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, Flame-throwing Robot War Dogs, Scientific Rigor Credibility Study Retracted, Consumer Confidence Plunges, OpenAI, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Mayor Eric Adams Arrest, IG Horowitz, J6 Undercover Agents, MSNBC Stephanie Ruhle, Kamala Harris MSNBC Interview, Fair Share Tax Policy, Mark Cuban, Lying to Pollsters, SS Butler Incompetence, Jason Calacanis, J6 Event Disagreements, 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 Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the finest time you've ever had in your whole darn life.
And if you'd like to take this experience up two levels, then nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go.
Oh, that was a little extra good today.
Starting off just right.
Well, have you heard of something called a coffee nap?
Researchers have found That if you take a nap for too long, you'll get into deep sleep and that's no good.
If you drink coffee when you're exhausted, well, that's not ideal because you really needed a nap.
So they say that you can game the system by drinking your coffee, but before it kicks in, you immediately take a nap.
So apparently if you wake up in 20 minutes, the coffee, the caffeine will have kicked in, you have your nap, boom!
The only thing I find problematic about that is, how long does it take you to drink your coffee?
Because it takes me at least 20 minutes to finish my coffee, and by then it's kicked in.
How the hell am I going to take a nap?
So obviously you have to chug the coffee, otherwise the whole thing falls apart.
So chug that coffee, take a nap, you'll feel great.
Well, there's a Cleveland, Ohio-based company making robot dogs with a flamethrower.
And apparently Ukraine has 30 robot dogs now.
I don't think they have flamethrowers, but they could.
And they're already deploying them.
So if Ukraine lasts another year, the war, it's going to be all robots.
I think Ukraine is going to be the testing ground for robot warfare.
Because they're clearly running out of humans.
There's no doubt about that.
And yet, they don't seem to want to stop fighting.
And they're getting delivery of advanced robots that probably the United States is very eager to test in actual combat.
So one year from it being largely robots on the front line.
And you don't need as many robots as you need humans, because one robot could kill dozens of humans.
So it's sort of not a fair fight.
So I'm going to say one year Until the war is primarily a robot and drone war.
That's my prediction.
So for a little over $9,000 you can get yourself a flamethrowing robot dog.
I think I'm going to get one.
I heard from a neighbor who used to work for the police that in my neighborhood it's Unheard of for a home to be burgled if there's a dog there.
Now, my dog's a little weak and small, and she limps, and she's older than dirt.
So I don't know if my dog would scare anybody, but if I got me a robot dog, and I just sat in the living room and had a flamethrower, oh yeah.
Imagine being a burglar and running into a robot dog.
That would scare the hell out of you.
Because you wouldn't know what kind of weaponry the dog had or could have hurt you.
So robot dogs, get one.
AI is, or Meta is rolling out their new glasses that are AR or VR. So they're basically AI driven.
And they can do all these things like set reminders and Do all kinds of things that if you wanted to wear nerdy glasses, that would be great.
But I'm going to use my indicator of when to know a new product will succeed.
It goes like this.
A product will succeed if people are wildly enthusiastic about it while it's in its terrible initial form.
Now that I often use cell phones and personal computers and even before that faxes so there are lots of examples Where people really really wanted a product cars even cars were bad before they were good Way before the products were good There's just something about it that you knew you had needed to have it but Do you feel that with the AR and VR glasses?
Because it feels the opposite to me.
It feels like even though the product keeps improving and there's probably no limit to how much better they can get, I think that they keep thinking if we make it a little bit better, people are going to buy it.
But I think they're missing the biggest indicator, which is if people don't want it when it's bad, They just don't have enthusiasm for it.
So they're not going to want it that much better when it works well.
So that's my prediction.
That unless you see excitement in the it's not quite great yet, it's never going to be exciting.
So improving the product doesn't make people excited.
We'll see. Maybe this is an exception.
So we'll be testing that theory.
It actually could be an exception, but it's a good way to test the idea.
All right, well, there was a scientific study, according to Science publication, in which they were talking about how to get better scientific rigor in your papers, your scientific papers.
Because you know a lot of the scientific papers that get published, even peer-reviewed, turn out to get retracted.
And so somebody did a big old study on the best way to improve the credibility and reliability of the system.
So they wrote a scientific paper on how to improve scientific paper credibility.
They have since had to withdraw it because they had elemental errors in the paper that told you how to trust scientific papers.
So, that's what you call not succeeding.
That's not succeeding.
Well, according to Breitbart, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged.
Not only business enthusiasm, but personal too.
The plunging seems to be most correlated with Harris becoming the candidate.
Now, there might be other stuff, but things aren't really that different than they were six months ago, are they, in terms of the economy?
I mean, the prices haven't gone up much in six months.
There's not much difference.
You know, employment's about the same, stock market's up.
But why would the consumer confidence be plunging?
The only reason I can think of is that they're looking at Harris and saying, oh my God, if she becomes president, we're all in trouble.
Is there something else going on that I don't know about?
I think it's really that simple.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call it.
I'm going to call the race for Trump.
But only the vote.
Because I think we're in, unfortunately, a terrible mode in this country in that whoever wins the vote isn't necessarily going to be the president, if you know what I mean.
So if you consider all the potential shenanigans from assassination to lawfare to who knows?
I mean, who knows what kind of weird October surprise hoaxes are coming?
There's probably at least one gigantic Trump hoax that's brewing that we'll see any minute now.
But here's what I think.
I think if consumer confidence drops and the only thing that you can see that is related to it is Harris, and now that we've seen her interviews, we'll talk about that, she's so clearly incompetent that I don't think it's possible to be an informed consumer and think, mm-mm, a little Kamala Harris can fix the economy.
That's what we need.
I think just about no people think that.
They might like her for a variety of reasons, but I don't think they think she's going to fix the economy.
That doesn't seem like something you would attribute to her.
So, I'm calling it.
I think if you hold the election...
Without some new gigantic thing happening, and by the way, October is coming, so something new and gigantic is probably going to happen.
Maybe multiple things.
But at the moment, Trump is a sure winner in the vote.
That doesn't make him president.
Like I said, they could lawfare him.
There's just a million things I could do that are just weaselly shenanigans.
So 100% chance he's going to win the vote unless something big changes.
But remember, remember the part where I said unless something big changes?
There's going to be some big stuff coming.
Yeah, I don't know what it is.
I mean, I don't know what all of it is.
I know some of it.
But yeah, Trump has control of the vote at this point.
Well, did you know that BlackRock has acquired now enough Bitcoin that they have $23 billion worth of Bitcoin?
Now, if BlackRock, the biggest financial entity around, thinks that they need to own $23 billion worth of Bitcoin, Bitcoin, that certainly suggests that they have confidence in it, or at the very least, they're diversifying.
It occurred to me that since I talk about big companies all the time and stuff like this, that I should do a full disclosure of which assets I own.
So if it looks like I'm pumping up something, you can say, oh, you own that stock, which you should say, by the way.
I don't actually think that way.
I don't come on here and say, I own a stock.
I think I'll say some good stuff about it.
But I do say good stuff about some of them.
So let me just mention, these are not recommendations, because I don't do recommendations, but I do own Bitcoin as a diversification play.
And when I see BlackRock buying it, I think, oh, okay, it's probably smart to own it.
I do own some Tesla stock.
Some Nvidia stock and one index fund of nuclear power stuff.
The other ones would not be relevant to talking about the news.
So I've got some Ulta and some Camping World.
Those are really just for fun.
I don't recommend any of the things I have for anybody else.
So generally speaking, you should not be investing in individual stocks.
Just as a rule, you should diversify and get index funds.
But if you have enough money that you have some that you can play around with, sometimes it's fun to play around with individual stocks.
So Ulta and Camping World are literally just recreational investments for me.
I'm trying to future-proof my portfolio.
Oh, I also have Microsoft that I got when the pandemic came.
I got lucky because they introduced AI. So, I'm future-proofing as much as I can with Microsoft, NVIDIA, Tesla, and an index fund of nuclear power plants.
NLR, I think, is the fund.
So, again, not recommending any of that.
Don't make recommendations.
But when you see me talk about any of those things, you can know that I put my money behind them.
And if you want to be skeptical and you want to say, I think he's saying that just because he thinks it'll make his stock go up, you should do that.
I can tell you, I promise you that I'm not thinking that way consciously.
But am I subconsciously favoring the things that I invested in?
Probably. That would be a normal thing that a normal brain would do.
I'm just not conscious of it.
So don't listen to me on that stuff.
Well, OpenAI, the ChatGPT people, they're gonna...
What would you call it?
Transmogrify into a for-profit entity, because they started as a not-for-profit.
Part of that will be allocating Sam Altman 7% of the company, which would be over $10 billion, so that's a pretty good payday.
And, of course, you might know the story that Elon Musk got that venture going with $50 million that he put in with the understanding that it would be a not-for-profit entity to benefit the world with AI. But then it turned into a for-profit kind of thing, and a Microsoft kind of thing, and Elon got squeezed out.
But he's not too crazy about what's happening there.
And he even said in a post that you can't convert a nonprofit into a for-profit.
It's illegal. I don't know if that's true, but it sounds true.
I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem to me that there would be something illegitimate about that transfer if you had been set up with the intention of being a non-profit.
Well, of course, there were, I think, three executives from OpenAI quit just recently.
And so there's probably some internal drama going on in the place about whether they should be for profit, whether they're moving too fast or not fast enough and it's dangerous.
So they're probably working on all that.
But Musk actually referred to Sam Altman as Littlefinger.
How many of you recognize that reference?
Littlefinger? It's from Game of Thrones.
And Littlefinger was like the Weasley backstabber, you know, guy in the shadows.
He was always the Weasley backstabber.
So he calls Sam Altman Littlefinger.
All right. I'm very entertained by whenever they get personal on the posts.
Speaking of Tesla, I saw an announcement which has been interpreted as Tesla's gonna roll out their robo-taxis.
So I assume that means a driverless taxi that you could call with an app.
And they're gonna do that on October 10th in Los Angeles.
Now, I didn't know that that was imminent.
So maybe they're going to demonstrate a prototype as opposed to a finished car.
I don't know. But how amazing is that?
How amazing is it that you're alive when driverless car taxis are going to become your thing?
It's kind of cool just that we could be here to watch that happen.
Well, anyway, you probably heard that the mayor of New York City, Mayor Adams, no relationship to me.
I know we look a lot alike.
But he's been indicted.
The news is saying it's something about FARA violations.
FARA would be the foreign something, blah, blah, blah.
It means he accepted money from a foreign entity.
Now, Turkey is mentioned as a country that may have given some money to his campaign or something else, but we don't know the details, but there may be more than one country involved, allegedly.
Now, a number of his staff is also being indicted or investigated and, you know, they're losing their devices, etc.
And what do you think is happening?
So, here's my take.
As I've said before, I believe that all city governments, at least the large cities, are all corrupt.
I don't think there's an exception.
I think that people actually go into those jobs because the corruption is what the payoff is.
So while I don't rule out the fact or rule out the possibility that there's some city where the mayor and all the employees are totally legit and they never try to do kickbacks to their campaign donators or anything like that, I don't think so. I think they're 100% crooked.
And, you know, that's just my assumption.
Now, there may be, like I said, there might be a mayor here or there who passes through and they're not crooked.
But in general, I feel like you could pick any mayor and put a little muscle on it and you could find something they did illegally.
So what do you make of the fact that one specific mayor is being targeted hard as well as presumably some staffers?
And what do you make of the fact that it happened right after Mayor Adams got real vocal about too many immigrants coming into New York?
Is it connected? Is he being punished for not being a team player on immigration?
Well, if he were being punished for not being a team player with the Democrats, it would look exactly like this.
But if he had simply done some crimes and it's been brewing for a while and just people doing their job, it would look exactly like this.
So we have a situation that looks exactly like two completely different situations.
One is he's really guilty.
It's really bad. They've had the goods on him for a while, but they had to investigate it.
And this is just when everything came together.
Totally possible that it's nothing but a real crime and they found it.
But it does look exactly like he's being punished for his views on immigration.
So what do you make of that?
I don't think we'll ever know the answer, but I hate living where I don't know that answer.
That you can watch a fellow citizen go down.
He's definitely going down.
And you say to yourself, I don't even know if that was legitimate.
Now, like I said, the whether or not he's being punished is a separate question from whether or not there was anything that was a crime.
So I'm just assuming that it was an easy target.
Once they decided they wanted to go after it.
So it's the deciding to go after him that's the critical part.
The fact that they could find something probably applies to most of the mayors.
All right. So we'll keep an eye on that.
Thomas Massey was...
What would you say?
Interviewing or talking to Horowitz, the guy who did the report on...
Well, he was doing a report on January 6th to figure out what really happened and who did what and who's to blame and all that other stuff.
And that report, after three and a half years, is not ready.
Why? I don't know.
Not ready. But one of the big questions is how many federal agents were present on January 6th?
And Massey tried to get him to give a number, but he said, well, you know, lots of people have to approve it.
It's in draft form.
It might change.
I can't say. And just avoided it.
But here's my question to you.
What number would be the wrong number?
Because I have no idea.
Suppose they came back and they said there were three.
What would you say about that?
Would you say, oh, well, if there were only three, it probably didn't make much difference.
What if they said there were 20?
20 out of, I think there were over 100,000 people who were in the general area.
20? Could 20 move the needle?
Could 20 do an op and cause the people to do something they wouldn't have done?
Maybe. It depends what those 20 people were doing.
Because you definitely have people who are leaders.
Even Ray Epps, and I'm not saying he was a Fed, but Ray Epps was encouraging people to do specific things.
There were other people, one person with the bullhorn, I think, that day, who was encouraging people to do specific things.
So, yes, 20 could probably make a gigantic difference.
If one of the 20 pulled down a barrier, and then the rest of the people said, oh, the barrier's down, they just walked through, that would be one person who could basically cause the whole thing.
So I don't know that it matters how many were there.
Because I'd be kind of amazed if it's not at least a dozen.
Would you agree with that?
I'm going to say 20 as the floor.
I think it's more than 20.
But if there were 20, that would be plenty enough to turn a mostly peaceful thing into way more dangerous than it should have been.
It wouldn't take many people.
But what if they come back and they say it's 80 or 100?
At that point, wouldn't you lose all skepticism about whether or not there was an op going on?
There's some number where all of us would say, that doesn't look like the normal law enforcement situation.
It looks like you're trying to make something happen as opposed to monitoring it.
So we'll see. But apparently we're not going to know about that until after the election.
I'm gonna say what you're gonna say, which is, to me, this all looks crooked.
So even though Horowitz is not, you know, not suspected of anything specific, like, you know, nobody thinks he's done a crime or anything, I'm saying that it feels like way, way too coincidental and unusual to explain just by being slow.
They would at least tell us what they know about how many Feds were there, etc.
So now, to me, there's something crooked about this.
So I'm not buying into the...
We're not going to have it done before the election.
You can do anything in 30 days.
You just have to want to.
So we'll see. Well, you may have seen the sit-down interview with Kamala Harris and MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle, same person who was recently on Real Time with Bill Maher, Stephanie Ruhle.
Now, if you don't watch MSNBC, I do it so you don't have to.
And Stephanie Ruhle would be sort of a Joy Reid, Rachel Maddow-level batshit crazy Trump derangement syndrome.
You know, no pretense of trying to be fair whatsoever.
So she was the perfect choice for Kamala Harris because Kamala Harris knew there wouldn't be much pushback.
But there was a little bit of pushback.
And, oh my God, did Harris blow that!
It was totally bungled.
Her answers were just laughably ridiculous, and people are just laughing at them today.
It didn't even look like a professional.
Honestly, I could pick somebody randomly from a crowd and they would have beat that performance without practice.
They could have beat her performance.
So I'll give you an idea. Now, first of all, in my opinion, she looked inebriated.
Now, I would like to point out that while I do say that a lot about Harris, I'm very careful to point out that there are clearly times she's not, such as the debate.
There was no signs whatsoever of any kind of inebriation at the debate.
And other times as well.
No sign of it at all. But when she sat down with Stephanie Ruhle, she looked drunk as a fuck.
How do you not see it?
It doesn't even look a little bit not drunk.
Now, I'm using drunk as a catch-all for whatever inebriation or combination of things were there, but there's no way that that was straight.
Is there anybody who disagrees?
Is there even one person watching who is going to go out on a limb and say, you know, I think that's just her personality from one day to the next.
It's quite different. Sometimes she's more serious.
Sometimes she's more relaxed.
This time she was just more relaxed.
She laughs a lot. Big deal.
Does anybody have that opinion?
Because to me, it's just overwhelmingly obviously drug-related.
Overwhelmingly obvious.
Just like, exactly like, Biden's mental decline.
And I feel like it's just that all over again.
Where, you know, for years, three years, I think, I was saying, Biden is clearly mentally declining.
What's going on?
Why do I keep saying it out loud?
But other people are acting like they don't see it.
Like, what's going on?
Now, obviously, the Republicans saw it first.
But same thing.
Why is it not the only thing we're talking about that a major candidate for presidency just gave an interview clearly inebriated?
Is it because the mainstream news believes she was not inebriated?
I'm actually a little confused.
Or do they know it?
It's kind of obvious. And they're just pretending they don't see it so that you won't notice.
And think how much they primed you.
By treating it like it was just normal, don't you doubt your own interpretation?
Because I'm watching it and I'm thinking, okay, you're talking to a drunk.
You're not going to say anything about that?
And she doesn't. And then when it's done, I think to myself, huh, well, if it were so obvious, but the interviewer didn't say anything about it, then maybe I'm just wrong.
So it basically gaslights you into thinking, oh, I guess I can't tell an inebriated person anymore.
I guess that's just normal.
So it's total gaslighting.
Anyway, here's some...
So she was asked if she worked at McDonald's, and I would like to give you my impression of her saying that she did work at McDonald's, because Trump is saying, and Republicans are saying there's no evidence she ever worked there.
But here's her confirming that she did.
I did the fries!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
So, if you missed it, that's what you missed.
It was really weird.
Really weird. What else did you say?
She said, let's see.
When asked about how she would pay for the program she wants to implement, it would cost more money since we're already in a deficit.
She pivoted to corporations and billionaires have to pay their fair share.
Just their fair share.
They got to pay the fair share.
The fair share. Now, what's a fair share?
How in the world does that work?
What is the fair share?
How do you determine what's fair?
Now, I always like to bring out my famous quote, that fairness was invented so children and idiots would have something to argue about.
If you were a serious person and you were talking about taxes, you would never use the words fairness.
Because it's ill-defined, it's subjective, and you can't have an ill-defined subjective tax policy.
Here's what you could do.
You could decide whether a tax change, either up or down, is for the greater good, without too much attention to how it's allocated.
You can pretty much pick out the greater good, It would be a tax level where we don't discourage business, but maybe we get a little closer to paying off our debts.
Now, ideally, you'd rather bring your expenses down to do that instead of raising taxes.
But my point is, fairness is not what economists talk about.
She has 400 economists who just backed her.
Ask one of the economists to define fairness for you.
It's not a thing.
There's not one of the 400 economists who back her who would back her on fairness being the standard for anything.
Now, certainly you want to pick a standard that people won't complain about too much.
So they have to feel like, all right, well, I don't want to pay this much taxes, but I can see other people are paying taxes, and well, you know, it's just not the hill I'm going to die on.
So maybe you can get that.
You can get people to say, well, you know, I don't have a better idea.
That's as good as you can do.
Fairness is for idiots.
So, if she was drunk or she is an idiot, we don't know, but it looks like a drunken idiot statement to rely on.
Fairness. But Stephanie Rule, to her credit, she said directly that she's on MSNBC that Harris doesn't answer the question where she'll get the money from, which means she's not answering the question on the most important parts of her policy.
Because if her policies were free, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.
I'd like to give a $6,000 tax credit to people.
What's that cost me?
Nothing. Oh, okay.
Yeah, go ahead. I'd like to make $50,000 tax deductible available to new businesses.
Well, what's that cost me?
Nothing. It's free.
All right. Yeah, sounds good to me.
Make it $100,000 if it's free.
But if you leave out the part about what it costs or what it does to inflation, you're not really a serious candidate.
Stephanie Rule also, to her credit, pointed out to Harris that the Biden administration has tariffs, so what the hell are you talking about with tariffs not being a good idea?
So then, because all the viewers of MSNBC are uninformed idiots, Harris got to say, Well, you just don't want to throw out, like Trump does, the across-the-board tariffs, which nobody is recommending.
Literally nobody on the whole fucking planet, including Trump.
There's not one person who thinks tariffs should be applied to everything.
Not one. Not a single fucking person.
And yet she can say this on TV because it's MSNBC. So, gets away with it.
But to her credit, Stephanie Rule did point out that Biden uses some tariffs when it makes sense.
He even said he might add some more or add to them.
Where they make sense. Now, if you watch a useful political show, such as The Five, you'll see Greg Goffeld explain, at least every other day, that if you put tariffs on an industry you're trying to protect, it makes perfect sense, because you don't want some other country destroying your entire industry, like the car industry, for example.
But if all it is is something that nobody in America makes and you're getting a good deal on it, of course you're not going to put a tariff on that.
That would just be, what?
Just a tax. So this is one of those situations where people are in 100% agreement.
Democrats and Republicans, 100% agreement on tariffs, that there are some special cases that make sense, but the general case, you'd be better off not doing it.
Both sides, 100% agreement.
And that's why Biden didn't remove any of Trump's tariffs.
So the Biden administration got rid of, what, 94 executive orders just about the border.
And that was like on day one.
So it's obvious that they don't have any problem at all reversing stuff that Trump does that doesn't make sense.
But they didn't reverse his tariffs.
And then they send out idiot Harris to say that tariffs are, ah, it's bad the way he does them, just throwing them all over the place.
You know, I was just, I got those, he's just got tariffs on everything, which he doesn't.
That would be stupid. Then she was asked about housing, because housing costs is too much.
And what would she do about that?
And instead of answering anything about housing, because she didn't have an answer, she tried to make the case that if you did things that made life in general more affordable, that people would have extra money from just an affordable life that they could afford or better afford housing or buying a house.
But the way she tried to explain it is with a keyword that obviously had been given to her.
And you'd see that she lights up whenever she hits the keyword.
So you can tell when she's clicked in because she's operating on some set pieces where if they say this, make sure you put this keyword in there.
So watching her light up when she hits the keyword and then repeats it is kind of just creepy.
So the keyword was holistic.
So her argument being that even if you don't directly give financial support to the housing part, if you financially support the life in general, they'll have a little extra money for housing.
Now that's not an illogical argument.
That's not illogical.
If somehow they made our gas prices go down to $1, people would have a lot more money to pay the rent or pay the mortgage.
So I'm on board.
Here's how she explained it.
Looking holistically at the connection between that and the housing and looking holistically.
And then she would light up every time she said holistically.
Holistically! At the incentives we are in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing.
Holistically, it was a total train wreck.
So, it's very clear that the more we see of her, the more obvious it is that they had to hide her.
They just put her with the easiest interviewer in the world, and she didn't even have set-piece answers for the most obvious questions.
Do you know how incompetent that is?
It would be one thing to have answers that people don't like.
Trump does that a lot.
It's a completely different game to not even have a sensible-sounding answer besides I grew up in a middle-class home.
That's a whole different level of incompetence.
If you can't do a friendly...
Let me give you an example.
An equivalent would be Trump talking to Hannity, which they've done a number of times.
Hannity is literally good friends with Trump.
Literally, Hannity is the most biased Republican you could even think of if he tried to make a list of the most biased Republicans.
Now, to his credit, Hannity makes no pretense of trying to be a middle ground, show both sides kind of guy.
He's an opinion guy.
And his opinion is Republicans are better, and he hammers it hard.
He does it very well. So if it sounds like I'm criticizing Hannity, I'm not, because he's completely transparent.
It's my opinion. I'm just a supporter of Republicans and I love Trump.
He's a good friend. Once all that's said, then I'm okay.
If it were the only interviews Trump did, that would be a disaster.
I wouldn't like that.
But yeah, you can do some friendlies.
No problem with that at all.
When you see Trump talking to Hannity and you know it's a friendly and it's going to be softballs and stuff, Trump kills it.
He nails it. He sounds, you know, he communicates clearly, you know what he wants, even though it's a friendly.
Kamala Harris couldn't even pull off a friendly.
The friendliest of friendlies.
Couldn't pull it off. How in the world are we comparing these two candidates?
They are so far from equivalence.
It's ridiculous. It's like a bicycle to a jet.
I mean, it's not even close.
All right. Mark Cuban was on Fox, and he was asked if he would take any kind of important role in a Harris administration if she wins, and he said, The SEC. He'd want to be head of the SEC. Now, I didn't see that coming. I don't know if any of you did.
And I don't know how completely serious he is about it, because it sounds like the most boring, terrible job for somebody who's had a lot of fun in their life.
On the other hand, anytime I see somebody with his capability, wanting to be part of the government, I'm a little bit interested.
I'm a little bit interested.
It's hard for me to imagine what trouble he could cause at the SEC. He probably just has some specific ideas of how that's not working and thinks he could fix it.
And maybe he could.
I don't automatically hate it.
Because when it comes to business, I think he's more about what works.
You know, when he talks about politics or Elon Musk, he gets into the hyperbole and the trolling and the arguments and stuff.
But I'm pretty sure that he's a legitimate American patriot who wants the SEC to work the way it was supposed to work.
So I'm not even entirely sure I wouldn't want him there under a Republican administration.
I'm not going to commit to that opinion.
But I do like the fact that Trump can work with people from, you know, historically the other team, if they're offering something specific which they have a strength in.
You know, like Elon Musk reducing the government waste, like RFK Jr working on the food and pharma.
I'd like to hear more about that argument.
Because I'm not sure that anybody would have a problem with somebody like a Mark Cuban, a strong personality who knows how to get things done, going in and fixing something that maybe would be good for all of us.
I don't know. Because when you watch Kennedy, whatever he's going to do with the food supply, it's not going to look like a Democrat plan.
It's going to look like what works.
Period. It's just going to be what makes sense, what works.
If he could pull that off in the SEC, maybe.
Maybe he's on the pirate ship.
You never know. Now, he might not want to be any part of a Trump administration, so that may not be a real possibility.
But my take, if you're kind of wondering, what the hell has Mark Cuban doing with all of his interaction on X? And my take, I can't read his mind, so this is just one person's take.
He says directly in public when he talks about trolling with Musk that he just enjoys getting under people's skin and he's having fun with it.
I think that's probably the primary motivation, but the secondary motivation is Cuban may have found a way to leapfrog all the political stuff and get into a position of power.
Maybe the SEC, maybe something else.
But by being very prominent on social media, arguing for the Democrats, Democrats probably just start seeing him as one of their leaders.
So he may have found a way to hack social media, to hack the Democrats by agreeing with them more than they agree with themselves and arguing better than they argue until they say, you know what, this guy's good.
Why don't we put him in charge?
He may have found this clever play, which honestly looks like it's working, which is if he's in the conversation for being the head of some cabinet position, It worked.
He basically just mixed it up on social media, did all the interviews and podcasts that people asked him for, Didn't matter at all whether his arguments were good or bad, because nobody can tell.
Honestly, we can't tell whether his arguments are good or bad.
In general, we can't tell.
So if he creates all kinds of energy, you start to see him as the guy who used to be doing, you know, the tech company and used to be doing the basketball stuff.
And I think he retired from Shark Tank.
So you see somebody who's still in his prime, has all these capabilities, you associate him with politics, and he's looking for work.
He may have hacked the system.
He may come out like at the top of some entity when this is all done.
And it could be, like I say, I'm not, I wouldn't predict it, But he could easily have some important job in a Republican administration if he negotiated where the guardrails are.
Anyway, you have to be careful of the energy monsters because Cuban has a little bit of the Trump magic, which is as long as you're paying attention, he's winning.
And he knows that. Oh, by the way, he said that pretty directly in his own ways.
He's talked about how getting attention, Trump's good at it, and it works.
So if he just learns something from him, he's doing it, and he's just trolling until all the energy is pointed to him, and then he can pick his job, it's kind of brilliant.
So that's my best guess of what's going on.
Fox News says there's a study that Google search is favoring Harris over Trump.
I guess you don't see Trump's web page for the campaign as easily as you see Harris's.
And we've already talked about how the searches are hacked.
But here's my question. Does this matter as much as it did even a few years ago?
Because I have the experience of I do way less searching on Google than I used to.
I used to do it multiple times every day.
Now when I'm searching on Google, I'm usually looking for maybe a product I heard of.
I'm not really looking for any politics on Google.
And if I were looking for a campaign webpage, It would still come up where I could find it.
You know, I wouldn't even search for it unless I was willing to really look for it and go there.
So if it's not optimally placed on the page, but I knew I wanted to go there, I'm still going to find it.
And when I want to see the news, I go to Acts.
If I were a different person, I might be going to TikTok.
But you can search for the news on X, which I'm far more likely to do, and you can search for things with your AI, you know, using it as the interface to the search.
I'm going to say that Google has the potential for changing the election, but that potential may be shrinking as Google's search is becoming less a reflex.
We have other ways to search.
Anyway, CNN was talking about the gender gap that you know.
Harris has more of the women.
Trump has more of the men.
Here's what I wanted to add about that.
Do you remember in 2016, I was somewhat famous for saying that there would be a shy Trump supporter effect.
Now, I didn't invent the idea, didn't invent it, but I was probably one of the biggest carriers of that message at the time.
And the theory was that people wouldn't want to admit they were supporting him Because he had been so maligned by the press that you just didn't want to be on a list.
Now, 2016, allegedly, a lot of people believe it, caught the Democrats by surprise.
You know, maybe they would have done more.
Some say they would have cheated harder.
Some say maybe Hillary would have campaigned differently if she thought that it was going to be that close.
So, most people think that 2016 surprised the Democrats in one way or another, and that's why Trump won.
Now, in 2020, the surprise was gone.
So, in 2020, apparently, you know, they just did a better ground game or whatever it was.
And some people say the election was rigged.
That's not my point today.
My point today is that in 2024, you would have an effect on top of the shy Trump supporters.
So there will still be some people who don't want to be on a list of Trump supporters.
So there'll still be a little bit of the shy Trump supporter.
But there's something else going on, which is Trump supporters, almost to a person, at least the ones who pay attention to the news, fully understand That their best strategic bet as a citizen are to do two things.
One is to make sure they vote, and maybe get other people to vote too, so vote.
But the other is to lie to the pollsters so that the Democrats are caught off guard again.
And here's why I think that the lying to pollsters is going to be greater than 2016.
Because he lost in 2020.
And I think the people who saw that remember that the surprise and lying to the pollsters was key to 2016.
People were sort of onto it by 2020 and that they're going to need to make that surprise bigger or the surprise doesn't work.
And the way you do that is everybody's heard the strategy by now.
Most Republicans have at least heard the idea, don't tell the truth to a pollster.
And then if it's true that Democrats are planning to cheat but only just enough to win, they won't be ready for the margin of victory and that Trump could steal another one.
So, here's what I'm adding.
I think there's a whole different motivation for Republicans to lie to pollsters in 2024 that did not exist at this level any time before, which would suggest, when you combine this with the fact that the consumer confidence dropped like a rock when Harris got into the thick of it, those two factors suggest that Trump's already won.
I'm not predicting he will get into office.
That's a separate thing.
I think he's going to win the vote.
Maybe the Maybe the national vote to give them a mandate, but at the very least, the electoral college votes.
So I think the voting question is now answered.
In my opinion, there's no other way it could go.
Now, I don't know how to account for sketchy mail-in ballots from other countries and all that.
That's going to be a real problem.
So I think the only chance that Trump has is that the security does their job, That's iffy at the moment.
Keep them alive. And if the watchers, the Lara Trump army of election observers, can catch things or prevent things on the day, it's going to be dicey.
I'm still saying that we're not going to have an official certified result.
Well, not certified, but an official result by the end of the year.
We'll figure it out eventually.
But apparently the poly markets have flipped to Trump in Pennsylvania.
And will probably flip more because Trump is going back to Butler, the place that he was almost killed once, and he's going to have another rally in the same freaking place.
Now, no matter what you say about that, you have to admit that that sends a good message, doesn't it?
You can shoot me and I'll come back.
That's a hell of a message.
And you could pretend, oh, that's just being political.
Oh, that's just an obvious political play.
Yes, one that works.
It's totally going to work.
Will it make a difference in Pennsylvania?
Well, let me tell you.
If I lived in Pennsylvania, and I knew that a candidate got shot in my state, and they came back And they stood in the same place they got shot, and they said, I'm back.
I'd vote for them. I mean, that would just, that would tear me apart, honestly.
I'd vote for them. So, and then Scott Pressler is doing incredible work getting people registered, so now there's actually a Republican registration advantage in some key places.
We'll see if that's enough. In the meantime, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo used the word extinguish when talking about Trump.
That the Trump threat, I guess, has to be extinguished for good.
Now, those are words that somebody chose to use in public on a candidate who had two assassination attempts, and there are five assassination teams allegedly trying to get him.
Maybe there were three.
That's a little unclear.
And you would go on a national broadcast and use the word extinguish.
Extinguish for good.
The for good is the one that Tells you, you know, they don't want any arguments from him while he's alive.
So that's terrible.
All right, I'm gonna do a little bit of bragging.
You'll love that.
Do you remember that when the first assassination attempt happened in Butler and we heard that the Secret Service should have done a better job and then all of the experts came on and said, whoa, one thing we know for sure is this must have been intentional because there's no way these trained professionals would make all of these mistakes because there were a lot of them all at the same day.
And then do you remember I, alone in the entire world, this is the important part, I, alone in the entire planet, said, hmm, I think it's far more likely that it's a Dilber situation, because we've observed that every single Entity in the United States has become incompetent lately.
Why would the Secret Service be immune from the thing that has infected every other entity, including sending things into space, including the military?
I mean, really important entities are just completely corrupt and incompetent.
And then the experts, the people who had been professional snipers, the people who had been in the Secret Service said, oh, no.
There's no way all these trained professionals would make that many mistakes.
Are you ready to update your opinion yet?
I'm going to call it.
I'm the only one on the fucking planet who said, nope, that looks like ordinary incompetence to me.
Now, before you get mad at me, I have always said and still say that doesn't rule out that there might have been, you know, one mole as well as some kind of team that was helping the shooter.
So those are still live possibilities.
And at no point did I say that there was no chance of those.
So I am allowing that we can still find out something deeper about one or both of the shooters.
And I think Dan Bongino knows more than we do and thinks there's more coming on at least one of them.
So I'm going to add that to my list of the hardest, most unlikely predictions that was completely right.
Because based on what we know now, it would be really weird if all of these people were in on the plot.
So the person running the drones didn't have enough training and it was on tech support.
Do you think that they were part of the plot or just shit doesn't work and people have to call tech support and that's the most normal thing in the world?
I think it's normal. The communication problems, that they didn't have the right communication, maybe.
Maybe that's where the person who was the mole made sure that didn't happen.
But there were still like three other ways that they could have known the guy was on the roof.
They had 27 minutes when the guy was walking around.
So even if you say the person in charge of communications was in on a plot, which I'm not saying, it was still full of incompetence.
And if you look at the fact there wasn't somebody on the roof, was that a plot?
It could have been. But still, it was incompetence, because there were enough people who knew that you shouldn't be in that situation that could have fixed it.
Whether or not anybody is a mole and had some kind of connection with bad forces that wanted them assassinated, I'm not ruling that out at all.
I'm just saying, mostly, the observable errors were just incompetence.
Underfunded, undertrained, understaffed.
All right. Biden, of course, did not help Harris because every time he leaves his cage, he says dumbass things.
And now he went on The View and he said that he delegated everything to Harris, including foreign policy and domestic policy.
Now, that's not true.
But Harris is out there saying we need to do something new.
And Biden's out there saying, well, you've been in charge for three years, three and a half years.
So that's not helping her.
That's like the opposite of helping her.
Her entire game depends on acting like she was never in charge because she was just the VP. And then the president goes out like, oh yeah, she was totally in charge.
You could not be more damaging to the candidate than to say that, if anybody listened.
He also said that for years too little has been done on the fentanyl problem.
He's been in charge for years.
And too little was done on the fentanyl problem.
And Kamala Harris was the borders are.
He is throwing her under the bus so hard.
Yeah, she's in charge and nothing good happened.
Those are basically the two messages he's giving.
I can't even believe it.
Oh, I'm seeing an NPC. So you believe that I'm duped and that the real story is that every one of those individual people who were incompetent were all part of the plot, the clever plot.
And you think that that's more likely than just ordinary people who were understaffed and undertrained, but also there might have been a plot.
I would say that you're dealing in magical world, where you magically know things that are not in evidence.
I'm dealing with what's in evidence.
The incompetence seems widespread and just everywhere, but we haven't ruled out the plot.
All right. Do you remember when James Carville was helping the Clinton campaign back in the 90s, and he decided brilliantly and famously that they would put a little sign on the wall that said, it's the economy, stupid, to remind the candidate to mention the economy, economy, economy, because that was their winning play.
Did that stop being true?
When people are more worried about the economy right now than maybe they ever have, have you noticed that James Carville is not trotting out his most famous advice?
Why wouldn't he use his most famous advice when we're in exactly the same situation where the economy is the biggest question?
I can only think of one reason you wouldn't use your famous advice.
Because nobody's going to think Harris is the solution to the economy.
So I think even Carville, it's the economy's stupid person, is going to character attack against Trump.
You don't go to character attack if you have real stuff, right?
If an armed burglar comes in your house and you also have a weapon, you know, and your life is in danger, do you throw the weapon down and take a feather duster and go, ah!
I got you in the feather duster!
No, you just...
Why would you put your weapon down to do that?
So... If he thought it would work, he'd be saying, it's the economy, stupid.
I remind you that when people have a catchphrase, whether they use it themselves or the news uses it, the news loves catchphrases.
So they love, love, love to use a phrase that the viewers have heard before and they can instantly know what's happening.
And that's why CNN always has the worse than Watergate guys on.
Just ask them, is this worse than Watergate?
Oh, it's worse than Watergate.
And then the public understands.
Oh, well, I didn't catch all the details, but sounds like it's worse than Watergate.
So, yeah. If they thought they could win on the economy, they'd be doing it.
You remember Jason from the All In Pod, who may be watching right now.
Hi, Jason. And he was on the morning show recently.
And I saw him interacting with somebody else on X, and about January 6th, And he said this.
He said, highly educated partisans will make jokes about the January 6 riots.
I think that's me.
I do make jokes about the January 6 riots.
And I am a highly educated partisan.
So I think it's more than just me, but I fall into this category.
Highly educated partisan who makes jokes about January 6 riots and try and confuse citizens.
Uh-oh. I don't try to confuse anybody.
About the difference between the shaman guy and the Oath Keepers.
The former is a sad, mentally ill character.
That would be the shaman guy.
The latter are traitors and terrorists.
Okay. And he was talking to somebody named...
Oh, I guess he was talking to Matt Walsh.
And he said, it's critical that you parse this issue for fellow Americans so we don't have the Oath Keepers and other domestic terrorists cause damage to our country.
Well, How many people knew that the Oath Keepers were part of the January 6th event?
In the comments, how many of you were aware that a group called the Oath Keepers were in any way involved with October 6th?
Did you know that? I kind of sort of remember hearing it.
And what percentage Of the people who were there, what percentage were these alleged dangerous Oath Keepers?
I don't know, 20 people maybe?
I don't know the number, but 20?
There were maybe 100,000 people in that area?
And were they well armed?
Did they have their weapons with them when they penetrated the Capitol?
Nobody did. Nobody had any weapons with them.
Now, they had blunt objects, and there were, I think, 49 law enforcement people were injured, which is not nothing.
But here's my problem with the January 6th thing.
It seems like every discussion about January 6th involves one or both sides pretending And I can't get past the pretending.
And I don't know what's up with that.
So here's the pretending. When I talk about it, I of course know that some of them were bad actors who did violent things, and of course the Department of Justice should take care of that.
No doubt about it.
But there were maybe 1%.
Now, if I say that to somebody who has a different understanding of the event, you can get them to do the math and come out with the same, okay, it's about 1% were bad characters, and nobody brandished a firearm or a knife.
They had tents and poles, and that's bad.
It's all bad. But now, aren't we in total agreement?
Because Because Jason mentioned in his comments that he and I had some difference on this topic.
And when I thought about it, I thought, what difference?
Where would we have any difference?
So he pointed out that you should make a distinction between what the shaman guy did.
I wouldn't call him a sad mentally ill character, by the way.
I think that's unfair.
But I would certainly make a distinction between the people who were having fun and protesting and the people who maybe had at least the potential for darker intentions.
But everybody does.
So if that's your complaint, that the Republicans are ignoring that there were dangerous people there, that's not true.
Every Republican I've ever talked to, 100%, is 100% aware that some number of the protesters were violent, and nobody's in favor of that.
Not a single person.
But we can't get past that, even though we agree.
Isn't that weird? If we agree that it's about 1%, can't we get to the next questions?
But it's like we have to keep talking about that.
But you know, the Oath Keepers were there.
Right, they're in the 1%.
But you know, people were hurt.
Right, right, right. We've already agreed they're in the 1%.
But you know, some people died a few days after that.
I know, not from the event, but you know, that's tragic.
We're all on completely the same page, but we can't get past that question.
It's the damnedest thing.
But let me give you my take as I gave it to Jason on X. I said to Jason, I thought we agreed that 1% were bad actors and trespassing doesn't conquer countries.
Now, I think he agrees with that, that you can't conquer a country by occupying a building, no matter how long you do it.
But that's not his opinion, right?
I don't want to mischaracterize him as having a trivial opinion.
We'll get to the meat of it, I think.
So we would agree that it was 1% bad actors, and there certainly weren't enough people there that they could have conquered a country with any kind of physical force.
And we know that that wasn't enough people or the right equipment for any kind of a physical insurrection.
And we also know that there's no evidence that Trump planned one.
So there's no evidence that he planned a physical insurrection.
And we have written documentation that he tried to organize a defense so there would be no violence that day.
And he authorized maximum security well ahead of time, that if they had been employed, the violence would have been maybe eliminated.
But I guess it was General Milley who said it would be a bad look to send the military in, so he decided not to.
Now, I've heard somebody say, but Trump still could have ordered it.
Well, could he?
Because to me, if Milley can say no, he can say no.
And he did say no.
So I don't think he could have ordered it, if Milley can say no, which he did.
I don't think he said no to Trump.
I think he said no to whoever.
It might have been Pelosi. I'm not sure.
So anyway, we agree they couldn't have taken over by force.
And we certainly agree that the evidence shows that Trump had no plan for any kind of a forceful takeover.
And we know from the messages that even Don Jr.
was trying to stop the violence and certainly had no evidence that he knew of some kind of plot to take over the country.
So I think we can rule out that it was meant to be a physical takeover and insurrection.
But there was also another part.
Which involves the alternate electors that Democrats would call fake electors, but we're talking about the same thing.
Now, the Republicans have received the narrative, which I accept, which is the whole point of the alternate electors is to sort of, in a legal sense, establish your claim, which gets sorted out by courts later if it needs to.
So to me, it was just paperwork.
And I don't know which part of that Jason would disagree with.
Because there was no chance that the paperwork, unless everybody in the Congress agreed with it, which seems unlikely, and the courts, there's no way that could have gone anywhere.
But it might have been a placekeeper, and it might have been a little bit extra argument to delay and look a little harder to see if there's any irregularities in the vote that can be quickly determined, which is what the protesters and Trump's people were asking for.
Now, which part would we be in disagreement about?
We could interpret it differently and say, no, no, the paperwork part and the fake collectors, that was a real insurrection.
And they were, you know, they had some chance of getting away with it.
No, they didn't.
No, they didn't. You can't conquer the United States with some fake paperwork, no matter what it says.
Because there wasn't anybody who would have been in favor of doing that.
The Republicans were in favor of it.
Maybe a handful of people that were close to Trump thought it was worth a try.
And you also have to factor in that Trump's not the lawyer.
So he was working with two lawyers, at least, who said, I think this alternate elector thing might be a good placeholder, or whatever words they used.
If a lawyer tells you something's not illegal, and then you do it, The courts look on that in a positive way.
They're not too happy with the lawyer, and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.
But it certainly makes a difference, right?
If the IRS comes after you, and you say, you know, I didn't even look at my taxes.
I had this professional accounting company do it, and if there's a mistake, Well, that would have been on them.
Now, you're still responsible.
You're still responsible, even if you hired accountants.
But the IRS is going to look at that and say, oh, okay, that's actually a reasonable defense.
So you still might pay a fine, but you're not going to go to jail.
If you had professionals giving you advice and you took the advice, then you wouldn't have known any better.
So, clearly Trump was not trying to conquer the country with paperwork.
Clearly he was not trying to conquer it with any force because none of them were even in the Galaxy of anything that could have worked or anybody would have thought it worked They only had the only thing that could have worked is exactly what they said they were doing Trying to cause a pause to look more clearly to make sure the election had not been stolen Now part of the complaint about Trump is that the Democrats
continually say he knows he lost that's That's not smart.
It is stupid.
It's just stupid to think that anybody knows who won or lost our elections.
We don't have that kind of system.
We don't have a system where you can audit it instantly and know who voted.
You don't know how many mail-in ballots were dropped in the garbage by the post office.
There's a whole bunch of stuff you can't check.
And so to say that Trump knew he lost Isn't just wrong, it's stupid.
It would be a complete misunderstanding of our entire election system.
So you have to mind read that he knew he lost for any of this to work, and yet you look at the public and the Republicans, and I don't know what the number is, but maybe half, maybe a third or half of all Republicans think the 2020 election was rigged.
It's a big number.
So if that much of the public believes it was rigged, is it a stretch to think that the person who lost at the last minute with these sketchy increases in votes at the last minute for Biden, you really don't think that he believes it was stolen?
In fact, there's almost nothing that I'm more certain of than the fact that Trump believes It was stolen.
Now that's different from me saying it was, because I don't have proof it was stolen or not.
So I don't assert that I know that.
But I'm really confident that he thinks it was stolen.
I'm very confident of that.
So anyway, I don't know where Jason and I would have any disagreements.
He might frame it differently or characterize it differently, but on the facts, I think we have the same facts now.
And I don't think he would argue with me about mind-reading Trump, you know, because people are innocent until proven guilty.
So if somebody does things which are completely consistent with being innocent, But also, there's a narrative where that same set of facts would be consistent with somebody who had done something bad.
They're still innocent.
That's how it works. If there are two stories and one is perfectly consistent with no crime whatsoever, but yet the same facts could have happened if there was a crime, that's innocent.
And it's worth noting that he's never been charged with or convicted of insurrection.
He's been indicted for 93 crimes that were so weak that even Democrats thought it was lawfare.
Just think about this.
93 indictments for things that were so ridiculously weak and sketchy that he'll probably not have to spend any time in court and probably all of it will be overthrown in higher courts that can be taken to higher courts.
So we know that they would charge him with anything that they thought could stick.
But they didn't try insurrection.
The one that was most important to their entire narrative about him.
That's the only one they decided not to pursue.
After the January 6th thing did all this evidence.
Yeah. So I feel like, Jason, if you're watching, you probably will be watching because somebody will say, hey, he talked about you, so if you miss it, I'm pretty sure you'll catch up with it.
I'd love to know if we disagree on any facts, first of all, and then given those facts, would you agree that it would be completely consistent with He secretly, in his mind, knew that he lost or thought he lost,
but he was trying to get away with something, but is also 100% consistent with somebody who really thought the election was rigged and thought his lawyers had given him good enough advice They had some kind of unlikely but possible path to maybe find out what happened in time to improve the result and save the country from a stolen election.
If the facts support both narratives, you have to pick the innocent.
That's where we are.
Now, I believe the innocent one is the true one, but even if I didn't, I'm going to be consistent.
You're innocent. And if they don't even charge you with a crime, they don't even have enough to get...
They always say you can indict a ham sandwich.
So clearly, if they had any evidence, they could indict them.
So obviously, there's not.
Anyway, Hezbollah is trying to decide whether they want to respond to Israel or look weak.
Those are their two choices now.
I saw somebody say that Netanyahu had ordered, quote, full force in Lebanon, despite the U.S. trying to tell them to pull back.
Now, I think the U.S.'s job is to act like we're trying to make peace.
Well, actually, of course, probably secretly being on Israel's side and wanting them to do as much damage as they can to the terrorists.
But so the U.S. is playing this game like, oh, we're the peacekeepers.
But they're not really too relevant to Israel's decisions.
I remind you that I do not back Israel because they don't back me.
Does everybody understand that?
When I talk about Israel, I'm just going to observe, and I'm going to say stuff like, well, if that were us, that's what we'd do, because that's just an observation.
But I don't back them.
First of all, I'm American, and I back America, and that's it.
I don't back any other country, even allies.
And we can call them allies, and I think they're important allies, and we should stay allies.
But don't ask me to back the country.
That's not my job. They're doing fine.
And I simply note that if I were Israel, I would say there's probably never a better time to go full force at Hezbollah because sort of the zeitgeist and the opportunity and the fact that they're currently weakened and it's not that far from the October 7th event, so you've got all the justifications.
They've sent rockets your way.
You have everything you need now that Gaza's kind of under control.
It would be amazing, well, probably amazingly stupid, if they didn't just try to grind Hezbollah into dust while they have the chance.
And again, I'm not recommending it.
I'm saying if you were in that situation, you'd be saying, well, if we think we're ever going to fight these guys, why wait?
Waiting just makes them stronger.
So I think it's inevitable that Israel's going to go harder than people wanted them to go against Hezbollah.
But I don't back Israel because they don't back me.
Reciprocity, I demand it.
And by the way, Israel could back me by denouncing the ADL, which has nothing to do with Israel, but they could still back me.
If they did, it might change my mind.
Not that I care one way or the other.
It's not important. All right.
That's all I got for you. I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately.
Thanks for joining. And I'll see the rest of you same time, same place tomorrow.
