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, JD Vance, Tim Walz, David Axelrod, Abby Philip, Joe Scarborough, Moderator Fact-Checking, Vance Command Voice, Walz Pleading Voice, Vance's Side-Eye, VP Debate Virility, VP Debate Deportation, VP Debate J6, Crazy-Eyes Lying Tell, VP Debate Clean Energy, Fire in Crowded Theater, VP Debate Pre-Existing Conditions, President Trump 60 Minutes, Sean Combs Allegations, CEO Resignations, Marine Le Penn Lawfare, Calley Means, CDC Non-Profit Foundation, Israel Iran Tensions, Doug Emhoff, AI Consciousness, 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
Well, there I am so good-looking Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've probably never had a better day than this.
And it's just starting.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels where no human can even understand it with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stine, 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, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Hmm. Hmm.
Yep. Yep, that's some good stuff.
We will, of course, be talking about the debate.
I'll give you a little science updates while people are streaming in and getting ready for this.
There's a study that's a fan of Ohio State University highlighting the pervasiveness of inflammation in the American diet.
And I was wondering, don't you think that food labels should include inflammation?
Because people don't really know what causes inflammation and what actually solves it.
And my biggest problem with food is inflammation.
That's why I avoid most food.
Certainly I'll process food if I can.
So I think inflammation should be listed on the food.
Does it or does it not?
This is a cool thing.
There's a big breakthrough in housing.
So there's this robotic micro factory company.
Let's see, it's called AUAR. And they're shipping robot containers to build a house.
So you know a shipping container, what that looks like?
Well, they'll put one robotic, you know, house building robot in it.
And then it arrives and they just put down the sides of the shipping container and it's basically a little factory.
You'd have to put it indoors in a warehouse.
But basically you could gin up, it looks like, you could spin up a factory that builds homes.
And you could build your own factory that builds homes as easily as shipping in some shipping containers, putting them on the floor of your warehouse, and then just opening up the sides of the shipping containers.
And then all of a sudden you've got a whole factory to build a house.
Each of the shipping containers would have a different little robotic thing that makes parts or whatever it does.
So they're called micro factories.
Oh my goodness, that's exciting.
And by the way, this is not speculative.
They're already in operation.
So when you talk about the Trump idea of using federal land to build new cities, here's the way to do it.
Just ship in some micro factories and start building those houses for cheap.
Did I see that a SpaceX crew has arrived at the International Space Station and that they're getting ready to rescue those astronauts?
I thought that was going to take months longer.
But it's already happening?
Can somebody confirm that?
It was like it's too big of a story not to be on the front page, but it was sort of a small story.
So I'm not even sure.
I'm seeing some yeses.
I feel like that should have been the biggest story, and it just got sort of a mention.
Anyway, there's probably a reason for that.
So within the last few weeks, Elon Musk has rescued two astronauts and donated Starlink internet to the flood zones.
So what did you do?
Did you get anything done this week?
Because Elon Musk just rescued two people in space, in space, and brought internet to flood victims.
That's not bad. Not bad for a week.
Well, he also posted, I think it was today, a link for Pennsylvanians to register to vote.
Now, what happens when Elon Musk, who's got over 100 million followers, posts a link for Pennsylvanians to register to vote?
At some point, it almost seems like election interference.
It's not, because it's just free speech.
But that's got to move the needle.
Don't you think if you've got this narrow little race in Pennsylvania, and it could be who knows how close it could be, and then the biggest social media account in the world, most credible person, tells you to register to vote and then gives you the URL. I think that moves the election.
That seems like a big deal to me.
Well, we'll see. Alright, let's talk about that VP debate.
Now, here is my take.
So here's a little picture I was drawing on my whiteboard.
If you think that the details of the debate and the policies and things make a difference, we'll talk a little bit about that, but the fact is this was sort of a vibe situation.
I'm not sure how many topics or policies anybody's going to remember after that debate, but you're definitely going to remember how it made you feel.
So, the first thing you need to know is that Vance is young and handsome and way smarter than Walsh and confident and look good.
And Walsh sort of looked like he was doing this impression of Chris Farley.
Do you remember Chris Farley from Saturday Night Live?
And he looked all nervous.
And his body wouldn't stop moving.
And it was very...
You know, only him.
He's the only person in the world that ever looked like Chris Farley.
Is Chris Farley. Until now.
But Walsh gave me that vibe.
So, let's run down the...
I'll get into the details, but let me tell you what other people said.
So, well, first of all, Vance won the debate.
So, if I can just skip to the end.
Vance won the debate.
Like, easily, by a lot.
Even the New York Times advances dominant debate performance.
So that was a title in the New York Times, an opinion piece.
David Axelrod, big Democrat strategist kind of guy, he did a post where he said, here's the thing, VPs don't make policy, presidents do.
Who talks about the Pence years?
So Axelrod, Presumably seeing that the VP contest wasn't going his way, decided to tell you that it wasn't important at all.
Yeah. When you lose, you say that contest wasn't even important.
When you win, most important thing that ever happened in the history of politics.
So if David Axelrod wants you to think that it wasn't important, he must agree that fans won.
We assume. We can't read his mind, but maybe that's what it means.
Meanwhile, CNN's Abby Phillip, she criticized Walsh for not being prepared.
So imagine how poorly you would have to do as a Democrat for Abby Phillip on CNN to flat out say you look like you weren't prepared for it.
Ouch. If you ask me, not prepared is the deepest insult you could get for a VP or presidential debate.
Because you can kind of understand when people misspeak or, you know, they don't do a good job on a question.
Kind of normal. But if you see somebody who looks like they didn't prepare, that's pretty bad.
Yeah, that's pretty bad.
And, uh, um, and they said that, uh, Yeah. Anyway.
They just didn't think...
CNN didn't think he did great.
So ABC News said the Trump-Harris moderator...
Oh.
The ABC News host, who had been the prior moderator for the presidential debate, said that Walsh reminded her of a Biden flop.
Okay, that's pretty bad.
That's pretty bad. So even the people who are unambiguously pro-Democrat in their normal reporting seem to have seen the same debate I did.
Which is, there was a winner and there was a loser, and it definitely wasn't a tie.
But you know who says it was a tie?
Well, MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, trying to find anything positive to say about it, said, quote, If the goal is to make Tim Walz, our Midwest neighbor, a nice guy, it's mission accomplished.
Tim Walz got exactly what he needed out of this, and so did Kamala Harris.
Okay. Now, I've told you that I only watch MSNBC for the humor.
This is what I mean.
Watching Joe Scarborough try as hard as he can to polish a turd in public.
All right, I've got this big turd.
Watch what I do with it.
What do you think? Yeah, it's still a turd.
But did you even notice how well I polished it?
It's polished, people.
It's polished. That's what it feels like.
Every time I turn it on, I just laugh.
First of all, I love the fact that the society has decided to ignore the fact that MSNBC, at least half of the hosts, are clearly obviously mentally ill.
Now, the fact that we all act like we don't notice it, hmm, let's act like we don't notice that Joy Reid is obviously mentally ill.
So, anyway, if they're willing to put those people in the air, I'm willing to laugh at them.
Well, let's see.
MSNBC's Nicole Wallace went crazy, said that Vance tried to mansplain to a woman.
I'm not sure I saw Vance do any mansplaining.
I did see the hosts violate their own rules and try to fact check him during the debate.
And he did call them out on fact checking him and violating their own rules.
And then he did bowl right over them.
By the way, you've probably seen a million debates where the debater tries to talk past the time limit, and the host cut them off in a variety of ways.
Cut the microphone or whatever.
But Vance actually got them to stop cutting him off.
And that's something I don't know if I've ever seen.
So they start to cut him off, and Vance says loudly enough that we could hear it at home, the rules were that you would not fact check me, right after they'd fact checked him.
That just stopped him cold.
Because they must have understood that they just broke their own most important rule.
If there was one thing that the debate hosts had to accomplish, And you can almost imagine that maybe they got, you know, briefed ahead of time by management.
All right, look, there's one thing you can't do.
Just promise me there's one thing you won't do.
Do not fact check one of them.
Just one of them and then not fact check the other.
It's better if you don't fact check anybody.
But definitely, definitely don't fact check just the Republican.
And then they fact check just the Republican.
The biggest fail you could possibly do.
Such a big fail that the conversation on the right is whether Republicans should ever have another televised debate.
And you know what?
That's actually the right question.
It's not clear to me that Republicans should ever, again, for any office, have a televised debate.
Because it's just a trap.
All it is is a Democrat trap.
Why would you do it? Now, you can imagine a scenario where the hosts were not in the bag for one or the other.
But it doesn't happen.
So if it doesn't ever happen, why would you keep agreeing to it?
There's got to be a better way.
All right, here is my take on...
On all of them. So Vance, he has what I call command voice, whereas Walsh has what I call pleading voice.
Now, I've talked about this before.
Command voice would be, I'll do an impression of command voice.
The Albanians have attacked us.
We're going to build a big army force.
We're going to attack Albania.
We're going to destroy it and drive it back into the Stone Age.
Now that's command voice.
Here's pleading voice.
Why do you keep saying that?
We have to do this.
We're going to have to do this.
And things go wrong. And why don't we do this?
And you've got to, you said that, but you said, but you said before, you said before.
Not even close. If the only thing you did was listen to the two of them, one of them looked like a leader and Like a born leader, really.
A born leader, Vance.
And Walsh looked like Chris Farley, trying to do an impression of somebody doing a presidential debate but not having any tools to do it.
He was really terrible.
All right, some more on Vance.
Vance was younger, better looking, He was confident.
He was brilliant.
You could tell his intelligence just by the way he answered things.
He was serious, but not too serious.
You didn't dislike him for his seriousness.
He was just about the right amount of serious.
He did a good job of making sure that he focused forward and didn't do a lot of talking about What may or may not happen in the past or what he may not have to explain.
He did a reasonably good job of avoiding the most divisive questions, but at the same time, it's obviously he avoided some of them.
So his January 6th answer, I didn't love, but at least he did the positive looking forward Trump left on January 20th, just like everybody always does.
So I'd give him a C +, maybe a C- on his answer for January 6th, but I don't think it hurt him.
I understand the Democrats are going to do some kind of commercial about his answer about that.
But I think people probably made up their decisions about January 6th.
I would say that was his one obvious mistake.
They didn't handle January 6th better, the questions about it.
I think that Vance solved Trump's biggest problem, which is he seems scary.
And People would worry, oh my God, it's going to be Trumpism forever or scary people.
And then Vance comes in and does such a good job of just seeming like a good person that it really takes the sting out of thinking that Trump is going to be dangerous.
The way I look at vice presidents...
I don't know if other people do this, but I think of the vice president as the, you know, emergency backup tire, but also as somebody who would be the first and best check on a president who is going to be excessive.
Because a vice president has the ultimate power that I've never seen, I don't think anybody's ever used it.
But imagine a vice president who said, if you do this, I'm going to resign.
I don't know if anybody's ever made that threat, but can you imagine a sitting vice president in any administration saying, if you do that, I'm out.
I'm resigning. It would be, first of all, a threat you could definitely do, so you wouldn't have to wonder if they could pull off the threat.
Yeah, people can quit.
They can do that. But imagine what a humiliation that would be for your administration.
So I always think that vice-presidents have a hidden power, not just the 25th Amendment if it's needed, but the power to simply say, you know what, I'm out.
There's something going on that's so bad that I can't even be part of it.
I take my name out, I'm gone.
So when I look at a vice-president, I say to myself, could you do that?
Could you do that? Are you a serious enough, smart enough, patriotic enough person that if it came down to the good of the country, you could quit?
And I think Vance could.
And he looks like he would be the, you know, certainly the reasonable, smart voice of any room.
So he does give me comfort with Trump, even though I prefer Trump.
And I still got some comfort knowing that there would be somebody of his quality in the room.
So, you know, you tell me somebody joined the military.
Do I have to wonder if they would quit a job if their boss went too far?
Nope. No.
He joined the military during a time of war.
I mean, you don't have to wonder if he's brave.
That question's already answered.
So yeah. So I think you did well on that.
He did the best side eye you've ever seen.
It's already turning into a meme featuring Jim from The Office.
You know, the character Jim from the TV show The Office would break what they call breaking the fourth wall.
He would look at the audience.
He'd just give them that look.
Well, Vance had the best side eye look that I've ever seen in a debate.
Everybody noticed. It was just he'd give that look.
It wasn't a mocking look.
It was sort of a, are you hearing what I'm hearing look?
Which was just right.
You don't want to go too far.
I don't love it when the other debate person who's in the split screen is doing all the faces like...
You know, sometimes it works.
But I don't love looking at it.
But that side eye that Vance gave him, you're seeing it in the comments, that was perfect.
Now here's another mistake that Walsh made on the debate.
Since they knew it was mostly a split screen, I guess I can get rid of this now.
Since they knew it was mostly a split screen, somebody should have told Walsh, never turn sideways.
Because when Vance was looking forward and talking, sometimes Walsh would just turn directly sideways.
He should have been taught not to do that.
So when you hear Abby Phillips say he didn't look like he was prepared, that would be one that stood out.
That should have been right on the top three things that he had been prepared for.
Don't turn directly sideways.
You saw that when Vance did the side eye, he was a little bit facing, but his side eye was toward the audience.
Perfect. Perfect.
That's exactly the right body language.
Let's see what else. I think the funniest thing from the debate is if you're really looking for the vibe, you know, does one project power and you're always looking for which one would you want to have a beer with?
You know, that was the old test.
Do you like these characters?
Would you want to have a beer with one of them?
Well, there's another thing that I do besides the beer test.
Do you want to mate with them?
Now, nobody thinks that intentionally.
Like, nobody has the thought, hmm, I'd like to mate with that one.
Like, nobody has that conscious thought.
But... But subconsciously, it drives all of our decisions.
We're basically mating creatures.
Mating is our basic operating system.
We're looking to mate. Because it's the only thing we have to get right.
If you can mate and make new copies of yourself, then your civilization succeeds.
So mating is the thing that drives everything, even when we don't consciously know our decisions are based on it.
So I think that women, in particular, would be looking at the two candidates and thinking, which one would they want to mate with?
So that would be the equivalent of men saying, who would you have a beer with, if it's male candidates.
Now, if you look at it on that level, who would you want to have mate with?
Obviously, you know, one's better looking and younger, so he wins on that.
But the funniest part to me is that Vance talks about having his three young children, which automatically makes you look like a mating stud.
Three children? Wow, you just pumped out three children with this beautiful, accomplished woman?
That's some good mating right there.
And then Walsh drops into one of his answers that he had to use some kind of fertility enhancements to have a baby.
Now, I don't know if the fertility enhancements were because of him or his wife, and I don't want to get into any kind of I'm just saying that in the context of a debate,
When one of them is young and says, I just pumped out three beautiful babies, and the other one says, my balls don't work, even though I don't even know if the infertility or the treatment had anything to do with them, I have no idea what the actual details are.
But the contrast is one is a mating machine, and the other one...
He barely could do it when he was young enough.
So that's just a devastating contrast right there at the subconscious level.
So this is the hypnotist's take.
I'm trying to come up with stuff that won't be obviously said by every pundit all day long.
So that's the hypnotist's take.
He was asked how would he handle the deportations.
That's a dangerous question, because if he said we're going to wrap up all 25 million and send them back, that would sound like too much for most people in the country.
But he did the smart thing.
He said that they'd start with criminals.
He didn't really answer if he was going to separate people from their families in deportations, but he kept focusing on, you know, we're going to take care of the, get rid of the criminals.
That was the best you could do.
Best you could do on that answer.
His answer on January 6th was sort of to avoid it when I thought that was an opportunity to really hit a win.
If he had gone after January 6th and mocked it, as in, well, you know, there's nobody who's a Republican who thinks you can take over a country by trespassing.
We do, you know, and then you say something like, of course we disavow all the violence.
None of that was appropriate, and certainly the president called for a peaceful protest.
Then the second part is, but, but, but, he had those fake electors.
Then you say, Well, that was a legal maneuver.
His lawyers said that this would be a good thing to do to establish your right.
And we just assumed that the courts would work it out or, you know, it would just be a normal process.
And then, sure enough, the process worked the way it does.
And on January 20th, the president left peacefully just like every other administration.
And if this happens again...
We'd like to, we might ask you to look into it again.
If there's something that looks obviously rigged, I think that you would want to look into it as well as I would.
Why would only one of us want to look into it if there was something that looked clearly anawak?
I would hope, I would hope, Mr.
Walsh, Tim, I would hope you would join me in that call.
If the elections look so far out of what we expect to be normal, let's say you had a How about this one?
You say, on the question of will you accept the election, say, I think we can all agree on this.
Tim, would you accept an election result if you found out the three of the precincts were 100% votes for one candidate when we both know that that would be impossible?
Would you join me in calling for a brief delay in the certification just to make sure that there wasn't any shenanigans if we see something that really stands out?
I'm not talking about something subtle, but something really stands out as a problem.
Would you join me in asking for the state that was involved to look into it a little bit?
Just imagine that answer.
That's a total kill shot.
And he had the opening, and he didn't take it.
Now, maybe what he did was the very best thing he could have done.
Because even though I so cleverly tell you how to make that a kill shot, when the fake news gets a hold of it, it just gives them another reason to talk about January 6th.
And they won't do the good argument, they'll just say something like, Vance says he won't do a peaceful turnover.
They would turn it into some completely different answer if they had to.
So maybe the very smartest thing he could do is to be boring on that question and say, focus on the future.
Trump left on January 20th.
Let's move on. Let's focus forward.
Maybe. I'm going to say I would have preferred the kill shot But I'm not so confident he didn't make the right play.
So I guess I'm going to be humble in my own opinion about that.
He might have done the right thing by just taking the energy out of it.
Maybe that was enough.
Here's Walsh. He had that bleeding voice.
He did not have, and I wondered if he would, when there was no audience and the stakes were high, he did not act in his flamboyant way.
You know, when he waves, he waves with his middle fingers.
Hey, don't ever wave like that.
Wave like that. If you have to wave, wave like that.
If you're going to put one arm in the air, Here's a way to do it.
Yay! Yay!
Do it like that. You don't want to do it like you're Liberace sashaying across the stage.
Don't do that.
Don't do that. If you're going to clap to the audience to return their applause, try to do something like this.
Don't do this. No, don't do that.
But he didn't do those things during the debate.
He did not. If you're going to point to something, use both fingers or make sure that one of your hands is by your side.
For example, this would be good pointing like that.
That's good pointing.
This is good pointing too.
This arm by the side.
That's good pointing.
Here's bad pointing.
This hand need not be involved.
We don't need to see this one.
Yeah, don't do that.
So he didn't do any of the weird body language, which I imagined he would not because there's no audience.
So I think having no audience allowed him to be as non-weird and creepy as he could be.
And I will give him an A+. In not being creepy.
Because he's creepy as hell when he appears in front of crowds.
I'm not going to change my opinion on that.
But did he successfully conceal any creepiness?
Yes, he did. I'm going to give him credit for that.
He talked about how the Harris campaign was about joy.
About joy. So he's on the joy team.
And there he is. There's that picture I drew of him showing all of his joy.
It's really tough to have somebody with an upside-down mouth on the joy team.
Because I don't know if you've ever seen this, but this is what a smile looks like.
Like the edges of the mouth go higher than the middle.
This is what a waltz just standing there looks like.
No joy. You know, he has a resting, unjoyful face.
Yeah, resting, unjoyful face.
I just made that up. And let's see.
He did seem...
The single biggest thing everybody noticed was he would look nervous.
The nervousness, I think, more than any single thing is the story of the debate.
Vance looked not nervous whatsoever.
Not even a little.
He looks like he was born to do that.
Nobody said that Vance wasn't prepared or that he was well prepared.
Oh, think about that.
I just realized what a big deal that is.
Think about the fact that one of them is a subject of the conversation of whether he is prepared.
When we watched Kamala Harris, many of us, including me, said, wow, she's very prepared.
Very prepared.
Right? When you watched Vance, was there any point where you even thought to yourself that he was underprepared or very prepared?
I never had either of those thoughts.
You know why? He just was.
He looked like that's just who he is.
He simply acted like he could do this on a moment's notice.
I'm assuming he was very prepared.
But what I'm saying is that he didn't come off as a prepared person for a debate.
He came off as somebody who could do this, you know, anytime you wanted.
Like you could just say, hey, hey, Vance, we're having an instant debate.
You ready? Yeah, okay.
And then he would do the same thing that he did in front of you.
Like it would just be so natural and good.
The fact that we don't even have the conversation with About whether he was under-prepared or over-prepared or just prepared enough.
Means that preparation was completely missing from his presentation.
Perfect. That would be the gold standard.
The gold standard is you can't tell if he prepared or he's always this way.
And he nailed it.
That's really the story of the debate to me.
But Waltz looked like an old, nervous, old, weird troll with an upside-down smile and crazy saucer eyes.
And, you know, I often talk about the crazy eyes.
If you watch politicians with the sound off and pundits as well, when their eyes go big like saucers, that's when they know they're lying.
When people know that they're telling the truth and that you could check it and you could see it was the truth, They don't widen their eyes like that.
It's just something you do when you know that what you're saying isn't credible, but you're trying to sell it anyway.
And my God, did he have that.
Did you ever see that once, even once, on Vance?
Did Vance ever go wide-eyed?
Nope. And that is another sign that he didn't think he was lying.
Now let me ask you this.
Do you remember any lies that Vance told?
Because generally they both get fact checked.
Do you remember any lies he told?
I don't remember any.
There were definitely questions he avoided and got called out for it, rightfully.
So he definitely avoided questions.
But did he tell a lie?
I'm not sure. I don't remember one.
You know, even when Trump does a debate, I'm always completely aware when he's using his hyperbole, as I like to say, I can tell when Trump is saying something that's not going to pass a fact-checker.
I mean, you can spot it without any effort, because usually it's already been fact-checked.
He'll say things that have already been fact-checked, you know, just like Wallace does, just like Harris does.
The normal politician thing.
But I don't know that I've seen Vance say something that's just not true.
Think about that.
That's kind of a big deal.
Now, people argue that he didn't frame the January 6th just right, or maybe he had some spin on it or something, but that's different than lying.
That's different than just saying something that's not true.
But Walsh had a few things that weren't true.
I remember those. It could be that I just have selective memory and maybe it was closer to even.
I don't know. Let's see.
Here's my other hypnotist take.
This is backed by science.
Did you know that women who are using hormonal birth control, this has been well proven, this is now some weird science, for decades it's been studied and every time they look at it, it comes out the same.
If you're on hormonal birth control, you like somebody who looks like sort of a good dad-husband kind of thing.
You know, just a nice beta dad body, take care of the kids, have a good income kind of thing.
And if you're not on hormonal birth control, you tend to like the bad boys, the handsome boys, the dangerous boys.
So, if you look at Vance and Walsh, I'm pretty sure that the women who are on hormonal birth control are going to prefer Walsh.
On average, obviously, I'm not talking about every single person.
Yes, I understand that there's such a thing as Republicans and Democrats, and sometimes they're just going to go for their team and it's not going to be anything to do with hormonal birth control.
I get it. You remember, the elections might be a 1% or 2% difference in the end.
So if it made any difference at all scientifically, I think that Vance would get the people, more support from people not on birth control, hormonal birth control, and Walsh would get the ones who are on hormonal birth control.
I think that's real, by the way.
I'm not saying that because it's funny.
I think that's absolutely real.
But not moving big numbers.
Might move a few people.
Well, Walsh lied about apparently being in Hong Kong And I don't really care about that.
You know, the elections are basically lying contests.
So if I found out, oh no, one of the competitors said he was closer to something famous than he really was, well, that's just sort of politics.
So I don't care that he may have been wrong about being in China during Tiananmen Square, but it But when he tried to explain it, he looked more like somebody who was explaining that he lied.
He just completely blew the situation.
What he could have done is saying, oh yeah, you know, I misspoke about that, but the important thing is, and then talk about something else.
I mean, it would have been so easy to just say, yeah, you know, now that you mention it, or once somebody pointed that out, I thought, oh yeah, I probably had a false memory about that.
So, forget that.
And I wouldn't have cared about it if he just said that.
I thought it was interesting that nobody mentioned eating the cats and dogs.
So Walsh brought up the topic, but he talked about it only generically, as in, you say things about some immigrant communities.
And I thought to myself, say it.
Say it. Say you think that they eat dogs.
Go ahead, say it.
Because I think Vance was ready for it.
I don't know what he would have said, but I think he was ready for it.
So I think the only thing I can imagine here is that Democrats have decided that the eating the cats and the dogs things must have worked better for Trump than it worked for the critics.
Because otherwise it would have been one of the leading things he said.
So I think it's really telling That the Democrat strategists, obviously, the strategists were helping Walsh prepare.
But they must have thought that the eating cats and dogs things ended up working for Trump much better than it worked for them.
And I think that's true. If that's the advice they gave him, stay away from the eating cats and dogs stuff.
That was the right advice.
Because I'm pretty sure that Vance had the kill shot for that.
Vance had a great answer on housing costs.
So the question is, what are you going to do about reducing housing costs?
Because Kamala Harris had a plan for helping first-time house buyers.
And Vance said, if you can, you know, work on energy costs, bringing them down, and they do have ideas for that, reducing regulations, drill more, approve more drilling, etc., That that would bring down the price of everything.
True. Yeah, you bring down energy costs, that brings down the price of everything, including housing.
He said the migrants were causing some competition for housing, so if you didn't have a migrant crisis, maybe the housing wouldn't be impacted.
You could argue whether that really makes a difference in every town.
Probably not every town that makes a difference.
And he said housing regulations could be reduced and that would increase building and increase the supply and decrease the cost.
So those are pretty good answers.
I like the fact that it was a, what do you do about this?
And it sounded like at first I thought, oh, there's nothing you can do about that.
That's going to be hard. And then he had three solid You know, direct answers that would tell me, oh yeah, you could do that.
You could remove... Trump can remove regulations.
That's like a real thing.
Would that affect housing prices?
Oh yeah, it would. Yeah, totally.
Vance was worse on the question of would Trump and Vance separate kids from their parents if he deported people.
I think he avoided that question well enough, but it looked like avoiding a question.
I think Vance avoided some big questions, but maybe that was the right answer.
Maybe just avoiding it was best play.
On climate change, Vance says he and Trump like the clean air and the clean water, and then he brought into the argument something I'd never heard before, which immediately made me perk up, as in, well, that's really smart.
Because if you're trying to figure out how smart they are, you're looking for something new.
So if both of them had just come into the argument and said all the things that, you know, Trump is going to say anyway, or Harris, that would not impress me.
But I had not heard this before.
So, Vance said that if we bring more manufacturing back to America, America uses much cleaner energy than China or India.
So China and India burning a lot of coal, so they got the dirtiest energy.
If we take all of our manufacturing and move it to the place with the dirtiest energy, you're going to get the worst outcome to the climate.
Now, what's interesting about this is he did not doubt that the climate is being changed by human activity.
That would have been probably a mistake.
So he didn't say anything one way or the other.
He simply said, we like clean air and clean water, and if most of the manufacturing happened in the United States, you'd get cleaner energy use and everybody would win.
Worldwide, globally, everybody wins if the manufacturing goes to where the clean energy is.
And I thought to myself, I don't have any counterargument to that.
What's the counterargument to that?
Because China and India definitely use dirtier energy.
You definitely need tons of energy for manufacturing.
We want to move the manufacturing back anyway.
And if we did, manufacturing is one of the biggest uses of energy.
So that was a surprisingly capable answer.
That's the best answer I've heard on the topic, honestly.
I don't think I've ever come up with anything better on my own.
Because the problem is, if you have enough time, You can get into the uncertainty about the science.
But if you don't have much time, that's just a trap.
Because you could make, let's say, a 20-minute pretty good case that the measurements for climate change are not accurate and we've been wrong before and blah, blah, blah.
But if you don't have much time, go for clean air, clean water, bring the manufacturing back.
It will use our cleaner energy to make it.
Oh, that's tight.
That's a tight answer.
The best I've seen.
The best I've seen. Yeah.
Then on the abortion question, which you expect would be really bad for the Republicans because the Democrats are just not going to take anything less than lots of abortion rights.
And I did love...
The way he put it.
So rather than saying something about single cat ladies or some offensive thing about people who are not having babies, he seems to have seen the error of his ways and instead he says plainly that he wants to put it in more of a positive spin for families and children.
And that he said on the topic of abortion, quote, Republicans need to earn trust back on that topic.
And I thought, oh my God, do you know how perfect that is?
Do you know what people really, really want to hear from Republicans?
If you're a Democrat, especially if you're a woman, do you know what you really want to hear them say?
You want to hear them say, we need to earn your trust back.
Because it's humble. It's not, we're right, you're wrong, we're going to control your bodies.
It's, we have an argument that we like children, we like families, and we should do more to support people who get pregnant.
I don't think he said it as directly as that, but that's what I got from it.
In other words, maybe there's adoption, maybe there's better training about not getting pregnant.
Maybe we could encourage people to have the baby anyway and give them some kind of support.
But we need babies.
The country needs babies.
We need babies.
And we need families.
And if he could just say, you know what?
We need to earn your trust back.
But we want to be pro-baby, pro-family.
And that was a strong answer.
Strong answer. Now, that's an answer you give when you know you're not going to convince anybody.
If you can't change their minds, and you're not going to change any minds during a debate, you can at least say, I'm not a jerk.
I want you to be happy.
I want you to achieve the best thing for you and for the country.
So, really good.
Really good answer.
Best you can do. Did you know that Walsh said that it's not okay to yell fire in a crowded theater?
Until this morning, I thought that that was true.
That it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.
The thinking meaning that you would know it would cause danger because people would trample each other.
But apparently the courts have decided that that specifically is legal.
It's free speech.
Why did it take till today for me to know that?
I'll tell you, there's some humility for me.
Every time you find out something is wrong, that you've believed all of your life on an important topic, free speech, and I was just 100% wrong, just like Walsh was.
Now, I'm not going to blame Walsh for being wrong about that.
Because almost the entire country is wrong about that, and it's such a basic question about our freedoms that I'm going to give them a total pass on that.
You got fact-checked, you know, at least on social media.
But yeah, I thought it was true.
It's not true. But this was in response to Vance saying that the Democrats are looking to censor All right.
Here are some things that Walsh said that are false.
He claimed that he says Trump won't cover pre-existing conditions.
Breitbart of fact-checked him.
No, that's not true. Trump very much says directly, doesn't avoid the question.
He does not avoid the question.
Yes, I want to cover those...
I mean, he says it directly.
So for the other side to say the opposite is just a pure lie.
Walsh also said that...
That the Trump administration would have these pregnancy monitors and it's part of the Project 2025 thing.
Nope. There's no mention of anything like that in Project 2025.
And as a bonus, Trump didn't write Project 2025 and doesn't endorse it.
So that's just a total lie.
Just a thing they made up.
All right. The memes from the debate are just wonderful.
There's a meme that even Trump sent around.
Maybe I can find it.
It's easier if I just show you the memes.
All right. So, here's this one.
Let me go to my tab.
I'm not sure what you see.
But we'll find those.
Oh, here's a good one.
All right, so one of the things that Wal said that none of us really understood.
Some say he said it twice, but I don't hear it once.
He said he's friends with school shooters.
Now, obviously, he didn't mean he's friends with school shooters.
But he said it in a clear language.
And so Trump does a meme.
It says, Trump fans 2024.
And then it's got a little asterisk.
And under it it says, not friends with school shooters.
Not friends with school shooters.
That's good. But there's a better one.
There's a better one. Let's see if I can find it.
Hold on. Here it is.
This might remind you of me.
I've often told you that the main thing you want in a vice president is somebody who's not as good as you.
So the meme is Obama just thinking, and he's thinking, I need a VP who's dumber than me.
And the next one is Biden, who was his VP, saying, I need a VP who's dumber than me.
The next one is Harris, who was Biden's VP, and she's saying, I need a VP that's dumber than me.
And then the last picture is Tim Walsh with his saucer eyes.
Now, I haven't seen, you know, maybe the Democrats have their own memes that are also awesome, but the memes that came out on the other side are just so good.
All right, so Trump won the meme game totally.
All right. Trump turned down 60 minutes.
I guess they wanted to talk to Harris separately and then Trump separately, and they had said that they would do cutaways to fact check them.
So they'd ask the candidate a question and then they cut away to fact check it.
Now Trump said no.
Now he said he wouldn't do it until they apologized for lying about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Now, I don't know if he meant that or if it was just another way to get at them, but if 60 Minutes tells you they want to interview you and they're not going to show the unedited video and they tell you we're going to cut away to fact check you, don't agree to that.
Are you kidding? Harris agreed to that?
If you wanted one thing that would tell you who should be president, the one who agreed to that should not be president.
Now, I don't know if 60 Minutes is going to be a friendly tour and not do any fact-checking or not fact-checking anything that matters, but never, ever, never, ever, never, never, ever agree to an interview if they're going to edit and put it in their own fact-checking, and you're not going to have a second thing to say about it.
It'd be one thing if they fact-checked you verbally, and then you could say, oh, but your fact-check is wrong because of this and that, but no way!
No way do you agree that they'll cut away to fact-checking.
I hope I have that story right, by the way.
I hope that's really what happened, that they said they were going to cut away to fact-checking.
You can fact-check me on that if that's not right, but don't ever agree to that.
There's new updates in the Diddy story.
There's an attorney, pretty high-powered attorney, says there are 120 victims.
He must be representing all of them or most of them.
And The accusations that you're seeing on social media are just wild.
So the lawyer says that we're going to be shocked when we hear the names involved.
We're going to be shocked.
At the same time, there are a number of prominent CEOs who are quitting.
Today there are more CEOs of Schwab and CEOs of something else quitting.
But like I told you before, this is quitting season.
So if you're thinking, oh, there's no way all these CEOs would be resigning if it's also, you know, unless they're part of the Diddy thing, no, that's completely wrong.
This is the season everybody resigns.
They tell you in October so that you've got the rest of the year to adjust and then they have Christmas off and they, you know, spend the time with their grandkids or whatever.
So I don't think resigning in October is telling you anything.
But it might. I can't rule it out, but it would be somewhat hidden in the fact that this is just the normal time you'd see a lot of people resigning.
Anyway, 120 victims.
There's an accusation online that there's something...
That Diddy was accused of abusing a nine-year-old boy, spiking drinks with horse tranquilizer.
I don't know if that's related to the boy.
And I'm not saying any of this is true.
Let me say the same thing I said about the election integrity after people said the election was faked.
Most of what you hear is probably not going to be true.
For example, most of the people who are CEOs quitting, it's not because of anything about Diddy, right?
So just in your mind, every time you see a new claim, like there's a claim about J-Lo, there's a claim about Obama, there's a claim about a whole bunch of people, you should have a little recording in your head that says, probably not. Probably not.
Now, I do believe...
There will be lots of prominent people who are in a lot of trouble.
But the claims are somewhat independent from whatever the reality is.
So you should treat the claims as highly suspicious and innocent until proven guilty situation.
It's going to be hard to do.
But try as hard as you can because this one's ugly.
This isn't just, oh, you might have said that bad thing.
This is the darkest, deepest accusation you can give to somebody.
And if you're just throwing Oprah into the mix because, you know, you just feel there's a vibe or something, I would ask you to be a little more careful than that.
Because there is zero evidence that Oprah or Obama or most of these people, J-Lo, there's zero evidence.
Now, if any evidence against any of these characters comes out, then we adjust.
But if you don't know of any reliable evidence, you're just hearing the names being thrown around, be a little careful about that.
Most of them are going to turn out not to be true, I think.
Anyway, Jaguar Wright, who has been very vocal about this ditty stuff, she says, and I think she's not been proven to be wrong yet, but I could be wrong about that.
So she has some kind of insider knowledge, she claims, for that world for over many years.
So not just a glimpse of the world, but Claims to have been knee-deep in the whole situation.
Not guilty, but close enough to know what's true and what's not.
And Jaguar Wright, who's a woman who's a, I don't know, I think she might have been a rapper at one point, says that Kamala Harris has ties to Diddy and his parties.
And Now, again, I would mention this because she's running for president and somebody who's a public figure has made a suggestion.
So the story that I'm telling you is that somebody's making an accusation.
The story I'm not telling you is that Kamala Harris did anything inappropriate.
No evidence of that.
None. Right?
One person speculating throws down a juicy name in a political season.
I'm going to put the odds of Kamala Harris specifically being involved in something illegal or inappropriate with a ditty party.
Close to zero.
That'd be my guess.
Close to zero. So...
Anyway, Obama might have some extra things to explain, but we'll find out.
Again, that's not based on any evidence.
That's just based on vibes.
But they're all innocent until proven guilty.
Speaking of that, politician in France, Marine Le Pen, She's now on trial for allegedly misusing EU money.
Now, if she's convicted, she's going to go to jail for 10 years and be banned from public office for 10 years.
Now, there was a time, and not that long ago, where if I saw a story like this, I'd say, well, you know, innocent until proven guilty, but you know, you know, they're not really going to bring the charge unless they've got the evidence, right?
So, probably guilty.
Probably guilty, but not proven.
So innocent until proven, but probably.
That's how I would have thought of it.
What do you think about it now?
It's 2024.
You've watched massive lawfare against politicians, especially Trump.
Do you automatically think that Marine Le Pen did something illegal just because she's on trial and has a 10-year sentence and a ban from politics that she's looking at?
Now, as Mike Benz helpfully notes, you can tell with 100% certainty whether a politician will be criminally prosecuted in a NATO country simply by whether that country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has insinuated that that politician is a threat to NATO. So apparently, if you're a politician who's a threat to NATO, you're going to get law fared.
Is it a coincidence? Could this be the one case where the person who you'd expect to get law fared actually did a crime?
You know, maybe.
Anything's possible.
But I'm going to go a little further than presumption of innocence.
I'm going to say presumption of a crime by the government of France.
My presumption is that the Department of Justice or whatever it is in France is corrupt.
Now, I don't have proof of that, but in this context, that's my starting and working assumption that the government and or their judicial system is corrupt and that Marine Le Pen probably did not do anything.
Illegal. Don't know.
And if the facts change, I'll update you and tell you I was wrong.
But I'm with Benz on this one.
This smells completely wrong.
It smells a little Trumpian.
Meanwhile, speaking of wrong, Kali Means, which is the name of a person, is talking about the CDC. It says, the CDC created an associated non-profit foundation that enables the agency to take money from pharma.
And in the last 10 years, Pfizer and Merck and some other companies have paid over $100 million to this non-profit foundation.
And there are hundreds of companies making direct bribes.
So Cal-E means is calling them bribes.
I'd like to know more about this, but why would the CDC set up a non-profit foundation to take in $100 billion?
Where exactly does that money end up?
It sounds a little bribish, but if that money ends up doing something that they can, you know, they can prove that the money went to something good, that's different.
But again, what's your first impression?
Yeah, your first impression is that the CDC is up to no good.
All right, so the dock worker strike is on, the longshoremen.
This will have an effect on the supply chain in the United States.
But worse, the longshoremen strike is happening at the same time that if Israel attacks Iran in any meaningful way, Iran has said that it might respond by maybe turning off the oil in the Middle East because they could, you know, bomb some Western supporting military facilities, not military, oil facilities.
So I would tell you to stock up.
I wouldn't panic.
I wouldn't panic, but stock up.
So I'd make sure that you at least have some white rice, you know, stuck away somewhere.
Don't get the brown rice. That doesn't last.
But white rice will last practically forever.
So make sure you've got a little bit of some of the basics in the house.
But I wouldn't panic. I do think we're going to get squeezed.
I would be surprised...
I would be surprised if we don't get pinched on our supply chain really fast.
All right. Doug Emhoff is being blamed by the Daily Mail, the publication of the Daily Mail.
They say he slapped his ex-girlfriend forcefully for flirting at an event.
Now, that would have been the nanny?
I guess that was when he was married previously and there was a nanny and they went to some event and the nanny was allegedly flirting with somebody else while drunk and allegedly Doug Emhoff forcefully slapped her.
Now, if that story had fallen in the news about a Republican candidate or family member, would you believe it?
Do you believe that he forcefully slapped his girlfriend because she flirted with somebody?
When you see Doug Emhoff, can you see him in a wife beater shirt and he's got a beer in one hand, he's just like slapping the hell out of people?
I don't know. I'm gonna say this looks a little too much like an October story, where if I had to bet on it, I bet it never happened.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But I'm going to go with innocent until proven guilty on this one.
It doesn't feel right.
Like, it doesn't have the vibe of something that's likely to have happened.
But, you know, you can't read minds and alcohol was involved, right?
Alcohol was involved. So...
But it didn't make me like Kamala Harris less.
You know how I was saying that it would be great to have a vice president who you knew could take a strong stand if something was going wrong?
Wouldn't it be great To have a first husband who could slap the shit out of Kamala Harris if she decided to go for equity and pass a reparations bill and keep us in Ukraine.
All right, I'm joking.
Nobody should slap anybody.
That's wrong. It's inappropriate.
No slapping, no violence.
But it would be funny if he's a slapper.
My knowledge of human beings is that once a slapper, always a slapper.
If he's a slapper, he's probably a slapper.
If he's not a slapper, he's not a slapper.
But I don't think it's something you would limit to one relationship.
So maybe.
I'm going to say probably not.
Well, Iran lobbed, I don't know, maybe 200 missiles or so into Israel.
Israel shot most of them down.
Some of them landed on nothing.
But the reporting from that area is all weird and mixed and hard to believe.
Some are saying that Israel won't do a full invasion.
They'll only do targeted invasions after some Hezbollah stuff in Lebanon.
Others say it might be closer to a full invasion, but again, the news out of the area and the speculation is all not reliable.
But apparently Israel has said that it plans to respond to And it's going to hit that they might respond against Iran's nuclear or oil facilities.
Now, Iran said that if their nuclear or if their oil facilities, I guess, specifically are targeted, it will destroy all the refineries in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
So, that would be bad.
Now, And they also have the option of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would cut off 21% of the planet's oil.
So, the question is, who's bluffing and who's not?
Will Israel do something that's a major attack on Iran to make sure they don't do it again?
Or will they try to de-escalate so they can focus on Hezbollah?
I think they might do something that's forceful, but just under the line where Iran has to act again.
So it's not tit for tat.
Like, if each person responds, takes it down a notch, then you can end it pretty quickly, at least the back and forth.
But if each person responds, takes it up a notch, well, you're in for it.
So Israel might take it down a notch from 200 missiles coming in.
I don't know what that would look like.
Maybe they take out some leader, one person, something like that.
And I don't know the degree to which these refineries are all just easy targets.
They might be easy targets, but they might have their own defenses already around them.
I don't know. But we'll keep an eye on that.
Now, a story I heard that's not confirmed in my mind is that the reason it's going to take a long time to get the power back on in America where the flood knocked out the power is that a lot of our big power devices have been given to Ukraine because theirs keep getting blown up.
Is that true? Is it true that we won't have electricity in part of the United States because we gave away our extras to Ukraine?
I'm not sure that kind of a story is even, you know, is credible.
But I'd hate to find out if that was true.
That would be a big problem.
All right. I'm going to end on this thought.
I saw a video from Jason Silva on Axe, and it's a fascinating video in which he has a long conversation, philosophical and technical within AI. But here's what came out of it.
What if AI is a mirror that your consciousness built to see itself?
Think about that.
What if AI is something your subconscious made you invent?
In other words, made humans invent.
Because your subconscious couldn't understand itself.
Have you ever noticed that you don't understand your own consciousness?
It's one of the most confusing things.
Like, why do we have consciousness?
Like, what's up with that?
And like, why do we seem to have a consciousness that's not like Animals or plants.
You know, they have some form, but we have some different form.
And I love this thought, and I've said this before, that when you look at the AI models, you can see that they do something like intelligence without having consciousness.
That is holding up a mirror to your own consciousness.
And so the way that we'll understand our own minds is by building AI and then looking at it from the outside.
Because you can't look into your own mind so well.
But you can build something that's like your mind and then look at it and say, whoa.
I built something that's like my mind.
It's like a mirror now. So you're looking at your own consciousness through the AI. It's kind of an interesting thought.
And it is how I think of it, by the way.
That's exactly how I think of it.
All right. Well, I think that's all I have to cover today.
So I'm going to remind you that the Dilbert 2025 calendar is available for pre-sale.
If I didn't tell you, this will be the first calendar where there's a comic on the front and a comic on the back of each page.
For example, there'd be a classic one here.
Talking about... Well, yeah, that's actually a Reborn.
It's pretty naughty. So you'll have naughty ones on one side.
Maybe PG-13.
Not that naughty. Maybe not even PG-13.
Maybe PG. And then the classic ones on the back.
So twice as many comics for the first time ever.
And you can buy only at the Dilber.com link to the sales page.
It will not ever be available, ever, on Amazon.
It's how I can make it in the United States.
Long story. But also, very hard to find, but the new update to Win Bigly is now available.
On Amazon. So this one's on Amazon, but the calendar, you've got to go to Dilbert.com to find the link.
All right. Now, this is an update to Win Bigly that's already been published, and it talked about how Trump won in 2016 using persuasion.
So if you would like to learn persuasion and also learn to recognize it in the wild, this is the book for you.
It's very well received, by the way.
It is considered...
Consider it the classic book about the 2016 election and persuasion.
You're going to love it. It's a great read.
All right, that's all I got for you. I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately, but the rest of you, thanks for joining on YouTube and X and Rumble.
