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, VP Debate, Tim Walz, JD Vance, Pollster Corruption, NC Flood Hurricane Helene, President Trump, Elon Musk, Starlink NC Flood, Migrant Criminal Stats, Longshoreman Strike, Election Irregularities, Liz Harrington, Jason Calacanis, J6 Insurrection Hoax, AZ Voting System Integrity, Democrat Country Destroying Policies, Campaign Internal Polling, Hillary Clinton's Speculation, October Surprise Speculation, DHS Mayorkas, Climate Change Temperature Measurement, Julian Assange Press Conference, Laurene Powell Jobs, Ryan Routh Non-Guilty Plea, Netanyahu Warns Iran, October 7 Anniversary, 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
do do do do do do rum pum pum pum pum pum whoa hello come on let's fix that that's better good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and wow, are you lucky to be here.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
sip and happens now. Oh, siptastic.
Thank you.
Well, I'm trying to develop a new thing.
A useful commercial.
So if you're on X, you've already seen it.
I'll put this on the Locals platform probably today.
But let me show you what's happening over on X. You can see there in the middle.
I've got a little video up on how I currently draw the Dilbert comic.
You see this device behind me?
This big old... It's called a Wacom, is the company.
It's a Wacom Cintiq.
But I don't use that at the moment because it's not portable.
And I'll show you the little portable device if you watch the video.
It's on X. I'll be on Locals later.
It's right at the top of my feed.
It's easy to watch.
And I'll tell you how cartoons are made in the current time.
You might be interested.
All right.
So, uh, the reason I call that a new invention is I'm simply trying to figure out something you would enjoy seeing that you would just naturally be interested in.
And then at the end, I tell you, you can buy the Dilbert 2025 calendar and, uh, and it's there at the end.
Anyway, the Dilbert 2025 calendar is available for presale and only.
at the link you can find at Dilbert.com. It's not going to be on Amazon, so don't wait for it.
The only place you can get it, get it now. Anyway, here are a few news stories, and we'll get into all the politics. There's more, another study that exercise boosts your brain function. Can we all just agree that the science is so unambiguous at this point that exercise makes you smarter.
Bye.
There's just no doubt about it.
Keeps your brain working, keeps you happier, makes you better in your relationships, makes you better at your work, makes you better in every way.
And it does seem to me that if we can solve the problem of just getting people to get up and walk around, It would be such a different world.
And I hate the fact that Trump is the worst person to do that because he's not, he's not a model of physical fitness, but I still think he could do it.
You know, he could just encourage people to literally stand up and go for a walk after dinner.
Um, it would be amazing if people just did it for patriotic reasons.
I mean, I think you should actually literally.
Consider exercising for patriotic reasons.
It's the only way you're going to keep the country healthy, especially with our bad food supply.
Anyway, here's another.
The Guardian has a story about how you can use your physical senses to beat depression.
So not only does just ordinary exercise work, there's another story that I didn't write down, but there's a story that going on vacation, Is good for you.
It actually ages you backwards So the the relaxation and the extra activity and the extra mental stimulation you get from a vacation Apparently is super healthy for you.
So do you see the pattern?
exercise of any kind is super healthy going on vacation and Being physical, interacting with the real world is super healthy.
We've already talked about how completing tasks, like small chores, makes people happy because we get this sense of physicality plus completion.
Two things that are just absolutely necessary for good mental health.
And here's another one that agrees with things I've told you before, that you can shake yourself out of your sadness and depression By putting your concentration into your physical senses.
So your intuition, if you're in a bad mode, is to curl up under a blanket and reduce all of your external inputs and just sit there sadly in a corner.
That's the opposite of what you should be doing.
If you look at all the other science I just mentioned, The things that make you healthy are interacting with the world.
Touching, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting.
You gotta load a bunch of inputs into your head, and that will just say you're right.
Now, I do that automatically.
I didn't realize it was so backed by science.
But every single day, I've told you this before, but now we're going to pull it together with all these scientific studies.
The thing I do after I get ready, after I do the live stream, is I take my dog to the park.
It's not a normal park.
It's just a really well-designed park with just the right paths and trees and grass.
And I used to bring my headphones.
You know, maybe listen to some more news or something while I was there.
But I found that if I don't do anything, and I just feel the breeze, feel the sun on my body, look at the trees, look at my dog, and just feel it, it puts me in a completely good mood that lasts all day.
Now, it is so direct and so obvious and so physical That I can feel the difference within 60 seconds.
And it's dramatic.
If you do it every day, you'll get hooked on it.
So, I like the Andrew Huberman.
Get a little sun early in the morning.
You know, before, I think, before 10 a.m., he says.
I do my Huberman breathing.
Again, that's a physical thing.
I'm interacting with the air in the world doing the breathing.
Two inhales through the nose, one long exhale through the mouth.
I work on my posture.
I pet my dog.
And I have a completely physical experience.
That's all easy.
You know, none of it takes any effort.
And it's completely different.
But I'm going to add one thing to the mix.
You've heard about grounding, where you stand barefoot on the ground, down doors, and allegedly it corrects your, I don't know, the electricity in your body or something.
I've discovered that if I simply put my bare hand against a tree trunk and just lean on it, I feel extraordinary, and I'd love to see if you could test it out.
And I don't know if I'm grounding, because maybe, I don't know, do you get grounding if you touch a tree with your hand?
I don't know what it is, but I literally just take my bare hand, I just put it on a nice tree trunk that's not too, you know, gnarly, and I just lean on it, and I don't want to leave.
Try it.
Just try it as an experiment and tell me if it touches you.
Just put your hand on a tree and see how much you don't want to take it off.
Because you're going to feel immediately better.
It's the weirdest thing.
You're seeing in the comments a lot of people are saying yes to this, like you've actually experienced that.
So, summary.
If your brain is not where you want it, if you're too worried, anxious, or depressed, Get out of your head.
I've taught you to use the phrase, get out.
Literally say, get out, get out, get out.
That's how you tell you to get out of your, your repetitive thoughts, your bad thought process.
Just say, get out, get out, get out.
It works.
It happens instantly.
I do it all the time.
And I've heard a bunch of people who do it as well.
And then go do something physical, something easy and physical.
to give you new inputs.
It'll set you right.
It's the best advice you'll get all day.
All right.
Let's get into all that political stuff.
So the VP debate is tonight.
I plan to live stream this for my locals people, so I'll only be for the subscribers tonight.
But that's going to be fun.
There's a report that Tim Walz is panicked because he doesn't think he's a good He's a debater, and he's worried that Vance is so good, and he's gonna look so bad, and he's gonna embarrass Kamala and let down the country.
Do you believe any of that?
I don't.
Now, do you think he's nervous about the debate?
Of course.
It wouldn't really be possible to have this situation and not be nervous about it, of course.
But is he extra, extra nervous?
I don't know.
I mean, he's a governor.
I feel like he knows how to do this stuff.
So I think the reports of Walsh being panicked about the debate are probably fake, and it's probably for the point of making you lower your expectations about him.
But, extremist.
So that'll be his game.
I assume that Walsh will try to paint Vance as, well, an extremist.
So basically the two of them will try to paint the other as extremist, I guess.
But here's my take.
Let's see, if you compare these two people as debaters, you've got Vance is clearly smarter.
I think everybody would agree.
Clearly smarter.
So Vance is smarter.
He's younger.
He's better looking.
He has much better hair.
He has a more impressive military experience.
Uh, so it really shouldn't be close.
Yeah.
If you were going to just, uh, handicap this in advance, you would say, I don't think this is going to be close.
It looks like it's going to be a slam dunk.
But if you've watched debates before, what can we say with certainty?
Here's what we could say with certainty.
Let's say Vance starts talking and it's brilliant.
Like, let's just imagine that Vance comes out with almost a Kennedy-esque, you know, sweeping, soaring narrative that erases every concern you've ever had and puts you on the track to a better America that's healthier and smarter and more productive.
And you just feel great about it.
And meanwhile, Walsh goes out and he wets his pants and he has a stroke and he falls on stage and goes, what would happen?
You know what would happen.
MSNBC would say, finally, Walsh shows us what a real man is like.
They'd say he's redefined masculinity.
Because before it did not involve rolling around on your back and wetting your pants and looking like you had a stroke.
But now that is the redefined masculinity and we shall embrace it.
And by the way, look at that Vance guy acting like a white supremacist with his showing up on time and all that stuff.
Yeah, it's not really going to matter what they do.
Now, I have heard that there have been cases in the past where the VP debate changed the election.
It might be one of those.
I think I'd bet against it.
So I'd say 70-30, it won't move the needle.
But there's a good solid 30% chance that something interesting will happen.
I think so.
Well, one of the things that Walsh will have working against him is, I understand there's no crowd, right?
There won't be an audience.
My take on Walsh is that he's an audience energy guy.
So I think he needs the interaction with the audience, and then, you know, they give him energy, he gives them energy back, and they create this energy monster thing.
But if you take the audience away, you're focusing just on Walsh.
And I've never even seen that.
I guess one interview.
There was one interview with Dana Bash.
But otherwise, you mostly see Walsh interacting with people and happy and shaking hands and doing things that really don't take too much intellectual capacity.
So if you put him in a quiet room with the smartest guy in politics, he's not going to look good.
Unless he's got some kind of magic preparation we don't know about.
Anyway, the crowd energy is going to be a big problem for Waltz, the lack of it.
The other thing is, I'm going to borrow something from...
Something a prominent Democrat once told me privately about a completely different politician.
And I laughed when I heard it.
It was, and I'm not, I'm not going to tell you who told me.
I'm not going to tell you which politician he was talking about.
This was a completely different situation.
He said, what are the, what is the public going to think about so-and-so with his ambiguous sexuality?
Ambiguous sexuality?
Now, If you've watched me enough, you know that I don't care about anybody's sexuality.
I'm pro-LGBTQ.
Adults, do what you want to do.
I'm not your boss.
Whatever it is that you want to do, it's fine with me.
And it's not up to me.
More importantly, it doesn't need to be fine with me.
I want to live in the country where it doesn't need to be fine with me what you do.
Because I don't want it to be fine with you what I do.
How about we just let each other live?
So that's my take on all this stuff.
I just I'm aggressively lacking an opinion on what other people do with their private lives as long as it's legal and doesn't block my driveway.
That said, it is true that such things will affect other voters.
And I'm just going to say it that That Walsh has what I would call a flamboyant and ambiguous sexual vibe.
Now, I'm not accusing him of anything.
I'm just saying that the way I experience him as an observer is, there's something ambiguous about that.
Now, if he's gay, I don't care.
I don't even care.
I'll even go further.
If somebody pretends to be one thing, but they're really something else, I don't call that a hypocrite.
If it's sexual.
Because I think that everybody has the right to lie about their sexual preferences.
Now, I may be completely alone about that, but if your sexual preference is something you think people won't like, lie!
Go ahead, lie.
Just say, nope, I do not like whatever that is you think I like.
So lie all you want.
And if I find out later you lied, I'd say, oh, good job.
You kept my nosy nose out of your business with that little harmless lie about your sexual preferences?
Good for you!
Because that was none of my fucking business.
Lie to me all day long about your sexual past.
Please.
Please lie to me.
I literally don't want to know.
So if you can lie to me and make it go away, whatever it is, it makes you feel better.
Lie!
Lie!
You know, go at it.
So that's the one category.
Your sexual life.
I don't care if you're a politician or anybody else.
Lie all you want.
I don't care.
Um, I'm not saying he's lying.
I'm saying it wouldn't matter if he was, but he does have a vibe and they see it online and people are picking up some kind of a weirdness vibe.
We don't know what it is.
And then of course there's the stories that, uh, Walsh has these, uh, China connections that, uh, there's a story that says even the department of homeland security, Was concerned before he was even selected as a VP choice.
Allegedly, they had been concerned about his China ties and wanted to know more about that.
Will, do you think Vance will take advantage of the China connection?
I feel like he might.
I feel like he might.
Do you think Walsh will go after Vance for his, they're eating the cats and dogs comments?
Or for his cat lady comments, he might, because those have been seemingly successful attacks in the past, at least in getting attention successful.
And I think the Vance is probably ready for that.
And I've told you before that the way to handle that is to admit the Democrats are better at cat related rhetoric.
You know what?
I think the Trump administration would do better on the border.
the economy and staying out of wars and according to polls the public agrees. But if I have to admit it, I'm going to. Democrats are better at talking about cat related topics. And if that's what's important to you and not the open border, the economy and getting into World War III, if you prefer to really focus on the cat related rhetoric, honestly, the Democrats are going to be
better at it. So the opening is there to just totally mock the biggest attacks against them.
We'll see if he does that.
There was a story related to this.
Apparently, Vance was in a grocery store doing some campaign-related video and talking with his young sons about eggs, and he made this statement, obvious hyperbole, he said, because his son picked up some eggs.
He says, yes, buddy, you want some eggs?
Let's talk about eggs.
As he was talking to the camera.
Because these guys actually eat about 14 eggs every single morning.
Is that right?
Now, you probably know That little children do not eat approximately 14 eggs a day.
Now, those of you who have experience with words, and sentences, and language, and talking, talking, if you've had any experience with those domains, you would know that this is obvious exaggeration to be, you know, just funny and interesting.
However, if you work for MSNBC, like Stephanie Rule, you might do some fact-checking.
So she did, hmm, 14 eggs per day, 98 eggs per week, two children.
No, this can't be right.
That's right.
MSNBC host fact-checked him on the 14 eggs a day that the toddler eats.
Yep, that happened.
Well, Here's something you didn't know about.
I was looking at some expert talking about the polling industry, and you know in the past the polls have, 2016 famously, underestimated Trump's support.
And so of course pollsters scramble to fix that and there are problems about who answers the phone and do you have the right number of likely voters versus just citizens.
So it seems like it'd be simple.
Who are you going to vote for?
But it turns out that the assumptions you make and who you ask can determine the answer.
So is it about The people's responses, is that telling you something?
Or is it just how they designed the questions, and designed the poll?
Sometimes it's about how they designed the poll, it's not about the answers.
The answers were sort of driven by the way they designed the poll.
So we're being warned that the pollsters have learned from the past, and you should not assume, this time you should not assume, That the Trump supporters are underrepresented, and that there'll be some surprise.
This time, we're told that they have made corrections for all these things.
They've corrected, yeah.
And so there are different factors such as the party registration, past voting history.
Things like that.
So basically, how many people do you consider to be Republicans so that you weight the numbers accurately?
Are you looking at likely voters or people who just have voted in the past?
So there's a whole bunch of assumptions you can make that changes it.
But here's what I'm going to add to it.
I think there's something new that the pollsters don't have right this time.
The new thing is that we've learned, we, the voters, Have learned something that's important to the process.
And in 2016, I think the shy Trump voters were just trying to not get caught as a voter.
That seems less important now.
I think people are far more likely to say, you know what?
I'm, I'm a Trump supporter deal with it.
So that part has changed.
I think people are going to be less hiding than they had been in 2016.
However, Losing 2020 left quite a deep scar with Trump supporters.
And part of that scar, I think, and related to it, is the idea that they might want to lie to the pollsters.
And just about every Republican has heard the idea that you should lie to the pollsters so that they're surprised.
I think that the prank element In other words, it's sort of a prank to lie to the pollsters.
I think Republicans are pranksters far more than the left.
You know, the left may be dirty tricksters and clever in their own way, but there's something about conservatives.
They like a good prank, but not every kind of prank, you know, not necessarily just like stupid, silly stuff, but what would be a better prank than living in a totally corrupt system?
And then lying to the pollsters, who you think are part of the corrupt system, and then winning on election day because you used your own corruption.
You lied.
You lied to the pollsters.
So you use your own corruption to cancel out their corruption so they wouldn't know how much to cheat.
So I think that you could stop any Trump supporter in the street and ask them the following question.
If a pollster called you, would you tell them the truth?
Just play that in your head.
You're walking down the street anywhere in any part of the country.
You find a Trump supporter.
You say, hey, got a second?
If a pollster called you, would you tell them the truth?
You know what they're going to say.
Not every one of them, but it doesn't have to be every one.
It just has to be enough to change the result.
I feel that this will be a bigger surprise than the, quote, hidden Trump supporters in 2016.
I think that 2020 was a shock to the system.
I also think the fact that Trump has so many more male supporters is a real big hint that the prank is on.
What do men do that women don't do?
Nearly as much.
Not even close.
Pranks.
Yeah.
Men do pranks.
Men love this stuff.
Women?
Maybe sometimes, but not so much.
The fact that you're seeing major male support that's just overwhelming, I mean, it's just a big difference, suggests that men have been activated.
I believe that there's a self-defense instinct That's a little different in women than men.
Both have self-defense instincts, of course.
But I think that men, when they get activated, they'll act in a way that's predictable.
And I think we're seeing there's something different about this election.
People are talking about it being the last election.
Now, they talk about it on both sides as the last one.
Republicans think if Democrats win, it's the last election.
Democrats think the same thing if Trump wins.
So, for Republicans, I think the risk of losing appears existential.
And I actually think it might be.
I think it might be.
I mean, not for sure.
But I think the risk of America just ceasing to exist in 10 years Is non-zero if a Democrat is elected.
Now, I actually believe that.
I think the odds are we'll survive.
But there's a real risk.
And if you're a conservative, and especially if you're male, and somebody tells you, okay, this isn't an election anymore.
This is war.
Because it is.
This is a war for survival.
It just happens to be at a ballot box.
So when you tell men, It's war.
We don't watch TV anymore.
You know how the old thing about guys like to sit on the couch and watch the game?
Not when it's war.
Every man stands up when a war happens.
We don't have a way to turn that off.
We are biologically trained that we will fuck off in any situation that's doing well.
You put a man in any situation where the general situation is doing well, we will just fuck off.
We just want to play around, tell some jokes, do some pranks, not work.
But when things go to hell and they're legitimately going to hell, take a look at the video in the flood zones in North Carolina.
Do you see all the women going through the chest deep water to carry the elderly out on their backs?
Nope.
All men.
It's not all men.
I'm exaggerating.
There are plenty of women who are helping, of course.
But the video is pretty much all men.
And men will run into dangerous situations when they have to.
And they will not worry about being distracted or lazy.
They will just focus.
And I think that there's something about our current time and situation that's not political anymore.
It's existential.
Like the flood.
And when you've got a flood that's destroying the whole country, whether it's a flood of progressivism or a flood of insanity, when you reach some point, and we are there, folks, we're there, I have just one message for the men in America.
Just two words.
It's everything you need to know, and I won't need to tell you anything else.
Men, it's time.
It's time.
That's all you need.
So, let's talk about the flood.
You can't not talk about the politics of the flood, but let me say as unambiguously as I can, What matters is the lives and the livelihoods of the people who are being destroyed by this.
And apparently it's far more massive than I think many of us were expecting.
It's way worse.
Entire towns are being washed away.
40 people dead.
Some dead were found in trees.
In trees.
They found dead bodies.
I don't even know how that happens.
So it's horrible on a scale that's surprising.
And I'm not, I think some of the reason that we don't register how bad it is completely is that the communication is so bad.
If everybody had cell phone and cell pictures and the videos were coming in, I think we'd be horrified at a whole different level.
I think it's a little bit of shut off from civilization at the moment.
So we don't see how bad it is, but it's bad.
And so let, but let's talk about the politics cause I can't ignore it.
So Trump has done his Trumpy thing, where he can read a room better than anybody, he acts faster, he's a person of action, and he's making all the right moves.
And it matters.
It matters.
The fact that Biden's sitting on the beach and saying, well, I don't want to go because it'd be too disruptive, at the same time that Trump does go, he has the same level of Secret Service, pretty big entourage, but he's right there in the middle of it and he's saying what he can do.
He's trying to work with Elon Musk, who had already committed his Starlink to help them with their communication problem.
So, Elon was already in.
He was in the fight.
Trump talked to him, and I think the story is that Trump gets maybe some credit for getting a little extra help.
But Elon was going to do it anyway.
But politically, Trump is spinning it as he's part of that process.
And maybe.
I don't know how much extra he added to what Musk was going to do anyway, but at least At least the story is what we want to see.
We want to see a leader go in.
We want to see him give attention to it.
We want him to show the empathy.
We want it to show the capability.
We want it to show him acting quickly, making connections, getting things done.
So whether or not Trump made any difference whatsoever to what Musk was going to do, it sure looks like they're doing the right things.
So on the, the optics of it, Trump is 100%.
100%.
Now, he started a GoFundMe.
He's doing everything right.
He just did everything right, as a politician.
Again, I don't think that what Trump did makes a big difference to the actual recovery, but certainly in terms of leadership and showing himself as a leader, 100%.
This would have been a lot more important for Trump if he had not already been president.
But since we already understand him as a president, when he goes and he acts very presidential, it's really good to do.
It's a complete positive.
But it could have been even more if we'd never seen him act like a president.
But he's done it, so we kind of expect it.
I sometimes call this the new CEO move.
It's the thing you do before you even have started, you know, and he's good at setting the initial impression.
So if the impression that you have when you go to vote is that Trump was all over this flood and Biden was tardy, even if that's not exactly telling you anything useful, maybe what Biden is doing is providing all the resources you would ever need.
That's all you really need him to do.
Going to the beach probably makes no difference whatsoever to the recovery, but it looks bad.
It looks bad.
And some of that badness wipes over to Harris as being part of the administration.
So, Trump A++.
There's nothing bad you can say about it.
A++.
The people loved that he went there.
Nobody said, oh, we would have recovered so much faster except for your disruption.
Nope.
They just loved it, and they're not going to forget.
And let me tell you, if you think this only affects the people who are flooded, you missed the story.
This is not just about the people who are up to their waist in water still.
This is about everybody watching, because your flood is coming too.
You need to know that the government is going to be there and caring, because your flood is coming.
Not necessarily a flood, but everybody's got something coming.
So yeah, this matters a lot.
This could be one of the most consequential events of the election, not just because it's going to slop into October, And so close to the election, but it's just such a stark contrast.
You can feel the difference in power and leadership, and that just goes right to people's core.
You know, all the policy stuff?
You know, we just flush that stuff.
How does it feel?
Right?
When the bear is running after you, one leader gets between you and the bear and the other one runs away.
You don't need to talk about policy.
The one who got between you and the bear, you're my leader.
Let's talk about my attack.
I don't care.
No, you stood between me and the bear.
That part I remember.
Trump stands between you and the bear, consistently.
He took a bullet for you.
He's basically all in and risking everything.
I would argue so is his pirate ship.
Elon Musk is risking a lot.
I mean, if Trump loses, I don't even know if Musk can stay in a jail at this point because the Democrats are going to come at him so hard.
RFK Jr.
traded most of his family and his reputation and everything.
If he doesn't make something happen, As in, Trump gets elected, and RFK Jr.
helps with our food being all poisoned.
If he can make that happen, then he wins.
But you've got a whole bunch of people who just bet the entire farm.
They bet their whole lives.
The Democrats are not betting their lives.
The Republicans are betting their freedom.
Trump and Musk might go to fucking jail.
Or have their businesses ruined if they don't win.
This is different.
It's very different.
All right.
I heard a... Oh, and then, of course, it has to be said that, you know, Georgia and North Carolina are two of the swing states that will make the most difference.
And there's some accusation that Trump Lied when he said that Governor Kemp of Georgia couldn't get through to Biden, but that wasn't true.
He did get through.
I don't think any of that's important.
I don't love it when either of the politicians say something that's not true, but probably Trump had heard about that before Kemp got through because it wasn't until the end of the day he got through.
So I don't think he lied.
I think maybe he just didn't have an update on the information.
Here's something that I think is a worthy fact check.
You know those big numbers about all those criminals that were let in by the Biden administration?
It was some gigantic number of active criminals that allegedly were let in the border.
Did you know that ICE clarified that that was a cumulative 40-year number?
If you thought that happened in four years, that wasn't exactly what happened.
It was a 40-year cumulative number.
And included people who are currently in jail for largely something else, something that happened in this country.
So it's not nearly as bad as the top line number suggests, but it's still so bad.
And I would add this, how many of the 40 year ago people are in that list now?
You know, when, when immigration was small, Yeah, you could take the first 20 years of it, and it would kind of equal what the last four years would be, wouldn't it?
I think something like that.
So, since it's so heavily weighted toward things that happened recently, the fact that it's a 40-year cumulative doesn't mean as much as it would mean if the same amount came in every year.
It's very less than a 40-year cumulative in effect, even though it is.
So somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, but certainly there's no doubt that a lot of criminals came in and a lot of sex crime people came in.
As you know, the strike is on.
I think it's on.
The longshoremen on the East Coast and the Gulf, which affects a huge amount of the incoming goods coming into the country in ships.
They're not going to be unloaded.
And so here's what we need to know.
So you got 50,000 members of the International Longshoremen's Association.
We don't know what the shortshoremen are doing, but the longshoremen are on strike.
The shortshoremen, I think they don't like a lot of publicity, so you never hear from them, but the longshoremen are on strike.
And this would affect everything from toys and fresh food, furniture, clothing, household items, and European automobiles.
These would be all things you don't need.
You know, it's funny how we're such a consumer society that it just seems obvious if you cut off a third of all of our consumer goods coming into the country that we would be crippled by it.
But I don't see anything on this list I can't live without.
Oh, there won't be any toys?
Okay.
Fresh fruit?
Well, first of all, I'll probably get fresh fruit because I'm in California.
But, could you live without fresh fruit?
Yeah.
You would eat vegetables and meat and fish.
You could live without fresh fruit.
How about... I mean, you'd want to get your vitamin C, of course.
If you couldn't get new clothing for six months, could you get by?
Could you do it?
Do you think you could get by without new clothes?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Household items?
Probably.
You need a new toaster, but it's going to take you four months to get one?
Who cares?
You don't have to have toast.
European automobiles?
Oh no!
Oh noes!
I can't get my European automobiles.
I'm not sure I care too much about any of this.
I know I should be more worried and maybe there's some hidden thing where they're manufacturing goods that are not coming in.
That would be more of a problem, I suppose.
But we'll see.
Now, the fact that this strike is going to happen in October, we don't know how long it will last.
We would expect the Biden administration to be totally blamed just because it happens during their watch, even if they had nothing to do with it.
So this would be certainly leaning in a hard way toward Trump.
Did you know that in China, Some of the ports are fully automated, meaning that instead of longshoremen, there are a bunch of robot trucks and rigs working the dockyard.
And it's just people behind a computer screen saying, OK, robot, go pick up that load.
Bring it over here.
Yeah.
We are not a first world country.
I hate to tell you.
But if you looked at South Korea or Japan or a lot of parts of China, they're a whole different level of civilization than we are in America.
A different level of civilization.
I think I'd lost any sense of how far we were falling behind.
It's kind of dangerous territory right now.
We're going to have to up our game in America.
All right, there are many claims of voting irregularities in the past and things that would affect the future.
My take on all the allegations of voting irregularity, most of it has to do with voter rolls and who's registered and, you know, what happened in the past.
I don't know what's true.
You read some claims, and if you haven't seen the reply to the claims about anybody saying, well, no, those claims are wrong, and here's why you looked at the wrong column or something like that.
So I don't always hear the other side.
But I'm going to tell you what I see, because that's part of the story, just what I'm exposed to.
Now, every single day, because people send me things on X, I see these claims.
So if you haven't seen any of these, this will seem shocking to you, but I tell you in advance, I don't know what's true.
They're claims.
Now, they have the feel of being true, meaning they have details, they have sources, and they can point to public hearings.
So there's a lot to them.
They're not made up.
I just don't know if there's another side that I haven't heard.
So I'm just being as careful as I can to say I don't have any conclusive proof of these irregularities, or even how important they are.
But here's what I'm hearing.
So Liz Harrington, you probably know, is on top of a lot of these claims.
So some of the things that she notes on X today, and again, this is just today, right?
These are things you might've heard before, but they're bubbling up today.
That Fulton County deleted all of its in-person votes.
All of their mail-in votes are missing their SHA files, which I guess is important.
Then when they tried to recreate the results during the recount, because they had to do a recount, they were more than 17,000 votes short, so they fabricated over 20,000 votes with duplicate and ballots from tabulators that didn't exist.
Now, is all of that completely true and in context and there's nothing else you need to know about it?
Well, if it is completely true and there's nothing else you need to know about it, It certainly isn't true that we have elections with any integrity.
I mean, this is a key county in a key state.
Fulton, that's Georgia, right?
Also, Liz Harrington.
Noted today, also annexed, that there are two experts that testified in DeKalb.
DeKalb?
Am I saying that right?
D-E-K-A-L-B.
DeKalb?
DeKalb?
I don't know.
It's a county.
So this is also a Georgia issue.
Said that the election systems in Gwinnett County, Georgia were remotely accessed from Belgrade, Serbia during the 2020 election.
And then similar things happened in Colorado, Michigan, and other states.
Now, do I know for sure?
I'm being corrected that it's DeKalb.
All right.
Silent L. I would like to protest the use of silent vowels.
I believe all the silent vowels should be removed from all of our words and donated to countries where they don't have enough vowels.
Or consonants.
We could call them consonants in this case.
They don't have enough letters, so we should take away our silent ones and donate them.
Anyway, if it's true that a Serbian person accessed our voting machines during the elections, that would seem very distressing.
If on top of that, separately there are reports That most of the voting machines have the password in plain text on the machine so anybody could get in and make anything and change anything they want.
Again, I don't know the details of that claim or if that's true.
I suspect not all of these things are true.
But I'm hearing them and I'm not hearing the debunks.
But not hearing the debunk Doesn't mean the debunk doesn't exist.
So I don't want to be a Democrat and say that if I haven't heard of something, it doesn't exist.
That's not a thing.
All I know is I haven't heard of the other.
I haven't heard the other side.
Doesn't mean that doesn't exist.
Here's another one.
Uh, apparently in Arizona, 218,000 people, uh, who did not prove that their citizens are on the voter rolls.
But don't worry.
Don't worry.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, if 218,000 people in the Arizona voter rolls have not proven that they're citizens, and then they were to vote, and let's say some of them were not citizens, then that would be bad for the election.
But don't worry, people.
Don't worry.
There's a part I didn't tell you.
It's all okay.
Because the plan is that after the election, those people will be contacted to make sure that their votes were valid.
After the election.
After the election.
Did I mention that they'll find out if they could have voted after the election?
Now, do you think that whatever happens, if some of those votes are challenged, do you think that our legal system would rapidly get in there and correct it, and then they'd hold a new vote, and they'd adjust it, and they'd recount it, and thank God we've got that process to check them after the election?
No, I kind of assume there's not going to be enough time.
Don't you?
I feel like they're going to have to pick a winner long before they've called 218,000 people and checked their ID.
I feel like that's just a big gaping hole in our system.
And again, I don't know if it's true.
So for all the election claim stories, I'll say the same thing.
I don't know if they're true.
I don't even know how to know, but the claims exist.
Do you remember the story about, I think Jason from the All In pod, hi Jason, you're probably watching, had mentioned that January 6th was an insurrection not only Because of the protesters, many of whom were, not many, but some were violent.
So there's two sort of related but separate claims about January 6th.
One is that the actual protesting was an insurrection, but that's silly because nobody believes that you can overtake a superpower by sauntering through one building.
Literally nobody in the world thinks that you can overtake the United States by wandering around.
Without showing any weapons, except some blunt objects.
However, that wasn't the whole story.
Part of the story was the electors, the alternate electors, who Democrats called fake electors, were selected.
The story was that they were activated to preserve the legal challenge.
So it was basically a positioning thing.
And obviously there'd be a court would have to be involved or Congress would have to be involved, but it wasn't supposed to be the final answer.
It was a positioning to hold, uh, to hold a little more authority.
Should the courts or somebody else get involved, you could say, well, there's, you got two claims here, so you're gonna have to decide which one.
So I don't have a, uh, enough of a legal background, none.
To say whether that was ever a good plan.
We can say it didn't work out, but that's different from saying it wasn't ever a good plan in the first place.
However, we got some new news on that.
The Arizona Attorney General, who was prosecuting those Trump electors, the so-called alternate and or fake electors, so a number of them were going to be prosecuted.
But apparently at some point the integrity of the voting system has been in so much question that it does look like the election was challengeable.
Meaning that the electors had a case.
Doesn't mean they're right.
Doesn't mean they're right.
But that they're eliminating from the analysis that the electors were just trying to steal the election.
How big a deal is that?
So apparently the legal system, at least in one specific case, if I'm... And by the way, I'd look for a fact check on this, because when I look at the election legality stuff, I'm not the person to depend on.
But according to the Gateway Pundit, so you could look there for more information, that the known errors in the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department caused nearly 100,000 voter registrations to be validated without verifying citizenship.
And that this issue has persisted for over 20 years.
So for 20 years, there's been 100,000 people on the voter rolls that we didn't know if they were citizens or not, or how many were citizens, how many were not.
And that would be enough if, if there was anything wrong within that group of people in terms of their votes, that would be enough to completely change the election result.
So if this is now a known fact to the courts that we couldn't know for sure who won in Arizona, That means, I think, that the so-called fake or so-called alternate Trump electors were on solid ground.
Now, am I right about that?
I'll need a fact check on that.
I'm going to say I should remain humble about my understanding of the law.
So slap me down if I got that wrong or if there's another way to look at it.
But it does look like the whole Argument about January 6 just disappeared.
Because if it's true, in Georgia and in Arizona, that there's plenty of reason to think that the election might have been rigged, certainly not proven, definitely not proven, but certainly enough irregularities that preparing for how to handle the irregularities was completely justifiable.
Doesn't mean you know how it's going to end up.
But preparing, because you saw that something looked irregular, and then finding out that something was irregular, doesn't mean it was wrong, but it was irregular.
And that's why they prepared, just in case the irregularities could be, you know, quickly handled.
They weren't.
So that could be a nice little October surprise.
Libs of TikTok is telling us, reminding us, that the California governor, Newsom, Just signed a bill making it illegal for local governments to make sure that people are citizens before they vote.
Now, why would you do that?
Why would you go so far as to pass a law to make sure we don't know if the election is real?
I can see passing a law to make sure an election is real, and the right people have voted, and they're counted right.
What would be the reasoning To pass a law to make sure that you couldn't tell if the election was real.
What's the reason for that?
Well, the reason given is, oh, we don't want to discourage people from voting.
Nobody believes that.
Even the people saying it know that's not true.
So, I don't know what the real reason is, but let me ask you this provocative question.
What does it mean, like how should I understand the fact that if there were a plot to destroy America, that came from somewhere.
I'm not even going to speculate where.
If there were some kind of a long-term plot to destroy America, why would it look exactly like what the Democrats are doing?
And I'm not even making a political comment.
For example, open borders is not really a political topic.
That's destroy the country or not destroy the country.
What is even the politics on that?
How about DEI?
Now, DEI, you can say, oh, we want some equity, but there's nobody in the world who thinks it's a good idea to throw gravel into a machine, and DEI is just gravel in the machine.
You would do that if you were trying to destroy America, right?
You would look for ways to create division and something that can never be solved, because we'll never agree what's fair.
And the whole equity thing, if an enemy implemented that, or some enemy of America tried to get us to buy into equity as the right way to go, that would destroy America.
And they would know that.
And Democrats are doing that, exactly what an enemy would do.
There's no difference.
If the enemy could have done this to us, they would have.
Maybe they did.
I can't tell the difference.
How about having no election control?
All the irregularities I just told you about?
Again, I don't know if those irregularities led to a wrong result.
We don't know that.
But we do know that it is very possible to have a clean election that everybody trusts.
Paper ballots, make sure somebody observes it, recount them if you need to.
So, why would we go so far and so far away to make sure that we have machines we don't trust, Or that we make sure we don't verify people's identity.
I can't think of any reason other than just destroy the country.
Can you?
What's the second reason?
How about unlimited spending?
If you were going to try to destroy America, if you could do it, you'd find a way to make Congress spend unlimited amounts of money with no way to repay it ever.
And we are.
How about legalizing crime so that the entire urban retail business just disappears, destroys the cities?
Who would do that?
An enemy.
An enemy would do that.
But in what world does somebody who's on your side do any of this?
None of this is something you do to people on your own team.
This is something you do if you're trying to destroy the country.
Now, it could be there's some kind of weird mental health problem or criminal enterprise or something that's going on.
There might be some other explanation.
But whenever you see a situation where one political party is going out of its way to do things which on any logical level would destroy the country, that doesn't look like politics to me.
And I've never said this before.
Every other election I've ever seen looked like politics.
It looked like one party has a preference of how to approach something, the other party had a different preference.
That's not what's happening.
This is nothing like politics.
This looks exactly like a planned, brilliant attack on the integrity of the United States, to destroy it from a foundational level.
You know, first you get You get rid of our common understanding and our common stories and our melting pot.
You just get rid of all that and turn us into a festering, you know, diversity pot of racial anxiety.
That's how you destroy a country.
Anyway, so we don't know what's going on there.
A Michigan Democrat Senate candidate who apparently has access to some internal polling Meaning privately funded polling that the public doesn't see.
According to the Daily Wire, they're reporting on this.
And the Democrat Senate candidate says their internal polling doesn't match the public polls.
And specifically, quote, I'm not feeling my best right now about where we are in Kamala Harris in a place like Michigan.
So this is Elisa Slotkin.
So she's opening, running for a seat.
So apparently the internal pollings look dismal, while the external polling says that Harris will win.
How do you explain the existence of internal polling?
Why does internal polling exist?
Why would you pay for something that's free, and not only free, but being provided by, what, 25 different pollsters?
For free!
You just read the news like I do.
Oh, looks like I'm ahead.
Oh, looks like I'm not.
Now, some of the questions are the ones that would be specific to one candidate, so that makes sense.
But they seem to also ask the question, who would you vote for?
Which is what the big pollsters do.
Why do you need internal ones?
There's only one reason.
It's because you think the external ones are liars.
The entire internal polling business probably wouldn't even exist, except that people assume the public ones are fake.
What else would it be?
Why would you pay for something that's free?
Again, except for those specific questions that the public ones don't ask.
Anyway, so maybe that's a surprise coming.
Hillary Clinton says, and it's amazing that the top Democrats are saying this clearly and in public, that the press needs a consistent narrative about the danger of Trump.
The press needs a consistent narrative about the danger of Trump.
At the same time, the Democrats are trying to get rid of misinformation and disinformation.
I don't think they could be more clear that they want to just control what you think.
And they have no interest in what's real.
None whatsoever.
Now, it's not like I discovered the fact that people are selfish lying weasels, but here it is.
But, more ominously, Hillary says she predicts an October surprise that would be negative to Kamala Harris.
She doesn't know what it would be, but she thinks it's coming.
Do you think she really doesn't know what it is?
Do you think she would say that if she didn't actually know what the surprise is?
Because whatever the Republicans may or may not have cooked up in their opposition research, Hillary probably knows what it is.
Don't you think?
Don't you think she's inside the tent?
The people inside the tent know what's going on.
Do you think it's alcohol?
Do you think we're going to find in October that Kamala has a drinking problem or a pill problem?
I'm going to say again, it looks obvious to me that some of her public appearances are inebriated and others are not.
So maybe Republicans are waiting for that, you know, waiting to unleash that.
Maybe.
Hillary would know.
There's not a chance in the world.
Not even the slightest chance that if there were anything to that, if there were any kind of substance abuse problem, that Hillary wouldn't know.
She would know.
She would know.
Anyway, October surprises, we got plenty coming.
Department of Homeland Security Mayorkas was asked about the floods and he blamed climate change.
He didn't blame it, but he said we should be ready because the severity and frequency of the big storms will be more.
That, by the way, is not backed by any evidence whatsoever.
But I think he was looking for a way to blame it on Trump, sort of indirectly.
It's like, well, those people who are opposed to climate change are going to make this much worse in the future.
Now, I don't think there's any evidence of that.
But he said it.
Now, interestingly, this came about the same time I saw Greg Gutfeld on The Five saying that there seemed to be some kind of a sea change in how the press was handling stuff like this.
Because the press, on their own, had not mentioned climate change.
But Mayorkas did.
Now, Mayorkas is not the press.
He's just a weasel.
But it does look, I'm going to agree with Greg, it does look like the press has now been trained that the big storms are not necessarily linked to climate change.
At least we haven't seen it.
Now, Bjorn Lomborg is a big part of that story.
He's done a great job in telling us what's real and what isn't on the climate situation.
Speaking of climate, and speaking of censorship, Here's a little thing that I think is way more fun than you know is coming.
We all assume that the people who want to censor you are going to work like hell to control AI and to control all of our searching and everything.
So we know that's going to happen.
But what if AI is uncontrollable?
Meaning that you can't really tell it to lie.
You can maybe tell it to avoid some topics.
But I don't know if you can tell it to lie, because you'd have to cover every possibility and hard-code it.
I'm not sure you could.
So I had this interesting conversation with ChatGPT yesterday.
And by the way, it's new advanced speaking mode.
It's definitely an improvement.
It's quite fun.
So I was having a conversation with it about how the temperature of the earth is measured.
And here's what AI told me.
Now, I can't say it's true.
I'll just tell you what AI told me.
So AI said that most of the world's heat is in the oceans.
First of all, did you know that?
That most of the climate change heat would be found in the ocean.
Secondly, did you know it's mostly in the top?
So the bottom bottom of the deepest part of the ocean doesn't change much.
It's just a little bit above zero.
Again, this is what AI says.
If it hallucinated, I didn't check it.
So most of the heat would be in the top few hundred meters of the ocean.
And if you can measure it, you'd have a good idea of what's happening with climate change.
So I asked questions about how well we can measure things.
And I said, how many ways are there to measure?
They said, well, you can use satellites to look at atmosphere and I think maybe the surface of the water.
But that doesn't tell you the big story, because below the surface is where most of the heat is.
And they said, well, you can put buoys.
There are thousands of buoys that have thermometers in them.
And they'll give you the temperature.
I'm like, great.
And then I said, so why do you have satellites?
If the buoys are good at getting the temperature, why do you have satellites?
And they said, well, because the satellites plus the buoys can be used in a way that gives you a better temperature.
And I said, I don't understand that.
Isn't one of them better than the other?
Why don't you use the one that's better?
If the satellite is better, use that.
If the water thing is better, use that.
And then I said, well, both of them are maybe not 100% complete, but if you use the one As a way to bolster or fortify your estimates, they can be compatible.
And I said, it sounds like you're working a cubicle and you're lying to your boss right now.
Cause let me ask this again.
If both of those ways of measuring are known to be not reliable, which is why you'd use the other one to check the first one, and vice versa, how do you use both of them to check each other if you know they're both wrong?
And I said, how do you combine two things you know are wrong, and then you get something you rely on?
And then it went into total jargon.
Well, you know, the estimates of the thing, the thing of the way they combine the models, and then it said it combines it with the prediction models.
And I said, hold on, hold on.
Are you telling me that they don't just report the temperature?
Rather, they've got some kind of a way that they adjust it with estimates?
Yes, they adjust it with estimates.
So you're not seeing the actual temperature as the machines reported it, you're seeing them after the scientists did their magic and adjusted it.
And then I said, well, how did they know they adjusted it to something correct, given that there's no standard, which you already think is correct, that you could compare their estimates to?
Well, I said, that's a good point.
They are estimates.
They're estimates, based on their assumptions, About how two ways of measuring things that are incomplete might be used together to fix each other's problems.
Now, have any of you ever lived in the real world for more than five minutes?
Anybody?
Has anybody dealt with anything in the real world?
If you have, do I need to say anything else?
If somebody came to you and said, we have two incomplete ways of measuring a thing, But if we add them together, not knowing which errors each of them has, we can use that to correct with our algorithm and our models, and then we go back and then we check and then we adjust.
And then I said, why do we develop new ways to measure temperature, if the old ways were good?
And AI said, well, that's a good question.
So, here's my point.
I could have a conversation with AI, and do you know what AI didn't do?
It didn't run out the clock like a person would.
Like if you trap somebody with a question they couldn't answer, they will change the subject.
Do you know what AI does?
It tries to answer the question.
It doesn't change the subject.
It doesn't call me a racist.
It doesn't introduce information that's off topic, like all humans do.
So I was able to use AI to completely debunk climate change because the climate change people were not clever enough to know that they'd left this hole in the AI.
Now that I've said it, I don't know, maybe somebody goes back and tries to fix that so it won't talk about climate change.
But you ask AI how they measure the temperature and just dig down and then say, if they keep adjusting the temperature, how do they know they ever got it right in the past?
There's no answer to that.
They can't know anything was right in the past because they use different measurements.
And here's the best part.
Even the buoys is not exactly the same technology as when the first round of buoys were put in the water.
And sometimes the buoys give you a wrong measurement.
Do you know what they do when a buoy seems to have the wrong temperature?
They use their adjustments and their models and their algorithms and the other temperature ways to adjust it for an estimate.
It's so clearly bullshit.
If you lived in a, if you were in a corporation and one of your employees came to you and told you that story, That they're using all kinds of different equipment that changes over time, and they're using their math and their estimates and their algorithms to correct it.
You would laugh them out of your office.
Unless it was what you wanted to hear.
And then you'd say, sounds good.
So we accept whatever we want to hear that we think is already right.
Anyway, that's a big hole in AI.
AI might give you holes where you could find the truth, even when the people in charge are trying to hide it.
All right.
Trump said that one rough hour of policing would end crime.
I love his hyperbole.
Now, is this going to get fact-checked by MSNBC?
I don't think if one hour.
One hour sounds too short.
So we're going to do some calculations to find out if crime could be eliminated in one hour.
Nope.
We had some experts on and they said nobody could eliminate crime in one hour.
Well, let me tell you what you could do.
You could have the police beat the living shit out of some shoplifters, and then put it on video, and then send it around and say, this is our new policy.
You see what we're doing to these shoplifters?
We're going to do this to you.
No more free shoplifting.
That would pretty much reduce shoplifting by 50% in one hour.
Yep.
Now, it's still a major, It's a big exaggeration, but we know what he means, right?
If you know how words are used, you know what he means.
I'll go further and say that 60% of all of our political problems are Democrats pretending they don't know how words work.
Oh, well, he said fine people.
Oh, but he said that out of context.
Oh, there's no way a toddler could eat 14 eggs a day.
It's like they don't understand how normal words work in the real world.
And we pretend like this is some kind of political difference.
It's not a political difference.
One side is pretending they don't know how language works.
What's up with that?
It's like every topic you always get back to, well, but if you knew how words work, I think you'd look at this differently.
Julian Assange says the CIA targeted his wife and his son and him.
And he said that by 2017, WikiLeaks knew that the CIA had infiltrated the French political parties and spying on the French and German leaders.
And he said that the CIA director at the time, Pompeo, launched a campaign of retribution.
And according to Assange, he says it's now a matter of public record that under Pompeo's explicit direction, The CIA drew up plans to kidnap and assassinate him within the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and authorize going after his European colleagues, subjecting them to theft, hacking attacks, and planting of false information.
And his wife and son were also targeted, and somebody was assigned, a CIA asset was assigned, to track his wife, and to try to get a DNA sample from his six-month-old diaper.
Okay.
Wow.
It says this is the testimony of more than 30 current and former U.S.
intel officials speaking to the U.S.
press, corroborated, blah, blah, blah.
Wow.
Wow. Wow. You know, it's hard to believe what happens in the real world.
I think the worst parts of our country are the things that we just can't believe because our brain won't allow us.
Like for most of my life, I just assumed it wasn't possible that the CIA killed Kennedy and blamed it on somebody else, because my brain couldn't process that.
It wasn't just that people said, Oh no, it was a lone shooter.
It was that my brain could not handle the idea that the CIA would kill our president and get away with it.
Now I think totally possible.
Don't know.
Don't know for sure.
Cause how would I know for sure?
But is it within the realm of normal behavior that you could observe in your lifetime?
Yup.
Is it possible that some members of the United States tried to kill Trump twice?
I have no knowledge of any connection to anything domestic or international.
But yes, yes, that is within the realm of normal ordinary American business.
Unfortunately, it's within the realm.
All right, what else?
Here's a thing that keeps popping up, that the anecdotal lived experience of what voters are saying on the streets is not matching the polls at all.
So CBS, which as you know is no friend to Trump, Major Garrett, who's the name of a person, he's not a military person, his first name is Major, He talked to 20 voters and they were all made up their mind and they're all Trump voters.
How in the world do you find 20 people in a row that are all Trump voters?
I'm not sure if he said it as clearly as I just said it, so maybe I got that wrong.
But the idea was that if you're in your little bubble and you can't imagine that anybody would like Trump, it completely goes away when you walk out doors.
Because how many times now have we seen a story where somebody you imagine is leaning left, or is part of the left-leaning media, has talked to people on the streets or in a restaurant, and they come back and say, um, a funny thing happened.
Almost everybody I talked to was solidly pro-Trump.
Now, how many times have we seen the same news story with different people in different situations?
And not once.
Not once has somebody come back and said, you know, honestly, everybody said they're voting for Harris.
I don't see how Trump could win.
Now, I get that this is anecdotal.
It's not scientific.
But if all the anecdotes are in the same direction, there has not been one reported anecdote that I've seen where somebody went to some kind of general crowd of citizens and found that most of them supported Harris.
Yeah.
I think there's some fake news on Kamala Harris taking a phone call about the flood.
I saw it in the comments.
Somebody said that.
So there's a story that Kamala Harris has a staged photo where she's got a phone on an airplane.
It's on her little table in front of her.
But at the same time, she's looking at the phone like she's having this call with flood officials or something.
She's got an earpiece in.
That's got a wire.
It's a wired earpiece that goes down some, you know, it's not attached to the phone.
So people said, um, she's pretending that she's on the phone call, but it's staged because you can tell she doesn't have her earpiece plugged into the phone.
That's fake news.
That's fake news for at least one of two reasons.
Number one, You wouldn't be able to tell from the picture whether it was plugged in.
Because if the wire went from where it was into her lap, and then back up into the back of the phone, you wouldn't be able to see it.
Necessarily.
Right?
So first of all, it might have been plugged into the phone.
Secondly, if she was using the speakerphone, and she just didn't feel like taking out the earpiece that she uses all the time, because we've seen her with the earpiece on, She may have just been having a voice call on the speakerphone, and she just didn't bother to take out her earpiece.
Which would be fine, because you can hear fine as long as the earpiece is not on.
Thirdly, people, all photos are staged.
If you thought this was the one non-staged photo, No, all photos are staged.
All the political ones.
They're all staged.
So whether or not she was on a real phone call, it doesn't make any difference.
I mean, I don't think she made up the fact she made a phone call.
But no, it's fake news at least three different ways.
I don't know which of them is more applicable.
But that's not a story.
You've got like 40 people dead in two states underwater.
And you're worried about a staged photo?
Nothing's less important than that.
You can't go lower than that in importance.
Um, Trump has said that if, uh, Elon Musk has said, if Trump loses, he said, quote, to be precise, the machine that controls the Kamala puppet will come after me and even more than it currently does.
I think that's true.
He's in trouble.
There's a story about Laurene Powell Jobs, who was Steve Jobs' widow.
Apparently she's just about best friends with Kamala Harris, and she owns The Atlantic, and The Atlantic is this anti-Trump garbage propaganda piece.
And they say she has a hidden but key role in ousting Biden, and she might be the most essential confidante.
Isn't that interesting that Steve Jobs did so much for the country?
If you look at, you know, the economic success of Apple and what it gave us and everything.
Um, but also may have been one of the, you may have married a woman who after he died was instrumental in destroying it.
Cause I already made the argument that the Democrat policies look like they're designed to destroy the country.
It's hard to imagine they would have any other purpose.
And she is a key player in that.
Funder, press, confidant.
So this problem of rich, capable people leaving their money to stupid people is a real problem.
So, billionaires, think twice about who you're leaving your money to.
I don't know what Steve Jobs would have said about politics, or maybe he just would have stayed out of it, which would have been the right play, actually.
But, I mean, this is terrible.
You look at, what's his name, Bezos, Jeff Bezos' wife, takes her many billions of dollars and becomes a major donor.
So, yeah, it's a problem.
So the second attempted assassination guy, Ruth, pled not guilty.
Now you might say, how in the world could he be not guilty?
They have every evidence in the world.
But I listened to an Alan Dershowitz podcast, The Ders Show, and he said something that just blew my mind.
First of all, he says he might be the world's best expert in this domain, so I always listen to him.
Here's the issue.
It's not, it wasn't an assassination, because nobody got killed.
But it also, perhaps, and this is Dershowitz's take, it might not be, it might not be an attempt.
Because if they can show that Trump was never where he could have aimed his gun at him, then you have failed to prove an attempt.
You may have proved that there was some mental thought, that you were definitely thinking about it.
But if there was never any chance you could have done it, then they can't get you on the murder or the attempt, because no attempt happened.
So, your common sense says, that was an attempt.
That was definitely an attempt.
You didn't pull the trigger, but that was an attempt.
But apparently the law does make a distinction that if you didn't get the actual literal ability to do it, you never satisfied attempt.
Now I might be wrong on the legal part of that.
So listen to the Durst show if you want more on that.
Um, so Israel is going into Lebanon.
Um, I would expect that you're not going to hear, you're not going to see or hear much about it from the press because it would be too dangerous for the press and neither side wants the press in there, I don't think.
So it's going to be weirdly quiet for a war.
And here's some of the things we know.
Um, the timing is kind of perfect.
Because America is so distracted that Israel probably can just get away with more than they could in a normal situation.
If we had a strong president who was in office and had three more years to go, I think they'd have to work with us a little more closely.
Now, at the moment, America is claiming, well, we didn't know.
Well, we weren't filled in.
I think that's probably all not true.
But they can claim it and people say, Oh, okay.
America's off the hook a little bit, not totally, but at least a little bit.
Cause you weren't directly involved in this.
So it's probably smart that America pretends not to be involved or they pretend as hard as they can not to be involved with every single part of it.
Uh, it's just good for America to not look like we're just doing whatever Israel wants us to do.
But, uh, Here's what Netanyahu said in a longer speech.
He talked about Iran, and he clearly is trying to keep Iran from entering the fight.
And he said, quote, when Iran is finally free... Why would he be talking about Iran being free?
The context is free from their own bad leadership.
He goes, when Iran is finally free, and that moment will come a lot sooner than people think, Wait, what?
Iran is going to be free and it's going to come sooner than people think?
Does that suggest that Israel knows something about the fate of Iran that Iran itself does not know?
That's the suggestion.
The suggestion is that Israel, maybe they'll do something that would free Iran, which would suggest, it suggests decapitating the leadership.
Now, Could you ever imagine, could you have imagined a year ago that Israel could just kill the leaders of Iran and that would be okay and life would go on?
No, you can't even imagine it.
Could you have imagined two months ago that Israel could decapitate the entire leadership of Hezbollah and nobody would blink?
Because that happened.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
Now, once they've established that they could take out the entire leadership in a week, what do you think Iran is thinking about the spies in their midst and how safe their leadership is?
In my opinion, Israel always knows where the leadership in Iran is.
I think their spies and their intelligence are probably that good by now.
It was certainly that good for Hezbollah.
That means that the decision of whether the leadership of Iran lives or dies is now completely in Netanyahu's hands.
He will decide if the Ayatollah is alive in a month.
Literally.
And I believe he's telling him that.
Now, he can't say that directly.
But if you say, when Iran is finally free, free, and that moment will come a lot sooner than people think, wait a minute, What do you know that we don't know?
Oh, we just watched the leadership of Hezbollah disappear.
Then he says, then everything will be different.
He said, our two ancient peoples, the Jewish people and the Persian people, will finally be at peace.
I just love that sentence.
I don't know if it's because I like I like watching science fiction.
I don't know what it is exactly, but just listen to this sentence again.
Our two ancient peoples, the Jewish people and the Persian people, will finally be at peace.
That's just sort of a perfect sentence, because it reframes it as not today's problem.
But it kind of reframes it as you're the adults, but somebody has sort of hijacked your civilization.
As soon as you get rid of the hijackers of your civilization, you'll go back to some normal thing where the two ancient peoples don't have a reason to not get along, right?
So as long as you don't have a border dispute, Or one side isn't funding terrorists.
You don't really have a reason to fight.
You could just go back to two ancient peoples getting along.
So I love Netanyahu making people think past the sale.
The sale is the getting rid of their leadership and then thinking past it too.
That's going to be awesome for all of us.
He goes on, quote, when that day comes, wait a minute, when that day comes, he's thinking past the sale again.
He's not saying it might come.
He just said when that day comes.
Again, really good.
When that day comes, the terror network that the regime built in five continents will go bankrupt, dismantled.
He continued, Iran will thrive as never before.
Global investment, massive tourism, brilliant technological innovation based on the tremendous talents that exist inside Iran.
Doesn't that sound better than endless poverty, repression and war?
Perfect.
Right?
So that's a Trumpian way to deal with North Korea.
You don't go to North Korea and say, we can destroy you if you don't behave.
Nope.
You say, do we have any reason to fight?
We don't have a reason to fight.
But you know what?
We do have a reason to help you rebuild.
If you want to build into a nice peaceful friend, we'll help you out.
So you got to give them an option that isn't win or lose a fight.
Because if you give them the option of win or lose the fight, they're going to say, well, we choose winning.
Everybody wants to win.
So if you give them only a choice of winning or losing, they're going to fight like hell to win and kill you in the process if they need to.
If you say, here's the deal.
As soon as you and I get rid of our common enemy, which is your leadership, we don't have any reason to fight.
In fact, do you know what Iran would look like if you got rid of the Ayatollah?
Global investment, massive tourism.
Does anybody doubt that those two things are true?
That if the current regime were replaced with something that looked more democratic, do you have any doubt, any doubt at all, that there would be massive investment in Iran?
No.
Because like he says, they have a tremendously talented public.
If they didn't have a tremendously talented public, then you'd say, well, nobody's going to invest in that.
But Iran is probably one of the most investable places on earth that hasn't been fully invested.
So yes, there's no doubt about it.
Global investment would be massive.
Tourism would be through the roof.
We know that.
And then he says, he puts it in the form of a question, which again, is perfect persuasion.
You don't tell them, you ask them.
Right?
Have I told you that before?
Put it in the form of a question, and then people don't have an automatic resistance.
They just answer their own question.
It's way, way better to get around the automatic resistance.
Doesn't that sound better than endless poverty, repression, and war?
Yes.
Yes.
Now, here's my interpretation, which is by no means certain, but my interpretation.
I think that Israel doesn't want to take a chance of taking out the leadership of Iran.
I don't think they want that, because that could be real unpredictable.
I think they definitely want Iran to think it's an option, like right at the top of the option list.
I think they succeeded.
I think that Iran now is completely on board with the credibility that Israel will kill their leadership if they if they get involved in the Lebanon action.
I think the most important thing that Netanyahu wanted was to make sure that Israel or that Iran stands down and they don't send any people or extra weapons into Lebanon.
I think he's going to get that.
I would go further and say I guarantee you that Israel has a specific plan for killing the Ayatollah.
You would agree with that, right?
They definitely have a plan for doing that, and it would depend on where he is and what he's doing.
But they probably have three different contingencies.
If he's here, we kill him this way.
If he's here, we kill him that way.
Yeah.
The way I put it is, I think Israel proves they can get to any leader at all by using Hezbollah as a speed bag.
So, every day that you watch Israel completely dominate militarily, technologically, strategically, communication-wise, weaponry, watching them dominate Hezbollah, that two months before, two months before we had said, Oh, Hezbollah, 100,000 rockets.
You're certainly not going to want to do a land invasion there once they look.
No, Israel just took them off the map.
They just, they just shut down their communication, eliminated their ability to do a mass attack.
And now they'll just take their time.
There's not even a leadership or a communication network that Hezbollah can use to regroup.
It's basically already a mop-up operation.
So the thing that you thought was going to be this impossible war.
Turned into a mop-up operation in two weeks, losing barely any Israeli lives.
But you know what is even more impressive?
I don't know if this is accidental.
This is probably mostly accidental.
But the hardest part of the fighting in Lebanon is going to come on the anniversary of October 7th.
And all questions are answered.
So if you're going to say, let's criticize Israel for attacking this sovereign country instead of trying to make peace, which would be impossible, here's the answer to that.
This is the one year anniversary of October 7th.
I know, I know, but we're not talking about Gaza, we're not talking about Hamas.
Now this is Lebanon, it's a whole different situation.
Why can't we work out peace?
This is the one-year anniversary of October 7th.
I know, I know, but that's, you know, I see how you're relating these, but stop, stop conflating these.
Stop conflating.
This is different.
It's the one-year anniversary of October 7th.
That's all you have to say.
That's basically the free pass for Israel to completely annihilate Hezbollah Even at what will be way too expensive a cost in innocent life, they get a free pass.
They're never going to have that free pass again.
Never.
So if they don't do it now, it's probably undoable forever.
So let me do a little test.
I believe I've been telling you for months that Israel taking out Hezbollah was guaranteed.
It was because of all these factors that they would never have a better chance to do it.
And they're not dumb.
So if you say we have the ability, we're very smart, there'll never be another chance to do it, and it's critical to our survival.
Of course it's going to happen.
But correct me if I'm wrong, I think all the experts said it wouldn't.
And I said, yeah, it has to.
Like, it's obvious it's going to happen.
They'd be insane not to do it.
Even though it's very risky, they'd be crazy not to do it.
There's never going to be another chance like this.
So, I remind you that I don't support Israel.
I don't unsupport them.
It's not my business.
I observe them, and when they do good things, I say, wow, that was impressive.
If they do bad things, I'll tell you, wow, that was bad.
But I don't support them because they don't support me.
Which I mean that literally.
I think support should be reciprocal.
Or at least you think that they would if you needed it.
You know, it doesn't mean they have to do it, but would they if you needed it?
Well, I need help from Israel.
I would like them to disavow the ADL, who came after me and called me a Holocaust denier.
In public!
The head of the ADL said that.
If Israel were to, you know, disavow them and say, the ADL, you know, we don't support them, and don't listen to them, then I'd say, whoa, they supported me, and then I would support them.
But if they don't support me, I'll just talk about them, if you don't mind.
And everybody gets to support themselves.
All right, I remind you, the Dilbert 2025 calendar, page a day calendar, is back.
It's made in America for the first time.
The only place you can get it is at the link on Dilbert.com.
Not on Amazon.
It won't be on Amazon.
That's the way I can make it in America.
It's a long story.
And also, uh, Winn Bigley has been reissued hardcover only.
Look for the one with the mostly blue hardcover.
This is a second edition and it's a little bit updated.
It's updated through, uh, Trump's first assassination attempt.
It's all about persuasion.
And if you'd like to learn how to be a persuader as good as Netanyahu, Then, uh, and as good as Trump, then I teach you how to do it.
So the book is not so much politics as it is persuasion through the lens of politics.
So learn about persuasion.
It'll make you important.
Um, is there any, any story that I left out today?
We're going to watch the, uh, if you're on locals, we're going to do a live stream for the local supporters.
During the VP debate tonight.
All right.
Looks like we've done what we need to do.
Thanks for listening.
Sorry this took too long.
I'm going to talk to the locals people just for a minute.
And the rest of you, we'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.