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, FEMA Complaints, Democrat Imaginary Fears, Election Cheating Contest, Democracy Illusion, Republican Fears, Doug Emhoff, Northern Border Migrants, Lara Trump, RNC Election Integrity Efforts, Trump Butler Return, Overseas Democrat Voter Surge, Judge Chutkan J6 Trial, Jaguar Wright, Sean Combs, Israel Iran Conflict, Matthew Perry Doctor Indictment, Armed Robot War Dogs, 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
Let's get our comments up from the locals people who are special in every way
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called coffee with Scott Adams
For lots of good reasons and if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can
Understand with their tiny shiny human brains All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tag or
chalice or stein a canteen jug or flask a 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 sipping happens.
Now, go.
Oh my goodness.
I'm quivering. Quivering with excitement.
Did you know that you could buy only the hardcopy version of WinBigly?
Because Amazon is in charge of the Kindle and the softcover.
This one comes from a third party.
But you can only buy the hardcover of the new second edition.
It's the second edition of WinBigly.
It's got some minor updates similar to the first version with a few updates that you might like.
But Do you know what you do when Amazon says we're not going to publish your book and we're not going to give you a reason?
Nothing. So apparently Amazon can just decide that this book won't be published in two of its forms, even though one of them they're publishing.
Now see if you can understand this.
They've accepted the hardcover and you can buy it right now.
The softcover and the Kindle are rejected, although they're identical to this.
Same title, same content, everything.
But one of them is accepted and the others are rejected.
And there is no way to find out why or to fix it.
There's no mechanism.
There's no way to reach anybody.
And you just get automated responses and say we rejected it if you try to follow up digitally.
Now, here's the question.
Is that political?
Do you think it's a coincidence that one of the books that would give you the best impression of Trump, even though the book is about persuasion, it's not about politics per se, do you think it's a coincidence that that's not allowed to be published and that there's no explanation?
Remember, the hardcover is published on the same platform, so it's not the content.
And if it were something technical, it would be great if they told us, but I don't know what it would be.
So we have big question marks on that.
All right. I was going to have a guest this morning, but there's a technical level of complexity involved that I couldn't solve in time for the show, so I think I'll do that separately.
We'll do a separate feed at some point real soon.
Anyway, flood update.
Some people are saying that FEMA is failing.
You know, I don't think you can ever tell if FEMA is doing a good job or a bad job during the event.
Because it would be quite normal that if you were one of the people in, you know, the actual flood disaster zone, whatever FEMA did wouldn't feel like enough.
So I'm not going to defend FEMA. That's not my job.
But I would say That we're not going to really know if they performed until the end.
We do know there's a bunch of stuff that's not getting done.
We know that there's lots of services that are not completed and people are stranded and there's all kinds of problems.
But that doesn't mean that FEMA's failing necessarily or in some comprehensive way.
The things we worry about are allegedly some of the equipment that we could use to get the electricity working in those places has already been donated to Ukraine to get They're electrical grid working.
So if that's true, and I can't confirm that's true, that would be a big deal.
We also hear that maybe FEMA's out of money because they gave a lot of money to the migrant processes, which are not really supposed to be their primary duty.
If that's true, and I can't confirm it's true, that would be a big deal.
But I can't really see the US government running out of money just for one thing, when in fact we have no money for anything.
How do you run out of money when there's no money in existence in the first place?
You can't run out of something you don't have.
So what we have is credit.
I don't know why we have it.
I mean, we shouldn't, but we do.
So, Brian Kemp said he was outraged.
So, Governor of Georgia.
He had to call the White House After only 11 of the 90 counties hit were included in the FEMA disaster declaration.
Now, if that's true, and of course all these stories you haven't heard the other side, maybe FEMA says something like, well, we didn't declare them, but we still do all the work, so nothing really is different.
So if you haven't heard the other side, you just don't know.
Yeah, so it seems unlikely that they just gave their money all to, you know, illegal immigrants or legal immigrants.
So keep an open mind about that, but it doesn't look good.
If you're asking me does it look good, I'd say no.
It looks like there's some FEMA problems, but I would give them a little bit of A little bit of slack until we know what's what.
It's still the fog of war in that situation, but it does seem pretty, pretty bad.
U.S. jobless claims have risen a little bit more than estimated, and hiring fell to 3.3% in August, matching the lowest level since 2013, unless you include COVID. So employment looks sort of just tepid, not great, not terrible.
No real story there.
It's just not good. But I wonder if we're already seeing the effects of people assuming that robots are going to be doing more than the employees.
Do you think anybody is saying, I better stop hiring because I know I'm going to have to do a lot of firing because I'm going to replace people with AI and robots?
I just saw an estimate there's somebody who knows a lot about AI. Who thinks that only 5% of jobs could ever be replaced by AI? Paperback and Kindle are there.
Oh, somebody's saying that maybe Amazon has approved it since this morning.
Well, that would be explained by me going public and torching them on Axe.
I was just beginning to torch them.
So I'll check on that and we'll see.
But I'm getting a report in the comments that the Kindle version and the softcover might be approved.
I just don't know why.
All right. So we'll keep an eye on that.
So anyway, the expert thinks that only 5% of jobs might be ever replaced with AI based on the current kinds of AI. If we get some better kind of AI in the future, then more jobs can be replaced.
But I've got a real question.
I'm not so sure robots are going to work.
Are you? You know, if only 5% of jobs can be replaced by AI, does it become more jobs as soon as you add the robot body to it, because then the body can lift things and move things in the real world?
Or does it stay 5%?
Because here's my thing.
I spend a lot of time with chat GPT, AI, and it's improving.
It's improving at an impressive rate.
But it's nowhere near something I would trust in a robot body.
And is there something I don't know about what's going on?
Is there a whole different AI that's for robots?
Because if I had to depend on the reliability of Chat GBT to put in a robot that could lift me up and throw me across the room.
I don't know if I'd want my robot to have that brain in there, if it's bigger than me.
I think the biggest robot I would allow in my home would be maybe five feet tall.
I don't want any robot that could beat me in a fairer fight.
I want to think, oh, it's only five feet tall.
I can push it over and then outrun it, because they still walk like Joe Biden.
For some reason, nobody can fix that.
30 years of freaking robots in movies, and they still can't walk fast?
Nobody can make a robot that can walk fast.
I don't get that.
Seems like that would be the easiest thing to fix.
Well, here's my take on politics.
In case you're wondering, would you like to hear my take on politics?
Have you noticed that the things that Democrats are afraid of And the things that Republicans are afraid of are very different.
Now you're going to say to yourself, duh, yes, that's the whole point of politics.
One group is afraid of certain issues, the others are afraid of the other issues, and you tend to work on things you're most afraid of.
Sometimes we work on things that are like investments in the future, but mostly politics is about what's bothering you the most, what scares you the most, and then you put all your resources in that direction so you won't be scared.
So you build up militaries and stuff like that.
But have you noticed there's a qualitative difference between what Democrats and Republicans are afraid of that goes beyond policy?
You would expect them to be afraid of different things just because they have different political views.
But here are some things that Democrats are afraid of.
They're afraid of Trump.
They're afraid of Trump's chaos and his personality and all the things he'll do and he'll be stealing your democracy.
They say it could be the end of democracy.
So the number one thing that Democrats are afraid of is Trump stealing their democracy.
They're worried about white supremacy and the militias up in the mountains and all the white supremacy that's in everything.
Oh, so Amazon separated the hardcover from the other two entities so that if you look at one, you won't necessarily find the other two?
Perfect. It's always something.
All right, so Democrats are afraid of Trump.
They're afraid of all the white supremacy.
They can't find any of it in the military.
They're afraid of climate change, and they're afraid of Russia.
What do all those things have in common?
Trump stealing your democracy, white supremacy and the militias up in the hill, climate change, and Russia.
What do they all have in common?
Can you see the common element?
None of them are real.
They're literally things that if you had not been told that you should be afraid of them, you would never be afraid of them.
There is really zero chance that Trump is going to steal your democracy in the context of the Democrats already stealing your democracy.
Clearly, the elections have become just a cheater's contest.
Let's be honest.
Our election system is a cheater's contest.
I don't know where all the cheating is, but you see election interference in every fucking thing that happens everywhere from both sides in different ways.
So it's a cheating contest.
And to imagine that Trump is the one that steals your democracy that was probably been gone since 1963, literally.
Like, literally, no joke.
It's not likely we have a democracy.
We have something like the impression of a democracy that's enough of an illusion to keep the country together.
But I'm pretty sure we don't have a lot to do with who gets power and what happens in the biggest decisions.
So somehow the Democrats have managed to convince, or the press and the propagandists, have managed to convince something like half the country that their biggest things they should be afraid of are all things that are good for the people in power.
Let's see. Getting rid of Trump?
Well, that would be good for the people in power, because they want to be in charge.
Saying white supremacy is a problem?
Well, That would be good for the people in power because it keeps Trump out of office.
What about climate change?
That would be good for the people in power because it means that a trillion dollars will be heading their direction and for all the services and the technologies and the companies that are pro-democrat.
So that would be good for them.
What about Russia's the biggest fear?
Oh, the military-industrial complex could make lots more money if Russia is our enemy than if we found a way to get along with them.
So, Democrats are living in a completely fake fear world.
Now, here are some things that I would consider real things to be afraid of.
Now, I'm not trying to make you afraid, but I want you to contrast the reality of these versus the complete fictional fear of what the Democrats are living under.
So these would be things that Republicans would be concerned with.
Government censorship of what they call disinformation, which is really the end of the First Amendment and the end of any kind of freedom.
That's what Republicans are worried about.
Is that real? It's completely real.
I mean, it's documented in so many ways, I can't even mention them all.
But from the Twitter files on, We've seen that the government has colluded with the media and platforms to censor.
And censor the truth, not just misinformation.
Censor the truth and probably know they're doing it.
So should you be afraid of the loss of free speech?
Well, depends if you think you ever had it.
What about the fact that our food supply is poisoned?
That bothers me a lot.
That's like, I don't know, it'd be hard to come up with a bigger problem than that, poisoning you with your food supply.
But that's a big issue, especially with RFK Jr., part of the pirate ship.
I'm worried about DEI. I think DEI is destroying the country.
It's just destroying the fabric of the country, which was merit-based, and now it isn't.
A non-merit-based system is guaranteed to fail.
And I'm really worried about that.
And that's very real.
And we're seeing the mass incompetence problem everywhere, from the Secret Service to you name it.
It's everywhere. I'm worried about the debt.
I have no idea how to solve that.
No idea how to solve it.
And it's terminal, by the way.
If we don't solve it, we're all dead.
And I don't know how to solve it.
Nobody has an idea.
So that's a problem.
How about nuclear war?
Well, I don't think it's an imminent problem, but it's one that I worry about.
How about the supply chain?
That's a really big problem, especially if Iran gets into a fighting war more directly with Israel and the United States.
They've already threatened to turn off the oil and maybe block the strata for more moves, or we think they would.
I don't know if they've threatened that.
So I worry about the supply chain.
I worry about the next pandemic that may be coming along.
I worry about The population decline, the birth rate problem in the United States, I worry about that.
I worry about the energy shortage that's driven by having too many robots and too much AI and self-driving cars and then we don't have enough energy to keep the lights on.
I worry about that a lot.
How about foreign countries hacking our infrastructure and being able to turn off our lights and our water anytime they want?
I worry about that. I'm pretty sure that's real, according to the FBI. It looks like China's already hacked into everything and they can just turn us off when they want.
That's a problem. And, of course, I worry about the deep state controlling the world, the country.
So I feel like those are pretty well-documented, easily defended, obvious, real fears.
Here's what I put zero fear into.
Trump stealing my democracy, white supremacy, militias that nobody can find, climate change, and Russia wanting to attack us, unless we attack them.
I mean, if we keep going after Russia enough, then it becomes a problem.
But I don't think it's a problem if we're just waiting around.
All right, I'm getting a confirmation that it's still just hardcover that's available on Amazon.
So just think of that.
So a bunch of you went to Amazon to check my claim and you came back with different stories about what is available and what's not.
You can't even tell if you can buy my book.
Just think about that.
A number of you went to check just to see if my book is available for sale and you can't tell.
You can't tell. Some of you say it is, and some of you say it definitely isn't.
The hardcover definitely is available.
Wow. Well, Doug Emhoff is in trouble, but I don't think any Democrats will care or hear about it.
Allegedly, in 2012, he slapped his girlfriend for flirting at some party where they were all drunk.
She allegedly hit him back.
No charges were filed.
Some say allegedly he paid $80,000 to make the story go away.
I don't know if that's confirmed.
So the Daily Mail says they have three sources, I guess.
Now, if you look at the way the media is handling it, so far the biggest part of the media, the biggest part of the media is only kind of ignoring it.
So I don't think Democrats will even hear it.
Or if they do, they'll think it must be nothing from the past.
But Chris Cuomo, News Nation, he did do a little video piece in which he said that if this had been Trump who had done these things, or anyone close to him, it would just be the only news.
To which I say, that sounds about right.
Yeah. Yeah, so we're going to get the completely different treatment because it's him.
Now, I love the fact that MSNBC in particular was trying to turn Walsh and Doug Emhoff into the new model of masculinity.
And then you find that the new model of masculinity slapped around a girlfriend.
Was it the nanny, the same girlfriend?
I think it's the same person, right?
Got her pregnant. Yeah, so there's your new model of masculinity.
That didn't work out the way anybody hoped.
Bill Malusian is talking about the northern border.
So apparently just in three states on our northern border, so this is not the entire northern border, just three states, Vermont, New York, and New Hampshire.
And keep in mind that, yeah, just three states.
And apparently, according to the Border Patrol, they got 19,000 illegal immigrants in 2024 so far.
That's higher than the previous 17 years combined, and they came from 97 different countries.
Now, how many got through if 19,000 got caught, but only in three states that border?
So we got a whole bunch of states that border Canada.
That's a lot. How many terrorists do you think are inside the country?
If I were Iran, let me tell you how I would build a defense against the United States.
And I don't think I'm giving them ideas because this is sort of obvious.
If our borders are open, you would sneak as many operatives as you could.
And any one motivated operative with a little bit of weaponry that doesn't seem too hard to get could do horrible damage.
Horrible damage. Again, I'm not going to give many ideas.
Oh, I think my Win Bigly, the first edition, you're still seeing in various forms.
It's the second edition that's not available in all its forms.
Anyway, so I would expect that if we have war with Iran, suddenly the lights are going to go out in the United States.
So, yeah, and I suppose it depends how bad things get.
But if we took out, or Israel, let's say Israel, took out the oil refineries in Iran, which basically eliminated their way to essentially eliminate their economy, they wouldn't be able to survive.
I think they would turn the lights off in the United States.
I think you literally wouldn't have electricity.
And I think that they have the ability to do that, either through physical sabotage or hacking.
And here's the thing I wonder.
If something that big did happen to us in the United States, there's no restraint that we would use to make sure it didn't happen again.
So that would end...
Iran as an independent nation, in my opinion.
If they turned off the lights in the United States and we couldn't get them back on and it caused 100,000 people to die just from the lack of electricity, which is possible, by the way.
You could have 100,000 people die.
If that happened... Even if we judged, well, we were a little bit responsible for maybe poking the bear, some people would say, and others would say, no, we're just responding to them poking us all the time.
We'd never get to the bottom of that.
But if something that radical happened on the homeland, I think the US military and Israel would essentially just colonize Iran and just take over the government there, at whatever cost.
I think at any cost we would do it at that point.
So that's probably the only thing that's keeping Iran or China or anybody else from turning off our lights, because it does seem we're super vulnerable The only thing that we have is not that we're protecting our facilities or even our borders.
The only thing we have is that if somebody does it, we're going to find out who you are.
And we're going to make sure that everybody who's ever close to you is dead.
So that's the only thing protecting us right now.
Yeah, there's a bunch of counterfeit versions of all my books.
So for all of my books, as soon as they get published, there'll be all these counterfeits.
So hold this in your mind.
Just hold this truth.
So on Amazon, I can only get my hardcover published because they give me technical problems that they can't solve and there's no mechanism to solve it for the softcover and the Kindle.
But how many counterfeit versions of my book did they approve and you can buy them today?
A lot! People just massively print counterfeit versions of my book and they won't take them down.
But the real one they won't put up.
And I'm worried that the reason I can't publish the real one is because the counterfeits have already taken the space, meaning that the system probably says, oh, that book already exists, but it would be the counterfeits.
So I worry that that's the problem.
Or it's just political.
It'd be a big coincidence if it isn't.
Well, do you know how California had that new law that said that disinformation was going to be illegal, especially political disinformation?
And you could go to jail for a political parody.
And it turns out that a federal court has tossed that down.
It's unconstitutional. So the California ban on election-related, quote, misinformation, looks like that's just gone away.
So thank goodness there are still some courts that operate.
We don't have much going on, going for us, but fortunately.
Well, here's some good news.
October is so lit when it comes to all the election stuff.
The things that it looks like maybe people waited to tell you.
But here's one. Did you know, well you did know that the Republican, the RNC, where Laura Trump and who is she working with?
She's got a she has a co-chairman person, Michael Watley.
So, Laura Trump and Michael Watley, in case you're wondering if they've been busy, you're wondering, hey, is that RNC getting anything done?
Listen to this.
So, apparently the RNC has recruited and trained hundreds of thousands of volunteers, thousands of attorneys, and have already held thousands of trainings ahead of the election.
So the total number of volunteers is 220,000.
And they've had over 2,000 trainings, and they've got 5,000 attorneys recruited.
5,000 attorneys, 220,000 volunteers, and they've had 2,000 training sessions.
Does that sound like they're working hard?
Sure does. Sure does.
Now, it's impossible to know from a distance, you know, how much of this is needed and whether you got enough.
But these are big numbers.
So, remember I told you months ago I said that the wild card in all of this, the election, might be Lara Trump's level of aggressiveness in terms of how aggressively are you going to make sure that cheating doesn't happen this time.
This is aggressive. Now, Michael Wiley gets, of course, credit as well.
They're a team.
But I have nothing to complain about here.
Do you feel the same?
Does this feel like this is a serious, no joke, we're really going to try to fix this problem?
Don't know if it's enough.
Don't know if they'll be observing in a way that can make a difference.
But wow! This is the best news I think I've heard in a long time.
My perfect scenario goes like this.
Democrats massively cheat.
Republicans catch the cheat in time, and it's enough to redo how we do elections.
In other words, we'll learn that our elections have too many holes because we'll catch too many problems.
I don't think It's practical that we're going to have an actual election result unless Trump wins by a landslide and the Democrats decide uncharacteristically, they decide it was a clean election.
So I think what you're going to see Is that Democrats will be questioning the election if they lose, even by a landslide.
And they'll say Russia interfered.
They'll do all the normal things.
And they'll try to put Trump in jail.
So we're just getting going.
And we're only the 3rd of October.
Oh, look, it's another coincidence.
Oh, look at all the coincidences happening in October, right before the election.
Here's a coincidence. According to Scott Pressler, who's signing people up to vote in Pennsylvania, doing an amazing job, This Saturday, Trump is going to come back to Pennsylvania to that Butler Farm Show place, the same place he almost was assassinated.
So imagine how much press he's going to get and how much Pennsylvanians will be paying attention when Trump goes right back to the very place where somebody took a shot at him.
Right? That naturally will be just complete press saturation.
There's no way they can ignore it.
And it'll make you think, if you're a Republican, it's really going to make you think to vote.
It's really going to make you think to register if you haven't.
Because Pennsylvania is the key thing.
So not only is Pennsylvania the key state, but by coincidence, it's a place where he got shot at and almost killed.
Shot, actually. Here's a coincidence.
Are you waiting? You'll never guess.
Turns out that the Pennsylvania voter registration website is going to be unavailable for maintenance that evening from 6 p.m., which is one hour after the rally, to midnight.
So the exact period of time where people would be thinking about Pennsylvania, thinking about voting, thinking about registering, That's when the system won't be available.
The one time that Trump goes back to Pennsylvania to that same place, the one time he's going to get the most press and the most attention, they're going to do a little maintenance on the system.
So you can't register then.
Coincidence? It could be.
It could be that the maintenance was scheduled long before the Butler thing.
But, don't you think it looks like election interference?
If you wanted to make it not election interference, you know, let's say they'd scheduled it a year ago, so there's nothing weird about it.
Once you knew that Trump was going to be in Butler, shouldn't you change it?
Couldn't you reschedule it?
Couldn't you do it maybe after midnight?
I've got questions.
I'm not willing to say this was done specifically to depress Trump voters from registering.
I'm going to say that if you knew it's going to be a problem, you should reschedule.
So if they don't, well then that looks a little slippery.
Meanwhile, according to the Gateway Pundit, you know, we've got this big question mark about overseas votes.
These would be Americans who are allowed to vote, they just happen to be overseas.
So there's a big program by the Democrats to make sure that those overseas voters are definitely voting, as many as possible.
And it's called the Uniformed Overseas Citizens' Absentee Voting Act.
And so the Democrats are going to really, really, they put money into it, and they're going to go look and make sure that all those people voted.
Do you see any possible problems with that?
What's wrong with making sure people vote?
How could that possibly be a problem?
You are so suspicious.
No, they just want to make sure everybody has a right to vote and that it's available and nothing stops people from expressing their democratic preferences.
So stop thinking there's some like plot or it's obvious that there's something sketchy going on.
There's no evidence of that.
Whatsoever, no evidence at all.
Let's see. They're trying to win approximately, they say there are 9 million Americans that are overseas and could vote, some percentage of them, so they're working on that 9 million.
The only problem is there are only 2.8 million of them that are of voting age and can vote and live overseas.
So they're working to get 9 million votes out of the 2.8 million.
Wait a minute. Okay, which is a bigger number?
9 is bigger than 2.8, right?
So only 2.8 are of the right age and also are overseas, but they're trying to get 9 million votes out of the 2.8 million.
Okay, I take back everything I said.
You should really, really worry about that.
Now, this is coming from the Gateway Pundit and various sources.
And do I know that there's something sketchy here?
Well, this is one of those cases where you'd want to hear the counterargument.
So the accusation is that they're very clearly signaling that they're going to get way more votes from overseas than there are human beings who are eligible to vote overseas.
So it does feel like The setup is being broadcast to us.
You can see it coming from a mile away.
Unless they have an explanation, and maybe they have different data about who's overseas and what they expect to do.
Maybe. But do you trust that?
Does this look innocent to you?
It doesn't look innocent to me.
Now, one would hope...
One would hope...
That the Laura Trump, Michael Watley, RNC people have some way to get extra visibility into that process.
I don't know what that would look like.
But there's got to be some way to see the votes opened up or something.
We'll see. Maybe if that's completely unauditable, we've got a problem.
Meanwhile, Judge Chuck Kinn, It has unsealed Jack Smith's new indictment.
And this is the one that got...
On all the lawfare stuff, I'm the worst person to listen to.
So I'll tell you what I think I know.
The only thing you can get in my analysis of the lawfare stuff is that somebody who watches the news doesn't even understand it.
I do this literally every day.
I check all the news stories and my brain just turns off when I look at the legal stuff.
Partly because it's always just so boring.
And partly because, you know, if you're not a lawyer, you can't really understand which parts are important and which parts are just formalities and which parts will be overturned so you don't have to worry about them.
You know, it's hard for me to dig in.
So look for the actual lawyers, you know, the Jonathan Turles and the Nershowitz.
You know, look for the people who've done this.
To give you a better look.
But here's what I think is true from a non-lawyer stupid perspective.
It looks to me like it's another, oh, it's a coincidence.
What a coincidence that this dropped just before the election.
And we won't have time to know that, let's say, the accusations turn out to be false.
And let's say there's a court process.
And let's say that Trump is completely exonerated.
Well, you're not going to know that by Election Day, because by coincidence, this drops just in time to poison the well and make people think, well, with all of this action, 165 pages, there must be something there.
Now, my understanding is that if this was rewritten because of the presidential immunity decision at the Supreme Court, Which said that if Trump did something under the official banner of his office, he had some immunity.
So apparently it's being rewritten to emphasize the things he did which they're defining as outside the scope of his official office.
For example, they talk about his tweeting in his personal account as opposed to his presidential account because using the personal one would be a sign that he's doing it, knowing he's doing it, outside of the presidential umbrella.
Does any of that matter?
I don't know. You'd have to talk to a lawyer, not me.
But you've got this totally biased prosecutor, you've got this totally left-leaning judge, and they just drop this thing that cannot be defended.
There's just no defense against it because it's complicated and people just say, well, there's something there.
With all that smoke, there must be fire.
But of course, the play is create lots of smoke so that people think there's a fire.
So during the election season, it is not true that with all that smoke there must be fire.
That's just not true during an election season.
It's just true that it could be.
But in the non-election context, a whole bunch of smoke probably tells you there's a fire.
And the election season doesn't mean anything.
It just means somebody's making an accusation.
So I tried to figure out just exactly what was in that thing.
And as far as I can tell, it's mostly somebody called it hearsay, meaning that it's a bunch of people who were acting in ways that maybe they thought were compatible with what Trump wanted But there doesn't seem to be anything that Trump said or did directly that would be illegal as far as I know.
Now, this is too preliminary to know that that was a true statement.
So I'm waiting for the news to surface, you know, what's the thing we need to know?
Can you give me the quote that says Trump did something?
I haven't seen it. I've seen a bunch of quotes that other people thought they were doing other things.
But here's my big question about the whole situation.
Everything that Trump did on January 6th, and this is all about the January 6th business, everything he did, in order for it to look like it was against the law, would require you to know that he knew the election was clean.
That's the trick they're playing on the country.
And Democrats are falling for it.
Democrats actually believe you can measure the temperature of the earth accurately.
And they believe that you can know if an American election was clean or not.
I don't know how dumb you'd have to be to believe either of those two things.
But super dumb.
There is no way to know if an American election was clean.
You can know if somebody had a specific complaint and there was time and standing to pursue it.
You could know how the court ruled.
But there's no way to know that there is or is not something hidden in the system that was changing the result.
How do you know what you don't know?
You don't. Hey, look, there's a giant pile of hay.
Somebody said there might be a needle in it.
How do you judge there's no needle in it?
Well, I don't see a needle.
No court has decided there's a needle.
You can't prove there's a needle.
But then I say, but you also can't prove there's not a needle because you're not even looking for it.
Well, why would I look for something that is unspecific?
Well, that's my point.
How would you know if there was something in the system that was corrupting it if you didn't look?
Well, nobody's complained.
There's no court case. I know this had nothing to do with my point.
How would you know that some state actor, maybe with some insiders, hadn't done something?
How would you know there weren't some mail carriers who got together and said, let's just throw away all the mail from the red neighborhoods?
How would you know? There is no way to know those things unless somebody came forward as a whistleblower or just somebody got lucky.
There is no way to know, and our systems are designed to make sure you can't know.
Now, if there's only one thing you ever learned, you should learn that the system, the way a system is designed will tell you the intentions of the designers, but not on day one.
On day one, it could just be poorly designed.
And then you go, oh, OK, they didn't mean for the machine to not work.
That was just a mistake.
If it's 10 years later and the machine is still doing the wrong thing, you can no longer say that's an accident.
At some point, and we're well beyond that point, at some point is the design intention.
Because you would fix it if it were not the design intention, right?
So that's why you can't tell in the first place, but eventually it's obvious.
It is now obvious, very obvious, completely obvious.
And by the way, you will never see anybody debunk this point.
There's your dog not barking.
You'll see people say there was no proof of fraud.
True. There was no proof of fraud that a court accepted.
Let me put it that way.
There's no court accepted proof of a 2020 fraud.
Doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you didn't have any fraud.
Yeah, our systems are designed to make sure you can't tell.
And that's really obvious.
So, um...
What else is going on?
So my main point there is that I've got this question about the latest Jack Smith indictment stuff.
How much of that depends on Trump's inner thoughts?
As in, if Trump knew, because they like to say he knew the election, that he lost the election, don't let anybody say that in front of you.
If somebody says he knew he lost the election, just get all over him and say, how the fuck could you know the unknowable?
How do you know? You couldn't even describe how the election is put together.
And then you go into, why do we have voting machines at all?
So, I think the entire January 6 hoax, and I'm going to call it a hoax, the hoax is that we know what Trump knows, or that he could know whether the election was clean or not.
To me, it seems obvious that he really believed it was rigged, which would make 100% of his actions make sense.
Because if he thought it was rigged and he was trying to fix that problem, that would be doing what the president should do.
But on top of that, even if he did it as a private citizen, it's what a private citizen should do.
A private citizen should try to fix a problem with the system.
If you had the power as a citizen, you weren't elected to anything, and you saw that there was some big thing that you could fix, what's your responsibility as a citizen?
Fix it. Fix it.
It's not your job, but it's definitely your responsibility, as it would be for all of us.
Like the flood.
The flood is sort of the government's job in FEMA. They're the ones supposed to be doing it.
But you've seen a bunch of people said, what the hell?
This isn't getting done. So they're taking their own helicopters and raising their own money, trying to get their own internet connections in there and stuff.
So citizens do have a responsibility to fix things that are broken.
So whether Trump was operating under the banner of his job or independent of his job, That didn't change the fact that it was his job as a citizen, not a paid job, not an elected job, but as a citizen, absolutely.
He's supposed to go fix that if he's the one in a position where it makes most sense for him to do it.
If I were in a position where I could fix that, I would feel that was my job, an unpaid job, but it would certainly be my patriotic duty to try to fix it.
So yes, don't let anybody make you think past the sale.
The sale they have to make is, how do you know that Trump could somehow know the unknowable that it was a clean election when it looked like it wasn't?
That's not knowable.
Don't let anybody make you think past that.
Well, there's more ditty updates.
I keep seeing videos of Jaguar Wright, who is a musician herself, And she claims to have all kinds of inside information about Diddy's parties, etc.
She said she used to be a sex worker, and so she sees the world from the darkest corners, and she was also part of Diddy's world, so she's seen the entire field, she claims.
And here are the things that she's saying.
That there were, in fact, satanic rituals.
Again, this is just a claim.
I would put her credibility as a coin flip.
I'm not sure that I lean toward her being accurate on everything.
But it does sound accurate.
I have to admit, there is a ring of truth to it.
I just don't know if all of it's true.
So I'd take with a big, big grain of salt this particular source.
But it's worth listening to.
So she says that young girls were stuffed into suitcases and later discarded in alleyways.
You'd think that somebody would ask a follow-up question on that.
Oh, hold on, hold on.
Young girls put in what?
Suitcases. And then you take the suitcase to the alley.
Wait, are they alive in the suitcase?
And why'd you put them in the suitcase?
And if they were dead, why'd you put them in an alley?
So that's the sort of accusation where I say, hmm, satanic rituals?
Probably not. Girls stuffed into suitcases?
If I'd heard it happen once, I might have said, well, that's terrible.
But it could happen once.
But if you're saying it's sort of a routine thing to stuff girls in suitcases and drop them in alleys, that's a little less credible sounding.
She implicated Jay-Z, saying he has hundreds of victims.
There's not yet any solid evidence of that.
And then she goes this far.
She says, there's some sinister web that ties together Diddy, Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffrey Epstein.
Okay. I'm out.
I'm out. Two on the nose.
Isn't that a little bit convenient?
Just a little bit too perfect?
Oh, it cleverly ties together all these loose ends.
Now it could. I'm not ruling it out.
I mean, stranger things have happened, but it's a little bit too exactly like what people are expecting, you know, in their conspiracy theories.
And she says that Diddy was a product of music moguls Clive Davis and Lucian Grange, never heard of him, and taught him everything he knows.
Well, interestingly, last night I was watching a Whitney Houston documentary that involves Clive Davis discovering her.
And according to the documentary, Clive Davis is just the nicest guy.
And man, can he help your career.
Because he's a nice guy.
Just a nice, nice guy.
So, do I believe that version of him?
No, because honestly, almost nobody is that nice.
If he's as nice as he was in the movie, he's really nice.
That would be one seriously nice guy.
And maybe he is. Maybe he is.
So I'm not willing to go so far as to throw any of these characters under the bus.
I think we can throw Diddy under the bus with some confidence.
But all the other names, I'm really uncomfortable.
Assuming that there's actual evidence of crimes.
There might be. There might be.
I mean, there's 120 alleged victims, according to one attorney.
So how big this could get, we don't know.
But don't assume that some big celebrity's name you heard is necessarily going to be guilty.
Well, Israel is supposedly going to target in the next day or so maybe Iranian nuclear facilities, maybe oil facilities.
And Israel did just today, I guess, strike a Russian airbase in Syria.
Now, the reason is that some weapons for Hezbollah were allegedly in an airplane that landed there.
So they weren't going after Russians.
They were going after the Hezbollah supply line.
But they haven't done that before.
So it attacked the warehouses.
It was trying not to kill too many people, apparently.
And Russian air defenses tried to intercept the Israeli missiles.
So it was a missile attack.
And they failed.
So, does that tell you anything?
Does that tell you that Israeli missiles are better than Russian air defenses?
Or does it maybe tell you that Russia has to use all their good stuff in Ukraine?
Is it possible That the Syrian military assets are just all the crap stuff left over that didn't go to Ukraine.
Maybe. Don't know.
But certainly Israel has demonstrated that they can reach anything.
And they have demonstrated by Basically not having any damage from 200 rocket or 200 was it intercontinental missiles that got sent at them from Iran with no damage really to speak of.
I mean nothing major. So we're in that That weird area where everybody's posturing and they've got to make sure that they look strong and they made a defense, but they didn't go too far because you don't want a bigger war.
So everybody's trying to balance on the head of the needle here.
So what would you think?
Is Israel going to attack the nuclear facilities, which would slow down Iran's ability to have a breakout nuclear thing, with nuclear weapons?
Or would they go after something that's more directly related to their economic well-being?
So if they go after the oil terminals, Iran has said they'll go after all the oil terminals in the area, so the entire world will be out of oil.
Would they do that? Don't know.
There's a real good chance they wouldn't, because if they took out all the oil facilities in the Middle East, that would make every country in the Middle East say, does anybody want a little help destroying Iran?
We'll send some people.
I mean, I can't imagine that the neighboring countries would put up with that.
You know, is Saudi Arabia going to put up with that?
I mean, I think that's World War III. Now, I think World War III would still be limited to the Middle East, mostly, except for terrorist acts in other countries.
But I feel like...
I feel like Israel probably won't go after the oil refineries because that would be too much of a shock to the whole world.
But if they go after the nuclear facilities, and that's all they go after, and let's say they succeed in slowing it down, Then they get a definite benefit, and it might not spread.
It might be the least likely to spread to a larger field.
And they can say that they responded.
So I guess I would bet on that as the first most likely thing they would do is take out the nuclear thing.
Because if they take out the nuclear threat, the threat that Iran can make a nuclear weapon in two weeks, which, by the way, is the estimate that if they wanted to, they could have a nuclear weapon in two weeks.
Do you know what I say about that?
If Iran could have a nuclear weapon in two weeks, which, by the way, I'm not sure that that's true, but if they could have it in two weeks, they already have one.
How the hell would we know if they had a nuclear weapon already if the experts are saying they could make one in two weeks if they wanted to?
Are you telling me they could make one in two weeks if they wanted to and they didn't make one?
They've had two weeks.
In what world does a country not secretly make an actual nuclear weapon?
That would be insane.
They should make it as fast as possible and tell everybody they got one, or at least suggest it, so that you don't know if they can attack with a nuke or not.
Now, I suppose Israel's intelligence would probably be good enough that they would know if they had a breakout nuclear weapon.
But if I were Iran, I hate to say it, but I would have made the nuclear weapon already.
So there's that.
Then there's the thought that if Iran got into a general war, like a big wider war where really the mainland of Iran was under attack, That they don't have enough manufacturing ability to replace their weapons after a fairly intense fight.
So if they use most of their weapons fighting, they don't have a way to rebuild them fast enough to stay in the fight.
And the only place they could get them would be Russia, and Russia is not likely to send them a lot of weapons at the same time they're trying to use them in Ukraine.
So Iran is probably not capable of a sustained war that it could win.
So these are all the variables.
Now, I haven't heard the news talking about a decapitation attack.
And given that Israel has shown that they'll take out the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas if they can, do you think they would really stop from taking out the leadership of Iran?
I feel like it's on the table.
It seems a lot safer than taking out the oil facilities.
If you take out the oil facilities, it's war for sure.
If you take out the leadership, I don't know.
Maybe it's worse. I don't know how to judge that one.
But most importantly, the BBC reports there's some science that scientists have made a huge breakthrough in analyzing the brain of a fly.
Now, even a fly has a super complicated brain, but it's a tiny little brain and way, way less complicated than, you know, bigger mammals.
But they think they've made this big breakthrough in sort of mapping it, almost like physically building a map of how all the neurons connect to the other ones.
And it's the most detailed analysis of the brain of an adult creature ever produced.
Now, what they don't say is that it's the first step in understanding why Democrats vote the way they do.
You gotta start with the fly, but then you work your way up.
So it's like fly, salamander, Democrat.
No, I'm just joking.
I'm just joking. I kid the Democrats.
No. They're like everybody else, except they're afraid of things that don't exist.
Well, Meta has these new smart glasses that you can wear with some VR capabilities.
And some people combine that with an app called PimEyes that can do facial recognition.
And it'll allow you to walk through a crowd and the personal information of everybody you look at will pop up on your glasses.
So you'll know the name and address and social media history.
And they say phone numbers, but I don't know where they get that.
So you can actually see the phone number of somebody as you walk past them in a crowd.
Total strangers. Now, is that going to stay legal?
Probably. Probably.
But imagine going to a party wearing your nerd glasses and you could tell who's single.
Suppose that's the only thing you knew.
You could tell who was single just by looking at them.
Suppose you could tell their job just by looking at them.
Suppose you could tell how much money they have just by looking at them with your glasses.
That's all happening.
That's all happening. So my little life where most of the time I'm anonymous, It's about to end really quickly.
You know, if I leave my small town here and I don't run into somebody who watches the show every day, I'm kind of anonymous.
Like, if I go to an airport, I'm not usually recognized.
Sometimes. Not usually.
Now, all it would take is a few people with those glasses on, and they're gonna ID me right away.
So, does that change my life?
I don't know. It might.
It might change my life radically.
Yours too. um apparently the doctor who prescribed the drugs for matthew perry that he died of an overdose of has pled guilty according to the bbc so there were two doctors involved one had some facility that ketamine and the other was his doctor so i guess his doctor was working with the source doctor so none of it was illegal in terms of The doctoring.
But I think the amount that they got and the way it was distributed, the way it was ingested, there were questions there, I guess.
But here's the part that was just really scary.
So according to the indictment, the two doctors involved, they were exchanging text, trying to figure out how to get this drug to Matthew Perry.
And they're trying to figure out how much to charge him.
And one of the doctors said, and I quote, I wonder how much this moron will pay.
Those are the doctors.
The doctors. The people who were responsible for keeping Matthew Perry alive were wondering how to rob him and calling him a moron.
Wow. If I can make any advice to the medical professionals who are watching now, I wouldn't ever call any of your customers morons, because you never know when that's going to get discovered.
I feel like all of our messages are discoverable, and at some point they'll all be available publicly everywhere.
That seems inevitable.
But Maybe don't do that.
Don't be like that.
Meanwhile, according to the Independent, the US Army is rolling in a robot dog with a gun on it.
And we've talked about this before.
We've got robot dogs with flamethrowers.
We've got every kind of drone.
And now we have robot dogs with guns fitted at the top.
Well, you know I want one of those.
If anybody's thinking about a good Christmas present to send me, at the top of the list is a robot dog to defend my house.
Now, here's where we're going with this.
These are actually being deployed in war zones now.
The Ukrainian military is going to be seeing robot dogs with guns and flamethrowers coming over the hedgerow.
That is not going to be a fun battle, I'll tell you.
So we've now entered the age in which humans are going to fight robots.
That's here, because already the Ukrainians are using their robots to breach the front lines and shoot the Russians.
So we now have humans fighting robots.
It's real. It's now.
The question is this.
How long will it be before both sides are just all robots?
Now, if a major power fights a smaller power, it's going to be the major power's robots against the humans of the smaller power, and the humans won't have a chance.
Assuming that the superpower has lots of money to make lots of robots, humans won't have a chance.
But what happens if two superpowers that can make unlimited robots Get in a war with each other.
Would it ever make sense for the US and China to be in a war in which we put humans on the front line?
If we could send unlimited drones and unlimited robot dogs, wouldn't you just have the robots fight the robots?
It's just going to be BattleBot, right?
And then what happens when one of the robot sides wins?
Does the other side say, whoa, whoa, whoa, we're not going to put our humans against your robots, and you've already beat the robots, we surrender?
It's going to be like that Star Trek where they would do a simulation of the war so they didn't have to have the actual war, and then whoever lost the simulation of the war had to volunteer to be basically suicided in some humane way.
I think we're actually heading to that place, like actually, literally, where after the robot war is over, the losers have to accept the penalty, whatever that penalty is.
It could be slavery. Anyway, so you might all want your own robot dog to guard your house, and also the Second Amendment's going to get a little dicey.
If the Second Amendment says you can own a gun, What's it going to say about your robot dog with a machine gun mounted on it?
Or let's say it's a single shot, sort of a home defense weapon, but it's mounted on a robot.
Do we have laws that will handle robots with guns?
And if the robot becomes sentient, is it your fault if the robot uses the gun to shoot somebody?
Because it would be the robot's decision.
I don't know. So, that's what I got for you today.
I'm going to take a little time to talk to the locals people on their own.
And once we get that going...
Anyway, so we're going to talk to locals.
If you're on X or YouTube or Rumble, thanks for joining.
