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, Lindsey Graham, Kamala Harris, President Trump's Kraken, VP Debate Nervousness, Tim Walz, JD Vance, Redefining Masculinity, Vitamin D Intelligence Impact, Prince Salman, Hillary Clinton, Flooded Town, Election Fraud Prosecution Warning, DOJ Sues Alabama, RFK Jr. Persuasion Technique, ICE Migrant Criminals Report, John Kerry Opposes 1st Amendment, Consensus Building, Swing State Polling, Jared Kushner, Hezbollah, 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 one of my streams is not working today, but I think we're doing fine on Rumble.
And YouTube and X. Those of you who are coming over from the locals platform, looks like it's got a little glitch this morning, but everything else is working fine.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tank of gel, a tie, and a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Ah, so good.
You know, I feel bad for all those podcasters who take Sundays off and they don't get to enjoy this experience.
The best thing ever.
And did you know it's National Coffee Day?
That's right.
Today is National Coffee Day.
So if ever there was a day to enjoy it, that's today.
Anyway, Scott Pressler is saying that there are about 20,000 Amish people in Pennsylvania who could really use a visit by Trump.
I think Scott's suggesting a rally, but I would suggest not a rally.
I don't think you want to do a rally with the Amish.
I think you want to just stop on Main Street, talk to a bunch of locals, find out what they care about, make your pitch.
And if there are only 20,000 Amish and the President of the United States stops near Main Street without warning and just starts talking to people, everybody's going to know.
I think it would be actually more effective To just go in person, be there physically, talk to a bunch of people for an hour, and we're to get around.
That might be enough to swing the state and swing the election and change civilization.
So Amish, it's up to you guys.
The fate of civilization comes down to the people who have no technology.
Maybe that's perfect.
Maybe that's the way it's supposed to be.
Well, anyway, there's a lot of polling that shows that Trump is preferred in policies and capability on the big stuff, you know, like borders and economies and wars.
But Harris is still preferred on the character level.
And I feel like what we need to remind people is that Sometimes you need Dirty Harry, and sometimes you need Mary Poppins.
It really depends what your problem is.
If your problem is you need some babysitting, Mary Poppins.
I would not get Dirty Harry, which is based on a movie, in case you're too young, you don't know there's a movie with Clint Eastwood.
He plays Dirty Harry, a cop who wants to do the right things, but sometimes he breaks the rules.
He breaks the rules.
So that's like Trump.
So do we have problems in this country that are the Dirty Harry kind of problems, where the thing that really matters is you solve the problems.
It doesn't really matter about the personality of the person solving the problems.
Or is it more of a, it sure would be nice if we had a babysitter.
And then you get Mary Poppins.
You don't really need the one with the gun for that.
So I would argue that we're in Dirty Harry mode in the country.
We're not in Mary Poppins mode.
And so vote accordingly.
Get yourself a dirty Harry.
We need one.
I just saw on a post on X from Joel Pollack that apparently Lindsey Graham just appeared on Jake Tapper's show on CNN and referred to, I think this is literally true, referred to Kamala Harris's policies as, quote, batshit crazy.
I guess Trump said that Kamala Harris, he said that Biden became impaired, but Kamala Harris was born that way.
She was born impaired.
And so, of course, Jake Tapper has to ask a Republican to speak to that.
And Lindsey Graham, he just says her policies are batshit crazy.
Now, I hope he actually used the literal term.
Batshit crazy.
Because you know, that's one of my all-time favorites.
So I've been using it a lot.
And I would say that when we're looking at the Harris versus Trump policies, there's lots about the Trump policies that you might choose to not like.
But they're not batshit crazy.
They're perfectly normal things that we've done through the, you know, the entire history of the Republic.
Protect the border, for example.
And her policies are literally batshit crazy.
And I object to treating them as they're different policy proposals.
They're not different policy proposals.
One is a set of policies that you might like, you might not.
That's Trump.
But one of them is just bashing it crazy.
It's shit that you shouldn't even consider.
It barely looks like a policy.
You don't even know what her policy is half the time, because she's flip-flopping.
So, yeah, we should get out of that model that it's competing policies.
It doesn't feel like that.
All right, remember I keep telling you that the movie that we're in requires a Kraken.
For Trump to have a proper third act experience, you know, like a movie has a third act where you get out of the deepest hole and you somehow prevail in the end.
Like a movie.
He needs some kind of crackin'.
Some kind of evidence that elections have been bad in the past.
That would really put him over the top, I think.
Well, here's something interesting.
Apparently, The Federal Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court will be presented in Georgia.
What?
What's the Federal Ninth Circuit?
I don't know what that means.
But anyway, there's an appellate court, I guess, if that's the right word, that's looking at the claims from Kerry Lake and the Maricopa situation that the Dominion machines Among other problems, but specifically that it did not protect its encrypted keys.
So the so-called encryption keys on the Dominion machines allegedly, I don't personally know, but allegedly they were in plain text instead of encrypted as there was some commitment to do contractually.
So I don't know what it would mean if the court agreed.
And I don't know how they could lose the case because they're going to show screenshots of the encryption keys in plain text.
So I don't think the defense is going to look at the plain text and say, oh, but it is encrypted.
Look at it.
And then everybody's going to say, I'm just reading it.
It's in plain text.
Oh, no, it's not.
It's encrypted.
But what exactly would be the defense?
How could you defend against a screenshot?
Now, I'm just guessing there's a screenshot.
It seems like likely there would be.
So we'll see.
Now, if it's like every other major Kraken we expected, it won't pan out.
So, so far Dominion has a real good Record of winning in these court cases, but this one certainly looks different than the others because the claim seems so insanely provable.
But I also don't know what it means if it is proven.
Is the remedy just, uh, well, go fix that next time?
It's not like we're going to go back in time and change any of our elections.
I don't think anybody's going to jail.
So what would it even mean if we found out that the machines in the past, the last election, had some encryption, you know, failure?
So I don't know.
But certainly it would change the news cycle, you know, if we believed that the news would cover the actual news.
So we'll see.
Keep an eye on that.
Well, I think it's Tuesday that Walz and Vance are going to have their VP debate, the only one.
And CNN is reporting that Tim Walz is all nervous, and that he doesn't want to let down Kamala Harris, and he thinks he's a bad debater.
Do you think Tim Walz believes he's a bad debater?
It's CNN reporting it.
So there are reports that he's just super, super nervous about going into the debate.
Now Vance, I think would be top 5% of debaters.
I think he'd be one of the best ones we've ever seen.
I think everything's working here.
Your comments are a little bit slow on this platform, but here they are.
All right.
Looking good.
All right.
So, uh, So let's say he's real nervous.
So he's going to be using some advice.
Obviously Tim Walz will be prepared.
Lots of preparation.
I'm sure he'll do a good job of preparation.
And don't you expect that since it's Vance, there will be at least two waves of cat related attacks.
So Tim Walz will probably come with the Haitian eating the cats thing.
Oh, he's such a racist.
He says that the Haitians are eating cats.
Right.
We'd expect that.
That would be very, you know, very easy to predict.
We would also expect that Tim Walz would say something about Vance's past comment about single cat ladies.
So the single cat owning women being the dominant part of the Democrat Party is something that Vance has said.
So there are two attacks on Vance that weirdly are cat related.
Also, they're not really important.
So what happens if Walsh comes up with some cat-related attacks?
What should Vance do?
Well, I'm going to give you some persuasion tips today.
Here's what I would do.
Let's say, and I posted this, so if anybody in the campaign sees it, they would have the option of borrowing it.
But suppose Walt says something like, blah, blah, blah, you know, you said the Haitians reading cats, or blah, blah, blah, you said single cat ladies.
Here would be a good Vance reply.
Quote, it's not a quote yet, but you can imagine it would be.
The public knows a Trump administration will perform best at protecting the border, growing the economy, and avoiding war.
They also know that a Harris-Walz team would excel at cat-related rhetoric, and I think we can concede that.
And we're done.
If Walz brings up anything involving cats, the kill shot is to say, yeah, you know, we're good on the economy, the border, and avoiding wars.
But I have to agree, when it comes to talking about anything about cats, that other team is much better.
Done.
Just done.
Once the Harris-Walls team realizes that if they talk about cats while the other team is talking about rescuing America from doom, the cat people aren't going to win.
So yes, if you'd like to talk about cats, I'm going to agree, you're better at talking about cats.
Who's better at talking about the border?
Whose tax plan do you like better?
It's basically a total kill shot if they bring up cats.
All right, according to the post-millennial, here's a story that I believe because it agrees with my observations.
Doesn't mean the data is always correct, but When it agrees with me, I embrace it.
So, apparently voters at the earliest age you can vote, from 18 to 24, are identifying more as conservative than liberal, according to a Harvard Youth Poll.
Now that would be a big, big change.
If the youngest people are more conservative than liberal, And by the way, I have observed that.
So, you know, just based on my anecdotal life experience, even in blue California, Northern California, it does seem to me every time I hear from, you know, young people that there's way more conservatives than you would expect at that age.
Don't know why.
It might be a Trump effect.
It could be just, I don't know, maybe it's the easiest way to be rebellious these days.
I'm not sure what's behind it.
But the age a little bit above that is still more liberal.
So young people who are a little bit older than the youngest of the young people are still more liberal than conservative.
Well, there's a lot of talk on social media about Tim Walz being, let's say, an interesting person the way he moves his body.
I don't know if you know, but I've been studying Tim Walz.
And he is, let me start by saying this.
If you've been watching me a long time, you know, I love the LGBTQ community and I'd love to have a gay president or a gay vice president.
I think we've probably had several.
We just didn't know it.
It doesn't mean anything to me.
You can do whatever you want in your free time.
I just don't have any interest whatsoever in anybody's sexuality.
So I don't care what you are, but it's part of the story.
And the part of the story is that Tim Walz is very flamboyant.
It doesn't mean he's gay.
It just means that his physical motions remind us of Richard Simmons more than they remind you of, I don't know, Mike Tyson or Dana White or somebody.
And I've been studying his motions and I want to show you all the Tim Walz motions.
We've got the one hand up.
We've got the other hand up.
We've got the two hands up.
And then we've got the claps like a seal.
Have you seen claps like a seal?
Puts the elbows together.
Hands up.
That's not even clapping.
Clapping is like this.
Clapping like a seal is like that.
And then he does the limp wrist and then the point.
So the point, you know, the point is obvious.
It's just this.
But he likes to do the limprest when he does the point.
So limprest point.
And then he does the open palms, where he goes.
So if you put it all together, you got the pointing.
Bye.
And then... So that's, that's sort of your Tim Walz.
Yes, probably more than you needed.
Meanwhile, MSNBC is doing this hilarious attempt to add some testicles to waltz.
And they're trying to redefine masculinity.
So they're redefining masculinity so that what it really means, if you're an MSNBC watcher, real masculinity is being able to support a powerful woman and being both sensitive and flamboyant.
And if you can do those things, you're a man, at least on MSNBC.
All right.
So are you having this situation that I'm having?
I'm experiencing a thing.
And the thing I'm experiencing is that every story reminds me of a Diddy party.
Is that just me?
All the stories makes me think of Diddy.
So it doesn't even matter what it is.
So there's a story in science now that according to the Washington Post, there might be a low-tech solution for storing carbon.
And it involves putting your log in a hole.
Why does every story just remind me of a ditty party?
I don't know.
But apparently if you bury your wood in a hole, Keep it there.
You can sequester some carbon in that hole.
So bury your wood in a hole.
That's my recommendation.
Well, according to SciBlog, uh-oh, science is racist.
You know, I wish science would not be so racist, but listen to this.
Apparently, they say that vitamin D deficiency can lower the IQ of a child, or to put it in more positive terms, the higher your vitamin D level of the mother, I believe, the higher the IQ of the child.
Now, the first question you might ask is, is that data real or BS?
Well, it could be a correlation as opposed to a causation.
Meaning that maybe the people who get the most vitamin D are also the people who just make sure they do everything else right.
If you did everything else right, because you're just one of those people who says, what do I need to do?
Vitamin D?
Okay, I'll do it.
What do I need to do?
Eat less sugar?
Okay, I'll do it.
What do I need to do?
Drink less alcohol when I'm pregnant?
Absolutely.
What do I need to do?
Quit smoking if I'm pregnant?
Done.
So I suspect that there's a really high correlation between people who supplement their vitamin D and people who do everything right.
So I would be one of those examples, right?
I supplement my vitamin D, but I also have a lifestyle in which that would be normal for me because I've got a clean diet and I exercise and I don't drink alcohol and I don't smoke cigarettes.
So, I don't know that vitamin D is a cause of anybody's higher IQ, but we do know that vitamin D seems to be implicated in a whole range of things that are important for a human to operate.
So it wouldn't be a surprise if it turns out that it's causation and not just correlation, but you have to watch out for the correlation aspect.
However, here's where it gets all racist.
They threw this in the mix in this story that Black pregnant mothers have less vitamin D Now some of that is just because the melatonin or the pigment of the skin so you absorb less Sun So just less efficient at absorbing and maybe a little less likely to supplement with vitamin D I'm sure there's an income related correlation to that so according to science
The black babies would be lower IQ, and you could predict that based on the lower vitamin D of the mothers.
Now, I don't think I'm buying this completely.
It does seem like it's a good idea to supplement your vitamin D, but I think that's as far as I'm going on this one.
And I'm a little surprised I went there.
But here's my Reframing persuasion play.
I'll give you a little bit more of this on another story.
Here's what I care about.
I care about individuals.
So if there's an individual that needs some help, I'm all in.
Can I help?
You're like a person.
Especially if you're an American person.
American?
Hey, I'm American too.
The rest doesn't matter.
I don't care about your sex or your religion or your gender or your race.
I'm happy to help.
But here's what I'm not interested in.
The average of people who look like you.
I don't care.
I don't care if the average of people that you've decided to put in some group is doing better or worse than the average of some people that you decided to put in the group.
Why should I care about that?
Then you say, but, but, there's been systemic racism for centuries.
And then I'd say, I agree.
But why should I care?
Well, because it makes a big difference.
And this one group is identifiably doing worse because of all this systemic racism.
True.
But you didn't answer my question.
Why should I care?
You just told me why they should care.
If it were me, I'd care.
But why should I care?
Well, because you did well, and people look like you did well, and other people didn't do well, and it's because of the system.
So, you need to fix that.
To which I say, why?
You didn't give me a reason.
What's the connecting logic to that?
I understand other people have problems.
How does that affect me?
Well, people who look like you were guilty of it, and maybe you got some benefits from looking the way you were.
Okay, suppose I accept all that is true.
Why do I care?
See, if you can make people think past the sale, To why you should care, then you're going to get them in this argument where they're going to decide whether systemic racism exists or not.
It's easy to, probably pretty easy to show it does.
And then the question is how much money do you owe me?
Because people who look like me who are not here had a bad time and some of the ripple effect is coming into the future to which I say, that's all true.
Guess what?
Your problems are not special.
Here's a list of my problems.
But I didn't cause your problems.
Well, you did cause some of them.
You did cause some of them.
But I'm not complaining about that.
I'm just saying my problems mean a lot to me, and I care about them a lot.
Do you know what your problems mean to me?
On an individual level, I totally care.
As a group average, I don't care.
I will never care about your group average.
I will definitely care about you individually, and I'll help if I can.
It's the only thing that makes sense.
Now, can I find a story in the news that would be compatible with what I just said?
Yes!
Apparently, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, a person you'd expect to be very interested in the Palestinian cause, has said out loud and as clearly as he possibly can, he's not concerned with the Palestinians.
Just doesn't care.
And I said to myself, oh my God, he's as smart as I thought he was.
Because when the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia got the job, and he seemed like a deal maker, and he just seemed like a different kind of character.
Now, I'm not going to defend everything he's done.
You know, if he chops somebody up with a bone saw, not defending it.
Uh, but it's also a different world.
So, you know, I'm neither, I'm neither, uh, you know, disavowing it or defending it because, you know, there may be more to that whole bone saw story than we really know.
But if you're just looking at, is he a smart, persuasive leader?
I think he's got the goods.
He looks like he's got the goods.
And in my opinion, that was exactly the right answer.
Why he should care about the Palestinians is basically not.
It's just not his job.
And if anybody tells him he should, the question would be why?
Well, the Palestinians have been, they would say, abused for many years.
And then he would say, I know.
But then why should I care?
Well, because of history and also they're Muslim and you're Muslim.
Well, right, but I'm in charge of this country.
I know, but, but the history and the bad treatment and their land and stuff, right?
So why should I care?
That's exactly the right, the right answer is why should you care?
We really are completely busy taking care of ourselves.
And I'm here to tell you that if you do a really good job of taking care of yourself, That's the best thing you could do for me.
It's probably the best thing you could do for anybody.
Because then at least you have some ability to take care of other people if you want to.
But take care of yourself first.
Meanwhile, Hillary has a book and I saw Dana Perino on The Five saying she wishes Hillary wouldn't publish a book right around an election because she's out there calling Republicans deplorables again, selling this book.
The book is called Something Lost, Something Gained.
And they've got, of course, a big picture of Hillary Clinton on the cover.
And she's got that Democrat psychopath smile.
You know the ones where the eyes and the mouth don't match?
No teeth are shown.
And again, I'll do the impression.
Here would be my impression of a normal, mentally healthy person smiling.
Look at that.
That's my smile.
Now I'm faking it, but that even looks more there.
Here is a psychopath pretending to be a person who smiles on the cover of Hillary's book.
Yeah, the psychopath.
Closed-lip smile that doesn't match the eyes.
So creepy.
Anyway, apparently the book, she says it's about friendship, aging, and marriage.
Okay.
Well, if I want to learn how to be a happy married person, I think of Hillary Clinton.
All right.
Apparently, there are more students who want to go to college in Southern colleges, and it's a pretty big shift.
Instead of people wanting to go to those nice old colleges in the Northeast, apparently the freer life in the South is attracting people.
I think it's an escape from wokeness.
So the wokeness is actually causing, you know, the 18 to 24 year olds to be more conservative because they're rebelling against it.
And also the college experience.
The young people are just opting out of the wokeness.
Well, meanwhile, this is horrible.
The hurricane just wiped out an entire town called Chimney Rock.
Looks like their entire main street got wiped away.
Now, I have to tell you, That that hits me a little harder than maybe it hits you, because you're just thinking, well, it's a small town.
If nobody got killed, things happen.
But I grew up in a small town and we lived on a hill that happened to be just above the main street of my tiny little town, Wyndham, New York, in the Casco Mountains.
So very much a mountainous, you know, tree line kind of place, just like this town that got wiped away.
And we too had an experience with a flood.
Now, I recall it vividly, even though I must have been four or something, I don't know, I was really young.
And we were up on the hill and we looked into the town.
Because literally, we're just on a hill just above the town.
So we could see the cars drive by and see people walking around.
They were that close.
And we saw people just taking stuff out of their houses and throwing it in their cars, like they're running away from something.
And we're watching this and we get on our binoculars and we're like, what do they know that we don't know?
So suddenly we realized we'd better find out what they know.
Cause they're all packing up their shit and they're really in a hurry.
And people are just like, you can see the people just like running for it.
And so we, we drove, uh, just close enough to town to ask the first person what's going on.
And they said the dam broke.
So there's a dam several miles away that broke.
And there was a wall of water coming toward our town and we had a warning.
It was just a wall of water.
And they knew it was coming.
The dam broke.
So we quickly went back to our hill and stood in front of our big window in the front, and we watched a flood just bury my town.
Now, most of it recovered.
It wasn't above the roofs, you know, it was like, I'm not sure how tall, it might have been five, maybe five feet of water and some people's, you know, ground floors and stuff.
So it really wiped out, you know, most of the Most of the living experience, it took a while to recover.
But, when I went to buy my own house that I was going to live in forever, the one I'm in now, one of the first things I looked for was, can I get to higher ground?
Because you get scarred by that, if it happens when you're little.
I'm not going to die in a flood.
Now, the lightning might get me, the fires, the Venezuelan gangs, But I don't want to be in that situation.
I watched the town and where they were running for their lives because a wall of water was coming their way.
So I'm on a hill.
All right.
Um, apparently, uh, got some New York judges.
They're looking at that.
According to the federalist, there's a New York appellate court that's looking at that, uh, attorney general Letitia James case that Trump had to pay 450 million in penalty.
Because of a loan that the bank liked and he paid back and everybody's happy and they'd love to do business with him again.
But they say it inflated his assets on some paperwork, which banks don't even look at anyway.
They don't pay attention to your paperwork when you put your own value on it.
They go check on their own, which they did.
So there was no victim in this crime, nor any real chance there could have been a victim.
Because the process of the bank, 100% of the time, Involves they go look themselves.
They don't take your word for your asset value ever ever not once So there was no risk of anything happening bad to anybody And he's got to pay 450 million now, obviously that's just lawfare and that nothing to do with what made sense in this case, so It might be interesting.
So I guess there's some reporting that some of the judges Might think it's kind of troubling The way that all went down.
Wouldn't that be interesting if that got reversed before the election?
I don't know if there's time for that to happen, but maybe.
Maybe.
Trump has said again at his rally, quote, if we win and when we win, we're going to prosecute people that cheat in this election.
And if we can, we'll go back to the last one too.
Perfect.
Yeah, Trump should be saying out loud and often that if you cheat in this election, you're going to jail.
And he started saying it.
Now, given that people think that it's at least a coin flip whether he'll be president, would you cheat in an election if you thought there was a 50% chance that the person who won is going to come for you if you get caught?
It should reduce the amount of cheating, which is why he does it.
He's doing it to reduce the amount of cheating.
It should work.
All right.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice, this is one of those stories that tells you everything you need to know.
Did you have any questions about whether the Democrats plan to rig the election?
Maybe in ways that are totally legal.
But still, you would look at him and say, hmm, looks like you rigged that election.
Not in an illegal way, but you still rigged it.
Here's an example.
So the Department of Justice sued the state of Alabama and its top election official.
And they say that the problem is that the state of Alabama removed voters from the voting rolls that were not eligible to vote.
So they got sued.
Let me say it again.
The state of Alabama wanted to remove people from the voting laws rules that didn't belong there.
And the Department of Justice is suing them under a technicality because they're not supposed to change the voting rules within 90 days of the election, but they did it within 84 days.
So it's something that's so desirable, it's written into the law that you can do it.
Because everybody thinks it would be good to clean up the voter rolls.
But you have to do it within 90 days, which I can kind of see makes sense.
You know, in case there's any challenge to it, you've got time to look at the challenges.
But do you think that they should be sued for doing it within 84 days instead of 90?
Because you know, 90 was a little bit arbitrarily chosen.
It's not like something happens after the 90th day.
If 84 days looks like, well, that looks good enough.
That's what the courts should have said.
The courts should say, or the Department of Justice should say, yeah, technically it should have been 90 days, but 84 is not bad, given that everybody wanted it done.
If nobody wanted it to be done, if there was some reason to have non-voters on your rolls, Well, then you could question the deadline.
But if everybody agrees we don't want non-voters voting, or people who are not eligible, why is the difference between 84 and 90 days important enough for the Department of Justice to sue the state?
I can only think of one answer.
The one answer is that the Democrats Have some control over the Department of Justice, and they're just trying to make sure that the Democrats win, and that it's purely unethical and corrupt.
It might be legal, so it would only be unethical and corrupt, but possibly totally technically legal.
All right, here's a persuasion tip, courtesy of RFK Jr., who did it better than you'll ever see it done.
All right.
The tip goes like this.
If you're trying to persuade a crowd, and by the way, this would work on one-to-one as well.
If you can get the, the rally people to do something physically, whether it's clapping or talking or laughing or standing up or introducing themselves to the neighbor, whatever it is.
If you, as the person talking can get them to do something physically, it causes you to bond with them.
So get them to do something and you will bond.
But if you can make the thing that they're doing also funny, you get a twofer.
So get them to do something, but make them laugh while they're doing it.
Okay, that's as good as you can get.
That would be persuasion at almost beyond a commercial level.
That would be like wizard level, you know, the great persuader level.
Listen, now that you know that, that getting people to do something, and especially if it's funny, that would just be the ultimate home run, listen to what RFK Jr.
did at a recent event.
He told the crowd to answer in a Kamala Harris way.
So he'd already primed them for their answer that they were going to yell out.
So the yelling out is getting them to act, right?
And so Kennedy says to the crowd, after he's primed them, he says, the next time your boss asks you why you were late for work, what are you going to say?
And the crowd says in unison, I was born in the middle class, the audience responds.
Because that's what Harris would say to any economics question.
And then Kennedy says, and the next time your wife asks you why you didn't take out the garbage, what are you going to say?
And the crowd yells, I was born in the middle class.
Um, that's just perfect.
There are actually three things he put together there.
Um, like I said, number one is getting them to physically move in this case, move their, their mouths, uh, getting them to laugh while they're doing it.
That makes everything stickier?
You always remember what's funny.
So it just makes it way stickier.
But then on top of that, he gives you two examples which are very relatable.
Which is being late for work.
Everybody's done that at least once.
And the question about who takes out the garbage.
So he brings it down to this most relatable thing, adds the action, adds the humor.
That's a threefer.
You don't see briefers.
This is a whole different level of persuasion ability.
I don't know how all the Kennedys have this.
How do all the Kennedys have this gift?
I'm actually curious about that.
I don't know how they can all do it.
Anyway, as Greg Price and other people have pointed out, Greg's on X, it's been more than a day since ICE Revealed these terrible crime numbers of the criminals that have been left in, that have been brought in across the border.
13,000 illegal alien murderers and 16,000 rapists according to ICE.
Now you would think that ICE would be a credible source because they must be vetting people at least enough to know if they're criminals.
So that's their numbers.
But in the day or so since that's happening, The New York Times ignored it.
The Washington Post ignored it.
ABC and CBS didn't cover it.
And neither did CNN.
Well, I'm not sure I would say that they didn't cover it because I did see Scott Jennings got plenty of time to mention it.
So he's their token Republican on CNN.
So I think it means that they didn't do a story about it, but to their credit, again, I'm going to give them credit where it makes sense.
To CNN's credit, they did have a Republican on and they gave him time to say his thing and they didn't interrupt him and everybody listened to it.
So, uh, Scott Jennings does help CNN at least get the, you know, some of the stories out that they don't focus on.
So that's exactly what you think it is.
So does that look like a rigged election?
It does to me.
Yeah, when I see that this big damning story that favors one over the other, one of the candidates over the other, and it's also one of the biggest issues, the border, and you just see them ignore the most important question about the border, which is how dangerous is it?
How dangerous is it is the whole question.
They're ignoring the central question of the biggest topic.
Hold that in your head.
Your most important entities, and I've told you before that the New York Times and the Washington Post, there's a common descriptor for them.
In the business, they're called the newsmakers, meaning that when they say it's news, all the lesser entities that do news, then they're all free to say, oh, I guess this is a big story now.
So then they cover it too.
But until the New York Times and the Washington Post say something is important, The rest of the news industry, at least the left leaning part, won't touch it.
Yeah.
And that happened also with Watergate.
I don't know the details, but I think there was a, uh, a lesser news entity that had covered Watergate before the Washington Post did.
I don't know the details of this, so I could be wrong about this, but it wasn't until the Washington Post covered it became everybody's national story.
So, Is this election rigging?
Yes, this is unambiguous election rigging.
If one of the biggest stories, the most salient important part of the biggest story, which is how much crime is coming into the country, if you ignore that, When it comes from a credible source, that's election interference.
You can't tell me that that's just a decision of what news to cover.
No, that is just flat-out election interference, and I don't think there's any doubt about it at this point.
Well, John Kerry was at some event recently, and he was complaining how our First Amendment is a real impediment to governing, meaning that since information is not controlled, People keep hearing things that he believes they shouldn't hear, and it makes them hard to control by the government.
It is so freaky to hear them say it out loud, and he didn't really hold back anything.
So whatever you're most worried about your government censoring you, John Kerry says it directly, that the biggest problem in governing is that people get their own information from sources they don't control.
And therefore, if they try to get a common opinion in the country, get everybody on the same page so we can do something, you can never do it, because too many people will have found the wrong story, he would say, on the Internet.
Now, the first level of awareness of this is to understand that The government does have an effect on free speech and wants to.
In other words, they want to limit free speech to things where the government still has some control over the populace.
So that's the first level of awareness.
It's the moment we say, wait a minute.
Are you saying that our own government has a problem with the First Amendment?
They're the ones who should be defending the First Amendment.
But you're telling me that they're working against the First Amendment, maybe indirectly through the censorship on the social media, because the government doesn't want free speech?
Here's what I'm going to add.
I'm going to take you to the level of awareness above that one.
No government can survive free speech.
And never has.
Unfortunately, you can't survive free speech, because everything would fall apart.
You wouldn't know what was real.
Now, when you don't have free speech, which is, I believe, the common situation for the entire history of America, we imagined we had free speech because we thought Walter Cronkite was honest.
What do you think now?
Now that you know that the CIA and the intelligence people of every country, every country, be they democratic or be they dictatorship or anything else, all of them control their media.
And always have.
So if you're just finding out that the government wants to control what you hear and see and think, Well, welcome to the third level of awareness.
If your awareness is that we used to have free speech, but the government just recently is finding out that they want to clamp down on it, that's not what's happening.
No, we have never had free speech.
It's just we found out.
Finding out you never had it does not mean that the solution is to get it.
I know that's hard to hear.
If you're just finding out that in America we've never really had free speech, or even close really, because the media was just a propaganda machine, always was, and we think we have free speech, but if you had an opinion that the mainstream media didn't want to air, It didn't matter if he had free speech.
Nobody was going to hear it.
So, the truth is, when it comes to the media anyway, there's no country that can survive free speech.
It would be too chaotic.
They have to control it to keep the country together.
I don't like that.
Don't love it.
Not good for me.
It's just true.
No country can survive real free speech.
But every country is better off if they have the fake kind.
All right.
I'm going to do a little bragging here on my long-range predicting.
Now, as you know, like everybody else, I don't get all my predictions right.
But when I get them right, I like to tell you, And when I get them wrong, you usually tell me, but I usually try to mention it, just to be fair.
So this is part of, you know, you analyzing whether you should listen to any of my predictions.
Because if I never got one right, you probably shouldn't listen to any others.
But if I got a few right that were surprising, Then maybe you should pay a little extra attention next time I have one.
For example, I've said for 20 years that moderate drinking is not really good for you, even though science said it was.
I'm right about that.
I've told you that there's no way that climate change can measure the temperature accurately enough to know exactly what's going on.
The science isn't there yet, but it will be, you know, it will be.
So I'll be, I'll be, you know, 10 years ahead of that.
And I think, you know, that I'll be right about that.
Um, I've been saying that, uh, in addition to saying that alcohol is poison, I've been saying that our food supply is poison.
I think I was one of the early ones on that, but not, I'm not like the pioneer who's talking about our, um, our nutrition.
But I'm one of the people who said, um, I think our food supply is actually poisoned.
Now, probably for a long time, a lot of you thought, that's a little bit of hyperbole, Scott.
We have good food, we have bad food, but if you just concentrate on the things you know are good for you, you'll be fine.
Doesn't turn out that's true.
So it's not just the highly processed stuff.
There's something wrong with a lot of stuff, maybe from fertilizer.
Who knows?
I don't know the details.
But every day now I see somebody prominent who's getting a lot of attention saying our food supply is literally poisoned.
So I'm going to say I was early on that one.
How about you've watched me for 10 years or so say that nuclear is the solution.
It's not the problem.
Now, pretty much in a bipartisan way, every scientist, every person who cares about the green world, are all really pro-nuclear all of a sudden.
But I was early.
I was probably 10 years ahead of that, saying maybe 20.
I just wasn't doing it in public.
How about the first person who said that Trump is Not a clown, he's the most persuasive person in politics.
I was the first one to say it, that his persuasion was through the roof, and now that's just understood.
Even people who hate him say, okay, we hate him, but I have to admit, he sure persuaded 45% of the country, and that's no joke.
So I was early on that, and now I'm telling you that no country can survive free speech.
Maybe in 10 years, that will be common knowledge.
At the moment, it hurts just to hear it.
So there's that.
I've also predicted, and this has not come true, but I feel confident about it, that AI will not take your art job or your humor job, because those things are based on... The reason you like any form of art is because it appeals to your mating instinct.
Meaning that you're thinking of the artist Oh my goodness, a human being made this and I'd like to mate with him.
Even if you're not thinking consciously about mating with him, that's what's, that's the thing that's getting tickled in your subconscious is your mating instinct.
And since you don't mate with AI, it doesn't matter how good a job it does.
Could be a great job and wouldn't matter.
All right, there's a new poll on the swing states.
This is from Atlas Intel.
Somebody said they're one of the more accurate ones.
I don't know personally, but somebody on social media said they're one of the more accurate ones.
But this one has North Carolina.
Wait a minute, I'm having trouble reading these.
Well, it looks like Trump would be up in six out of seven of the polls if that's what's going on.
If I'm reading this right, it's a really bad, bad organized data.
I think it's saying that Trump is doing well.
Anyway... What else is going on here?
We got... Well, let's do an update on Lebanon.
So... I saw a...
I saw a long message by Jared Kushner talking about Lebanon and Hezbollah and Israel.
And summarizing a long point that was well written, Kushner basically said it's go time, that Israel would be crazy if they don't take care of Hezbollah now, because there's never going to be a better chance.
Remember I've told you so October 7th is still fresh enough in people's minds.
So that gives them all the everything they need.
Apparently, Israel is way better at war than we knew, because they just took out the communications and the entire leadership of Hezbollah at somewhat minimal external casualties.
And they seem to be able to do it at will.
I don't know the degree to which they've penetrated with intelligence, but it looks like they can take out the leadership anytime they want.
So if they get a new one, it's just going to disappear.
So I would agree with Kushner.
You don't have to be pro-Israel.
I remind you that I don't support Israel as a country, because they don't support me.
Is that fair?
At the very least, they should be on my side.
You know, I'm not just picking random people in the world to support.
How about if you support me, I'll support you?
But that's not the situation.
So instead, I'm just an observer.
And as an observer, it wouldn't matter if it was Israel or the opposite, I'd be saying the same thing.
From a military, political standpoint, Israel will never see this situation again.
This is the only time they can go in and just mow the lawn, take care of business, maybe degrade Hezbollah permanently.
Maybe.
So, if they don't do it, It would just honestly, it would look like the biggest geopolitical mistake of a hundred years.
I mean, they have this mortal threat and this one opening that may never happen again.
Where people are going to say, well, we don't like it, but I can see why you did it.
And then, you know, you add to that, uh, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia saying he doesn't care about the Palestinians.
That's sort of a, that's sort of a, you know, a signal to do what you need to do.
I think he's just doesn't need the distraction of the Palestinians always pestering him for something.
Yes, Netanyahu has a golden situation because there's no American leadership.
And that's the perfect situation.
No leadership.
And even other countries are going to look at it and say, the NPCs are weighing in.
I can tell when all they do is insult me, that you don't have any argument.
So Maid of Scars says, you're a joke, Scott.
If you had any real point, I'm pretty sure you would have mentioned it.
Is there something I'm missing?
Is there a fact that would be important that I haven't mentioned?
Is there some context I'm leaving out?
Use your words.
Otherwise you just look like a drunk retard.
Use your words.
What is it that you're disagreeing with?
Let's see if anybody can handle that.
All right, well that'll shut you up.
Good.
Yeah, get a little smarter in your comments.
Take your game up.
This is not the dumb podcast.
If you want to watch a dumb podcast, you should go watch... Ah, you thought I was going to put a name in there, but I wasn't.
All right.
That quieted you down.
All right, and apparently Israel killed another top Hezbollah official.
I would not want to be the new leader of Hezbollah.
I would not.
And relative to nothing, If you're still wondering whether we live in a simulation, I would like to point out that the biggest issue in the campaign is the border, and Kamala Harris picked a VP named Walls.
Really, of all the politicians in the world, you had to pick somebody whose name is Trump's signature policy, Walls.
What are the odds of that?
Are you telling me that that's a coincidence?
I don't think it's a coincidence.
Why do I say they don't support me?
Do they support you?
Who are they supporting?
No, I say it because the ADL has called me an anti-Semite, because they believe I doubt the Holocaust.
I've never even met anybody who doubts the Holocaust.
I didn't even know that's a thing.
But allegedly they think it's a thing, and the head of the ADL came after me.
Now, the ADL does not work for Israel, but obviously it would be within the domain of things that they could have an opinion on.
And if they would care to support me, well, maybe I'd support them.
But right now, we don't have a relationship.
Israel's doing nothing for me.
I'm doing nothing for them.
I'm just observing.
All right.
Right.
He loved the chat antipathy.
Constructive criticism.
All right.
Well, I guess we said everything we need to say.
I'm hoping the Locals platform will be back up running soon.
And we'll talk to everybody else tomorrow.
Same time, same place.
Thanks for joining.
And by the way, let me just show you one thing before I go.
If you're not aware that the Dilbert Page a day calendar is now available for pre-sale after skipping a year.
And it's made in America this time for the first time made in America.
And if you go to Dilbert.com, you'll see the link to go purchase it.
You can't get it on Amazon.
And if we run out, you won't be able to get one.
So pre-sale this way to go.
You don't want to wait till two weeks before Christmas.
We might not have any left.
So, because, you know, I have to guess how many we're going to make.
So if I guess wrong, you're out of luck, because I'm not going to make them in January.
So I'm only going to make whatever we think is the right number.
And if you get it early, you don't have to worry about it.