asked Stephanie Ruhle, the two people on Bill Maher's panel there, asked why Kamala Harris has not done interviews, so that we could clearly know what her position is.
Now, I saw this on an Eric Abinanti post on X. He's a good follow.
You should follow Eric.
It's all one word.
Eric Abinanti.
A-B-B-E-N-A-N-T-E.
So anyway, so Brett says, quote, I'm an undecided voter.
I'm not sure I want to vote for Kamala.
My fear is that she doesn't really have a good command of what she wants to do as president.
It would be great for her to sit down with you or George Stepanovich or you, Stephanie.
It's not too much to ask Kamala, are you for a Palestinian state if Hamas is going to run that state, as one example.
Here's what Stephanie Rule said, quote, if you don't like her answer, are you going to vote for Trump?
Does that seem like what a reasonable person says in that situation?
What?
I'll go on.
Then she said, Kamala Harris is not running for perfect.
She is running against Trump.
We have two choices.
There are some things that you might not know her answers to.
But in 2024, we know exactly what Trump will do.
Who he is and the kind of threat he is to democracy, to which I say, based on his history of not stealing your democracy?
What exactly are you looking at?
Would that be the fake news that you've been presenting to the public for years?
But it goes on.
So Brett Stevens says, the problem that a lot of people have with Kamala is that we don't know her answer to anything.
And Rule says, but you know his answer to everything.
Oh my God.
She can't even deal with the issue.
She can only say Trump, orange man, bad.
Then Steven says, people also are expected to have some idea of what the program that you're supposed to vote for.
I don't think it's a lot to ask for to sit down for a real interview.
And Rule says, quote, when you move to Nirvana, I'll be your next door neighbor.
We don't live there.
Unbelievable!
That was a real conversation on television with actual people!
My God.
But just in case you wondered if MSNBC is a turd bowl of evil, they had somebody named Roger McNamee on Who said that Musk should be prosecuted for some of his free speech because he has government contracts.
And so our defense of our country is at risk if Musk has free speech.
That's right.
MSNBC had a guest, unchallenged, who said that Musk should be arrested for free speech because he has government contracts.
Now, you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know these are not really related things.
He still has free speech.
The government contracts don't take your free speech away.
They might, if he had signed some deal about non-disclosure or something specifically, there might be specific things, but not in general.
It doesn't take your free speech away in general.
And this is somebody they just put on MSNBC, like that's okay.
That's normal.
And because someday, if Trump were to be arrested for something you put on social media, or Musk was, You know that the MSNBC viewers would say, well, that makes sense.
Why wouldn't you be arrested for misinformation according to other people?
So the priming is a little frightening.
But are the other Harris supporters also batshit crazy?
Well, over on CNN, one of Harris's spokespeople, Adrian Elrod, said that Does she need to be more specific about how to lower prices was the question she got and her answer was that Kamala can't be any more specific about that because she has been in the race only for about seven and a half weeks.
So she can't answer the main question that people have which is about economics and specifically things too expensive.
Really the number one question.
The number one question.
But she's only been Vice President for three and a half years, and she's only been in the race for seven and a half weeks, so you couldn't expect her to have any kind of response to the single most important question in the country.
Wow!
Wow!
Have you ever seen this level of incompetence before?
It does seem to be permeated through the team.
Her team, they really look bad.
Now, compare that to Vivek goes to Springfield, Ohio yesterday, does a town hall kind of meeting, takes hardest questions, does not support the Haitians eating dogs point of view, and he looked like the smartest person in the room doing something that was just unambiguously good for the country and trying to fix a little problem that popped up.
And I think he did a good job.
Now, Who do they have?
James Carville?
There's such a difference of IQ now, at least among the inner circle type people.
Wow.
So how does Politico write about Vivek's totally successful appearance in Springfield?
Well, Adam Wren, the writer for Politico, said of Vivek, That Vivek had never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like.
From claiming the riots at the Capitol on January 6th was an inside job, to asserting the government lied to Americans about 9-11.
Huh.
Now, can you remind me how Adam Ren knows that those two things, which are unproven, are false?
It's because Democrats and their media have convinced people that anything that's not proven in a court of law or some other high level didn't happen.
Imagine how confused you would be if you thought that anything that couldn't be proved didn't happen.
We live in a world where most of the things that happen can't be proved.
You know, almost everything that happens behind closed doors, you know, conversation, there's no record of it.
So we don't really live in a world in which you can prove all of your allegations.
Doesn't mean they're right and doesn't mean they're wrong.
But if you say they're wrong because they're not proven, you're not really a smart person who's trying to help the country.
You're a fucking idiot.
And you shouldn't be writing as a living if you think that something unproven is therefore false by definition.
That's crazy.
But then later, buried in the article, They let, so Vivek was sort of challenged about his conspiracy theories.
And at that event, he said, quote, so this is Vivek defending himself.
I've propagated all kinds of conspiracy theories in the last several years, including the idea that COVID came from a lab in China.
Oh, it did.
Including that the Hunter Biden laptop story just might be real on the eve of the last election.
Well, he got that one right.
Including the fact that Joe Biden would not be the nominee.
Huh.
That was an excellent prediction.
Conspiracy theory, you might call it.
So on the multiple of these counts, you know, I guess if that's the label that describes me speaking things that end up being true before others recognize them, I guess I'll have to accept that.
Now, again, that's a perfect answer.
He gives three very specific times that he was right and the news was full of shit.
And they put this last in the article, but it was, at least it was included.
It could have been left out, that would have been better.
And yet still, the guy who writes the article and includes examples of Vivek saying that things that were, you know, conspiracy theories ended up being true and he was right.
Why do you start the article with, never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like, unless you're just being A dick, basically.
So that's not what writers should do.
Being a dick is different.
See, I try to keep them separate.
All right.
Brendan Carr has been testifying to Congress, and we've been hearing a lot about the Harris-Biden plan, or the Biden-Harris plan, to spend $42 billion to expand the Internet to all the rural places, and so far I think they've hooked up zero people.
And they've also stupidly not worked with Elon Musk, who already has the facilities in the air, the Starlink.
So they would just pay him a far smaller amount than they had budgeted, and they could have everything almost instantly.
and they won't do it because politics, because stupid, because probably the 42 billion is meant to be insider payments for people who are not really qualified to do the work, but maybe they are good donors to the Democrats.
So probably it was just a big pile of slush money to give to their friends.
And then Elon Musk, you know, inconveniently has a much cheaper, immediate, easy to implement alternative, and they have to just act like it doesn't exist.
Thank you.
So they don't say, well, we looked into it, and you know, if you consider all the variables, we've decided, you know, it's better not to use it.
Nope!
No, the news simply just doesn't mention it.
And therefore, it's not a real thing, because the news didn't mention it.
So, there's that.
Well, here's another one that the regular news is not making enough of a thing, if it's true, and I suspect it is.
So, Matt Gaetz says that He has direct official information that there are five assassination teams operating in the U.S.
to get Trump, maybe other people, but Trump specifically, and that two of them might be domestic and three of them might be foreign.
So he says, five teams that we know are targeting Trump.
Oh.
I'm out.
Five teams that we know?
We know?
Five teams.
Does that count the first two attempts?
So let me ask you this.
If there are five teams that allegedly we know about, but yet the two attempts we know about were just lone individuals.
So there are five teams that have gotten nothing done so far.
But yet two individual lone wolves, not on a team, got so close that, you know, we're all scared?
Huh.
Does it seem to you slightly more likely that the two were lone wolves might've had some association with the team?
Well, we don't know, but that would be the first question I would ask.
If there are really five teams out to get him, and we saw the story that it was Iran was trying to get him, do you think that's real?
Do you think Iran would really try to take out Trump before an election?
Because you know how that would go for Iran, right?
And Iran knows how that would go for them.
So I'm feeling that the Iran story is a cover for somebody else maybe trying to take him out.
As in some American.
So, um, and then to make it worse, uh, Alex Jones is posting about, uh, there's an expert I think he had on the show that, uh, said that there's good information that some of the teams or the, I guess they'd be the assassination teams have surfaced air missiles.
How do you protect against that?
Because Trump's schedule is well known, and he arrives and he leaves in a plane.
And there's somebody who has a missile?
Because I would think that that would be the best way to get away with something without being identified as the killer, because you shoot the missile, you drive away and disappear.
There wouldn't be any witnesses at the point of launch, because you'd be in some forest or something when you did it.
And then we would just blame Iran, right?
So did the bad guys get a twofer?
Did they say, oh, Iran is looking to kill Trump, then they kill Trump, and then they get to blame Iran, and then they get a war with Iran, which maybe is what they wanted?
So I would be really cautious about this whole narrative.
I wouldn't act too quickly no matter what comes out of that.
But that's scary.
So here's some new election updates.
So the Georgia State Election Board, this is a surprise, says counties must hand count ballots.
So why did Georgia just weeks before the election need to make such a radical change to their election system that the mainstream news has told me for years was perfect and there's no way there could have been a problem with it.
Why are they going to improve a system that was known to be perfect?
What do you think that's about?
Why would you need to fix it if it was known to be perfect?
The news has been telling me for years that it was perfect.
Oh, Georgia can put on an election.
Yeah.
There's no reason to try to find any votes that were not counted because, well, they do it all right.
I mean, they're really nailing it.
But even though they're nailing it and perfect, they decided to completely change how they do it right before the election.
It's amazing that Democrats are believing the narrative they're being fed, but they don't see the arguments.
They're just thinking, well, that's the news, must be true.
Here's a story from the Gateway Pundit, Paddy McMurray.
Do you remember when the—this is what Patty says—do you remember when the GOP poll challengers were kicked out in Detroit?
So in Detroit, they were going to count some more ballots, but then the Republicans got kicked out and they boarded up the windows and stuff.
And Patty asks, can you guess which ballots were being counted?
I've never heard that question asked.
I just assumed it was just more ballots.
I just thought they would just continue doing what they were doing.
But the allegation is that these weren't regular ballots that they were going to count.
These were the overseas ballots, the mail-in from foreign countries.
Now that would include military and people who had a right to vote, but for whatever reason were in another country.
So that's no problem, right?
Nobody has a problem with Votes coming in the way they normally do from people overseas.
I don't see a problem with that, do you?
Here's the allegation.
So the types of ballots are called the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act.
That's what allows these mail-in ballots from overseas.
And did you know that if you're voting that way, you don't have to be a registered voter You don't have to have an ID, and you don't have to prove that you're a citizen.
What?
That doesn't sound true, does it?
Well, that's the claim, that according to this act, our law would say, that you don't have to prove you're eligible to vote, or even a citizen, that you can vote, and that nobody's going to check it.
There's no audit.
They just vote.
They just vote and then they're counted.
Now, does that bother you?
Well, the Democratic Party recently announced, according to Patti McMurray at the Gateway Pundit, that they plan to register 9 million of these.
Do you think there are 9 million people who live outside the United States and can legally vote in the United States?
9 million?
Hmm.
Well, despite the government tracking numbers revealing that only 2.4 million eligible overseas voters.
So the government says there are 2.4 million who are eligible.
Democrats say they're going to register 9 million.
Does that bother you?
If in fact that was exactly the bunch of ballots that were going to be counted in Detroit, Before the Watchers got kicked out.
Does that bother you?
Seem a little sketchy?
Well, you know, if this sort of thing were a problem, you'd expect that there would be some reports about it from other precincts.
Because it wouldn't be one precinct, it would be, you know, widespread.
So if you didn't have any reports of any problems coming from, you know, various precincts, then maybe it's not a problem.
But we have some reports from various precincts.
For example, also from Gateway Pundit, in Fulton County, Georgia, a hand recount of 950 of these types of ballots has zero votes for Trump.
950 ballots from overseas in Fulton County and zero of them were for Trump.
Now, you don't have to be a political pundit or expert to know those are fraud.
Very clearly fraud.
And exactly of the type that's alleged, that these overseas ballots are fake.
There's a poll worker in Louisiana County reported that 80% of those types of ballots, the overseas ones, were for Biden.
Does that sound right?
There's not a single state in the country where 80% would vote for Biden.
I'm not even sure there's even one precinct.
Is there even, well, there might be some tiny precinct somewhere.
But no, that's not possible, naturally.
If the allegation is true that it was 80%, those are fraud.
If it's true.
In Cobb County, also Georgia, huh?
Georgia.
Yeah, Georgia comes up a lot.
I wonder why they changed their whole system.
So in Cobb County, Georgia, a poll observer challenged the authenticity of a bunch of these overseas ballots when realizing that 80 to 90% were for Biden.
Huh.
Again, impossible to happen naturally.
Those were, if this observation is true, those were fake ballots.
A judge of elections in Colorado observed the tabulation of those ballots.
Those types of ballots.
And it was alarmed that nearly 95% of the ballots were for Biden.
That's a judge.
A judge observed that.
If it's true that 95% of them were Biden, those were fake ballots.
Those were frauds.
If it's true.
In the city of Richmond, Virginia, a poll worker reported that a hand tally of approximately 1,000 ballots showed 85 to 90 percent for Biden.
So that would be four separate direct observations that these are massively fraudulent.
Massively.
Now here's the question I'd like to ask my Democrat watchers, all two of you.
Which audit caught it?
Can you describe the audit process that determined that these were either true or not true votes?
Of course not.
There's no audit.
There was no audit.
How could you possibly think our elections can be audited?
Anybody who thinks they know that the election was fair, you're either stupid or lying.
You can't know they're fair without knowing how you would audit the election, and nobody knows that.
There's no way to audit this, is there?
I mean, you could imagine that you could somehow, you know, try to trace back all the voters who voted overseas and find something out, but you're not going to do it in time, you know, until the election is certified.
You'll be certified and you'll move on by the time you can even find out if it was fake.
So no, there's no reasonable, practical way to do any kind of an audit.
So if the Democrats want to, they can just send in truckloads of fake So, here's my question.
How many ways do you think there are to rig an election in America?
I'm going to tell you the obvious one.
The obvious one would be a state actor, either United States, deep state CIA type, or another country who would find a confederate, you know, somebody that they could blackmail or bribe, who would work inside one of the technology companies that handles electronic voting or tabulating.
And they would just corrupt them and put in a little code that gives them what they want.
Now, my question to you is, If a state actor did it, somebody who really, really would know how to do something and get away with it.
What part of the audit catches that?
Is there a part of the audit that reads the minds of all the people who work at the technology companies to find out that they're not doing anything wrong?
I would think that a state actor plus insiders could cover up any kind of crime they wanted.
What audit is going to catch that?
None.
What happens if the thing that's corrupt is the audit process?
Why do we assume that the only thing that'd be corrupt would be the vote, when you could also corrupt the judge, right?
Because you could guess what judges might be involved.
You could also corrupt the audit.
So you could corrupt the vote, you could corrupt the audit, you could corrupt the judge that decides whether the vote was audited.
Correctly.
So, if you were to ask me, how many ways are there to cheat?
If you count the mail-ins, you count the overseas mail-ins, you count the, you know, the lawfare, etc.
I would say dozens.
So without being an expert, just sort of casually thinking about it, I would think there might be dozens of ways to cheat without getting caught, that no audit would catch.
Or it would take too long to audit, so it wouldn't matter if you did audit.
But somehow, the fake news has hypnotized Democrats into thinking that you can know that the election was fair.
How did so many people get convinced that something completely unknowable is not only can be known, but is known?
How did that many dumb people survive to adulthood without having a terrible childhood accident that killed them?
I don't know.
There's a study According to the Daily Wire, the study says that millions of non-citizens are likely to vote in 2024.
In the past, as many as 27% of non-citizens were illegally registered to vote.
Now, that's the high number.
It could be 10 to 27%, they say.
And so some non-profit research institute did that.
Of course, I always tell you that all data is fake.
So, you know, I don't know who collected this data or how real it is.
But the allegation is that an alarming number of non-citizens have registered to vote.
Now, that doesn't mean that they vote.
It might just mean that their mail-in ballot is available for somebody who wants to do something illegal.
So, that's bad.
Now, you may have seen that Trump did a post on Truth that got passed around saying that anybody who cheated and voted illegally would go to jail.
Now, I think that's great because you have to remind people that illegal voting is jail.
It's not like a slap on the wrist.
If you get caught rigging this election, you're going to jail.
So I like that.
But I would add to that that you get deported first.
So in my opinion, if you were a non-citizen and you registered to vote, even if somebody lied to you and said, this is fine, you can register to vote.
If you do, if you registered to vote as a non-citizen, Even if somebody tricked you into it.
I think you have to be first to be deported after the criminals.
Criminals first, you know, you got to get rid of the, the people literally breaking laws and have broken laws and are terrorists and stuff.
But after that, I think anybody who registered illegally to vote, that would be two crimes.
One is you came into, well, maybe you may have come in under the asylum program, which would not be a crime.
Um, but that's a crime.
If you registered to vote, the fact that somebody told you you could do it, I don't know if that's good enough.
Normally, I'm pretty soft on this kind of thing.
Like if somebody didn't know they were committing a crime, but not in this case.
In this case, you have to, you got to be hard, you got to be a hard ass when it comes to your physical security of your country.
You have to do things that are bad for other people.
And good for you.
That's just the way it works.
If you did things that were good for other people and bad for you, that's the end of your country.
So deport them first, I would say.
So the court has taken some kind of naked ballot case over in Pennsylvania, according to the free press.
So Pennsylvania's highest court, they're going to consider whether counties must accept provisional ballots cast on election day.
The details don't matter.
What matters is that there are probably five different stories today that I didn't write down for you that were all about election integrity.
So it was a whole bunch of, you know, this precinct is changing how they do it, which suggests that they weren't doing it right before, or that at least there was a risk that they couldn't control, and other claims of irregularities found.
The headlines are full of them.
Now, how many of them did Democrats see?
So I saw maybe eight different stories just today.
Just today.
I saw eight stories about election irregularities.
How many did Democrats see today?
Zero.
None.
Now that doesn't mean that what I'm seeing is correct.
It could be that every one of those reports is a fake Kraken.
It's possible.
It's very possible.
But we're not getting the same reality.
I mean, if I see eight reports of obvious election holes, and Democrats are told that we know that they're all good elections, here's what I think.
I don't think the voting is what determines anything anymore, because the voting, you know, in our childish minds, we thought, oh, people will do their own research and express their preferences at the voting booths.
Here's the better way to think of it.
I think that the votes are like the canvas that the artist paints on.
So the canvas is not art, and nobody buys a blank canvas.
The votes are just the canvas.
They don't have any predictive or commercial value.
The art, the thing that decides who becomes the president, is the lawyering and the media.
They're the artists.
So the canvas, the least important part of the painting in terms of the art, is the vote.
All we're doing is creating a context in which the real artists can do their thing.
Now, when I say artists, I'm complimenting weasels who are using legal processes and judicial processes, well, government processes, and then the media itself.
So they're the artists, but the vote really isn't the thing.
I think it genuinely doesn't matter who gets the most.
You know, if you throw in the Electoral College, of course it doesn't matter who gets the most.
But we've designed a system where the vote is the least important part.
What's important is that a lot of people did it.
Not who got the most.
That just doesn't even matter.
It's just the artists are operating on top of the canvas, and the canvas is just the vote.
Anyway, so if all that's true, and I'm sure it is because I said it, the thing that matters the most to the survival of the country is keeping Trump alive, which is by no means going to be easy, and number two, making sure that the election watchers are way better than they ever have been before.
Way better.
I think they might be.
Because I do think that the Lara Trump organization and others within the Republican Party have adjusted.
They learned from past mistakes.
So I think they know exactly where to look.
And here's the thing.
If this election is going to be rigged the same way it has been, allegedly, that would mean that the poll watchers know exactly what to look for.
Which means when these overseas votes come in, The Republican observers are going to be all the fuck over them.
And making sure that if they say 90% or 100% for Joe Biden, that they flag it, they've got standing, I hope.
I hope they've established some kind of standing in advance.
Then they take it immediately to court and have the election thrown out.
I think the most likely outcome is that we won't have an election that we decide to certify.
It'll just be too messy, too many cheaters, and we won't know even who won.
That's still my prediction.
Prediction is on the coin flip will be edge.
So let's talk about here was a story that I'm a little confused about.
If it's true, it's the biggest story in the country, but it's not in the news.
And then other people have told me, Scott, that's an old story.
To which I say, well, I hadn't heard it before.
And even if it's old, it's still the biggest news.
And here's what it is.
Allegedly, there's a transcript, which we had not, well, I hadn't seen it before, in which we can see in writing that the military acknowledged that Trump had asked them well ahead of January 6th to do everything they needed to do to prepare To avoid any violence on January 6th.
And that when January 6th came, and the military was being begged to allow the National Guard to come help, the National Guard was completely ready, staffed and prepared, and nearby, to do what would have essentially avoided a lot of problems on January 6th.
And that the reason that they weren't released to do that is that the heads of the military thought it would be bad optics.
I think Milley was maybe the chief of that.
Now, if that's true, and I'm not seeing people debunking it, that would say that everything about the January 6th insurrection narrative has been debunked.
Because nobody stages an insurrection and then also organizes the military defense to defeat it.
And that's what Trump did.
And we know that because we have the transcript now.
And it's being admitted by the military that they did ask and they did prepare.
They just didn't deploy.
Now, I've had enough conversations with TDS Democrats to know That once you prove that the protester part of it was not an insurrection, because Trump wouldn't stage an insurrection and then stage the solution to it.
You know, telling the military to get ready for his insurrection.
No, nobody would do that.
So the violent part of it is certainly debunked as any part of an insurrection plan.
But Democrats will say the following, but Scott, It wasn't just that.
It was about the fake electors.
And then he refused to leave power.
To which I say, so he's still president.
No, no, he left.
Well, you said he didn't leave.
Well, he said he wasn't going to leave.
So then he left late.
No, he left right on time.
Well, he left with a fight.
No, he left peacefully.
Well, what is exactly the problem?
They did some paperwork to preserve their rights, because apparently it helps preserve your rights if you've got some alternate electors picked.
There may have been some legal advice that didn't pan out, but that's not the biggest crime in the world.
That's just maybe being wrong about something.
So, I'll say it again.
You can't really take over the country with creative paperwork.
When the entire world is looking.
Right after the election, everybody's looking at everything.
It's the most transparent thing that could ever happen.
So if you think, well, you'd have to be a brainwashed Democrat to think that because somebody had a piece of paper with different names on it, that the whole system was going to say, well, you know, you've got that piece of paper with different names on it and you think the election was rigged, so we'll just go with that.
I don't think so.
There's no evidence that that could have worked or that anybody thinks it could have worked, but it might have withheld their rights if they thought they had a way to legally find out if something was fixed or whatever.
So much of what Democrats believe about the world and about Trump is based on the fact that they've been successfully primed to see things as violence.
So when he says to the Georgia guy, can you find the votes, the Democrats interpret it as invent them and make them up.
In what world does find ever mean invent them and make them up?
There's no context in which that ever means that.
But they've convinced tens of millions of Democrats that the word find means a completely different thing when Trump says it.
Yeah.
So that's crazy.
And then, you know, the bloodbath, of course, taken out of context.
So they've got the Democrats completely convinced that words mean different things when Trump says them, and that all the Republicans know it, because we know his mafia talk.
I don't think he's ever done any mafia talk.
Probably never.
You know?
Anyway.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal, in one of their opinion pieces, thinks that Israel is trying to send a message to Hezbollah that they can have their way with them if they don't calm down and stop rocketing Israel.
And so the evidence of that would be that they blew up the pagers and the walkie-talkies, and then soon after they did a very successful attack on the leadership Uh, well within Lebanon.
So they've sent the following signals.
We are more capable than you.
We're not gonna, we're not going to hold back.
I think the pager walkie talkie thing says we're not going to hold back.
And then also bombing within Lebanon.
Of course, there are always going to be casualties that are not combatants.
That also signals that there's no constraints.
That if you want to make this a war, nothing's going to stop us from doing everything that we need to do.
And we have better capabilities than you do.
So some smart people are saying that Israel is really just trying to resettle the Israeli, the Israel residents.
They had to leave the border area with Lebanon so that really all they want is the Hezbollah to calm down so that life can go back to something like it was before.
I'm not so sure.
I think that that has an assumption in it that I don't buy into.
Here's the assumption I don't buy into.
That Israel would be satisfied with 100,000 rockets pointing at them from Lebanon, given the current situation.
I think that Israel is going to have to just completely demolish Hezbollah.
There will never be a better time to do it.
Never.
And if they don't do it now, it's going to look like a mistake later.
Now, I'm not recommending, and I'm not backing it, and I'm not endorsing it.
I'm just observing.
As an observer, There's not going to be a better time to do what they need to do.
And if it were us, we would definitely destroy every rocket launcher in Lebanon.
And we would probably occupy it.
We'd probably just take it.
Keep it.
So, I'm going to say that I'm not so sure Israel wants to just go back to the way it was.
That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't pass my sniff test.
Like, that doesn't make any sense at all.
So we'll see.
I'm sure it's just coming down to some internal politics in Israel.
But the right thing to do is, obviously, they need to take it to Hezbollah and just mow the lawn up there.
Whether they do that or not, probably it's just internal politics plus the U.S.
pressure.
Ignorance of the law can never be a defense.
Sure it can.
By the way, that's not true, is it?
I'm pretty sure that ignorance of the law can be a defense in special cases.
In general, it's not.
But in special cases, I think it is.
Yeah, the pager attack was a psychological event.
You know what I also wonder?
Did the leadership default to their cell phones because they couldn't not communicate And even though they knew it was dangerous, they just had to take a chance.
Here's what I think.
Even if the leadership that Israel took out with their latest bombing, even if the leadership knew that they should not go near a cell phone, here's what I know.
If Israel also knew who the hanger-on-ers were, you know, the lower-level people who are always in the vicinity of the leader, Do you think that every one of those lower-level people kept their hands off their cell phones?
I bet not.
If it's like everywhere else in the world, the lower-level hanger-on-ers around the leader would be sitting there thinking, OK, I'm just going to use it for a minute.
I'll just use it for a minute.
I'm going to send this message and I'll turn it off.
Can't be any problem with this.
And then everything blows up.
That's what I think.
So I think if I had to guess, somebody used a cell phone when they shouldn't have used a cell phone.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I remind you that the Dilbert 2025 calendar is available for pre-sale.
You can only get it at the link at Dilbert.com.
It's not on Amazon.
It's not on bookstores this time.
It always was in the past, but not this time.
If you buy more than one, your shipping costs will be reasonable.
And I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately now.
And we're going to have an amazing Saturday.
For those of you who missed it, I do a pre-show before this for the locals people.
And I take three 15-foot putts at my little indoor putting room.
And today I made all three.
Now, you could do the calculation of what are the odds of making three 15-foot putts in a row on camera.
Very low.
But it suggests that luck is coming your way.
And so, goodbye to X and YouTube and Rumble.
I'll see you same time tomorrow.
Because I work on the weekends, not like the lazy people.
But I'm going to talk to the locals people privately now.