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, Childhood Vaccination Safety, Trump Freedom Cities Plan, Hurricane Helene, Electrical Substation Reserve Parts, Mark Cuban, OMG MSNBC Producer, Kamala's Grandmother, Candace Owens, Overseas Election Ballots, Joel Berry Babylon Bee, Election Brainwashing, Election Systems Design, Presidential Trump, Earth Temperature Measurements, Climate Change, Swing State Migrants, 3-Layer Leadership Hypothesis, Hezbollah, Congress Legal Immunity, Melania Abortion-Rights, Scott Presler Successes, 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
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Ah.
So good. So good.
I hope you all participated.
Well, is there anything coffee can't do?
There's a new study that says it's good for your liver.
That's right. You may have noticed, wow, look at that podcaster, Scott.
His liver looks excellent.
And it is. It is.
Now, a lot of people will just drink the coffee, but I like to take my liver out and just sometimes soak it.
Just soak it right in the coffee, put it back in, go about my business.
Well, here's a little update.
I told you that Amazon was being difficult with my book, Win Bigly, which is all available now.
The problem was that they were okay with publishing the hard copy, but said that they would not publish the softcover or the Kindle version.
Does that make any sense to you?
That they said yes to the hardcover and it was already available, and they said no to the Kindle and the softcover.
Like, nope. Will not publish them.
It wouldn't tell me why.
It wouldn't answer anything personally.
And there's no way to call them.
What do you do? If you're working with an entity and you can't call them and they won't answer e-mail with anything but a canned response, what do you do?
So what I did was I posted to my 1.1 million followers on X that Amazon was thwarting me for what could be a technical problem or it could be political, meaning that they just don't want that content because it's very pro-Trump.
It's called Win Bigly, the second edition.
By the way, if you look for it, it is now available completely in all of its forms, except audiobook.
I'll follow up on that. But you can get it on Kindle and then Amazon KDP, which is a subset of Amazon.
Amazon KDP allows you to publish as an independent publisher.
They said that they reviewed my request and there was nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
So the other two forms were approved.
Now, does that tell you that they knew in the first place that there was nothing wrong with them?
Because I didn't have to change anything.
All I had to do is complain in front of a million fucking people and tell them that it looks political to me, and all of a sudden there was no problem with it at all.
Went right through. So what's that telling you?
Well, I don't know. There's no way to know for sure what that means.
But I'll tell you what it suggests.
It suggests they need a little work on their user interface there.
But also, did you know, and this is not on Amazon, only at the Dilbert.com, where you can find the sales link, you can get the 2025 Dilbert calendar.
It's the page of day one that goes on your desk.
But this time, it's got comics on both sides of the page, twice as many comics.
That's right. Shipping is still expensive, but if you get more than one, it's kind of reasonable.
Please do that as soon as possible.
It's good for me. There's a study and study finds that maybe the best thing you can do for your brain as you're aging is to limit your glucose.
That's right. The less sugar you eat, the smarter you'll be when you're older.
I've got this feeling that eating too much sugar is responsible for 80% of all of our health problems.
It feels like it's most of it.
There's also the fertilizers and the inflammatory things, but I just feel like the sugar might be the big, big thing.
We'll see. All I know is I don't eat much sugar and I just keep getting smarter every year as I age.
So, anecdotally, it's very compatible with us.
According to the CDC, there's a record number of kindergartners, which is a funny word, kindergartners, that had vaccine exemptions, according to Just the News, the news site, Just the News.
Now, here's the interesting part.
So, you know, RFK Jr.
and a lot of folks have said, hey, I think maybe autism rates are caused by the vaccination schedule for children.
But how could you possibly test that?
It was an untestable proposition.
Because it would be considered medically unsafe.
To not vaccinate a child if you're a doctor, you probably think, oh, it's unsafe to do that.
So you can't really put together an ethical gold standard trial with a control group because it would be sort of unethical according to current modern medical standards.
It would be unethical To say, all right, you group, we're going to pretend to vaccinate you, but they're not real vaccinations.
So you can't do that kind of experimenting with humans, especially children.
So how would you ever know if you're getting a better result with the vaccination versus not the vaccination if there's no ethical way to test it?
Well, what happens if a record number of kindergartners decide not to get vaccinated?
Vaccinate it. You've created a natural control group.
So how long will it take before we know for sure, because we just study the unvaccinated, compare them to the vaccinated, control for demographics, because that's the hard part.
You know, it might be that the rich people are doing the anti-vaccine stuff.
So you'd have to make sure that you could control for demographics and socioeconomic everything.
But we should very soon have all the data we need to know if the vaccinations are causing autism or anything else.
So it's like bad news, good news.
At least we'll have the data.
I'm sure somebody will lie about the data anyway.
So Trump continues to talk about his idea of using federal land to build new cities.
New cities. And he's also using the phrase the golden age.
That if you elect Trump, he can usher in a golden age.
You might remember Around, I don't know, 2018 or so, I kept saying the golden age is coming, but instead we got a pandemic.
And the country went crazy because they couldn't handle Trump being president.
So that didn't work out.
The first golden age, not really as good as it could have been.
But could we have one?
Well, it's possible. I'm going to volunteer to design a city if Trump gets elected and if this idea of building new cities comes to fruition.
And here's how I would do it.
I would not be necessarily the designer because I don't have those skills.
But what I would do is I'd put together a team.
Of people to help me design a city.
And the first person I'd add to the team would be an AI expert.
Somebody who could build a chatbot Man of AI that would be the organizer for the project so that if anybody had an idea about any subset of how to build the city, for example, let's say you had an idea for a new type of sewer system or a cheaper form of providing internet to the city, whatever it is. So you'd go to the page and you'd say, hey chatbot, I got this idea.
Here's some documents.
So I'll upload my documents, which are my argument for why you should use this new system in your new city.
And then the chat bot asks some questions.
It would be like, okay, do you know what it would cost?
Has it ever been tried before?
Would it be possible to get craftsmen in every location that could use this new technology?
How long would it take to train somebody to implement this new process?
If it doesn't work, is it harder to replace?
Can it be upgraded? So you can imagine that the AI would ask all the qualifying questions, and then you can get all the best ideas for every subset.
What's the best way to build a roof?
What's the best kind of windows?
Just everything. And then it would pick the top one to three best, and then probably you'd want to get some human experts to look at the topics, just in case the AI didn't do it perfectly.
And then you put together a team that says, all right, here's your requirements.
We'll build this thing. Now, I've got one specific idea, and this is the one thing I think I could add to the process.
I think you have to design the physical city with some processes and systems and, let's say, assumptions about the people who live there.
And imagine this.
Imagine that you build a hundred homes and then you introduce the idea, and of course everybody would have to know this in advance before they moved in, that the rest of the homes would be created by effectively barn raising.
So the city would get together some night, everybody would pitch in, maybe the homes are made by Lego type snap together things, and they just build a home.
And that's your Saturday night party.
So people really bond when they have a common activity and they're doing a project.
So you basically create a project that isn't too much work because everybody just does a small part of the work.
And you build a house.
And in the process, the person whose home you're building maybe is serving sandwiches and making sure that you've got beverages.
Imagine how much you would bond with somebody if you helped build their house and they fed you.
That's like the ultimate bonding experience.
And so you would get to know all your neighbors.
It would be optional.
Nobody would be forced to help, right?
If you've got a bad leg, you don't have to help.
It's fine. And you would just keep building the city based on some set of standards.
Now, that's just one idea.
The other idea would be That you design it so that any school systems, and you probably have multiple schools just for the different ages, the school systems would all be connected by a network of bicycle paths.
So that you can always get from any school to any neighborhood and to any other school without going on a public road.
It would all be just bicycle paths.
Nice and well lit. Imagine, if any of you are parents or have been, imagine not having to drive your kids anywhere.
The kid just gets on a bike and goes to their friend's house.
They go to school. It's well lit.
It's safe. You just design it with lots of security cameras.
Everybody's safe. So you could design for...
Oh, here's another one. How many of you have bicycles and enjoy riding bicycles?
Quite a few. But there's no home that's designed so it's easy to store your bicycle.
Imagine how easy it would be if you had a little ramp up to a thing where it's easier to put air in your tires because it's not a ramp, you don't have to bend over.
Imagine having, you know, your own little garage that's just for your bicycle stuff.
It would be e-bikes mostly.
Imagine having a house that has an automated dog door with a little gated area that's just for your dog to do its business.
Imagine never having to let your dog outside.
It can let itself out. Now, these are just examples.
But if you were to design a little city where the living style and the way people interact with each other is sort of programmed into it and you make everything easy and cheap, The potential for a golden age is absolutely there.
Here's what we usually do.
We usually build cities around a technology.
Eh, that's wrong.
So somebody will say, I built a company that makes 3D printed houses.
So I'm going to make a 3D printed houses community.
Well, it might be kind of awesome, but if you're building it around the technology, everybody who's ever worked in a big business that does any kind of product design, Knows you don't build products around the technology.
You build it around what people want, and then you figure out what technology can get it to them.
That's the success method.
So, yes, golden age for new cities, the most exciting thing I've ever seen in the United States.
Personally, there's, you know, I mean, there are lots of things that are bad in the bad exciting way, but in terms of positive excitement, Building actual cities that are just awesome, like nobody's ever done before, like no country could match.
That's exciting.
That's really exciting.
So maybe a golden age. Google has an AI that you can use.
They've got a tool called Notebook LM. And apparently it's going viral because you can use it to set up a podcast where the podcasters are AI. So you'll have two artificial AI podcasters and they have a whole show.
You could upload a document and say, all right, do a show on this topic.
And then the two of them would have this whole banter and they'd be joking around with each other and you create a whole podcast.
Now I'm going to say the same thing about that.
That I say about all AI art.
Nobody's going to care. After you check it out just to see if it can do it, oh wow, that sounds like a little podcast there.
You're never going to listen to it for fun.
Because you do not care what the AIs say.
We don't care about their opinions.
We don't care about their art.
We don't care about their music.
Because why we care about art or AI or anything else is, although we don't say it consciously, it's all part of our mating instinct.
So if somebody can paint better than you or sing better or dance better, you're activated because you think, oh, there's some genes I'd like to get into my bloodline.
But the AI won't trigger you that way.
Well, there's a report, unconfirmed, that country's big star Garth Brooks has been accused of sexual assault.
Some woman says he raped her in an LA hotel in 2019.
Now, I looked into the details of the story because it's so important.
And, you know, again, the claim, which, by the way, I have no reason to assume the claim is true.
Remember, Garth Brooks is a citizen of the United States, and there is one rule above all other rules, innocent until proven guilty.
Has he been proven guilty?
He has not. He's not.
He's been accused. So he's innocent.
Unless something changes in the court.
But the story is that he was traveling and took somebody that worked for him and said he wouldn't get him a separate hotel room.
And then at one point he just appeared naked and started pressing himself upon her.
Now, how many times have you heard a story about some rich celebrity person who convinced some adult woman to go to a hotel room and then the first part of the story you're already like, wait, what?
How did you get somebody to go to your hotel room when obviously 100% of everybody in the world knows that's trouble and you still got somebody to go to your hotel room alone?
Sure enough, turns out if you're a celebrity, you can get an adult woman to go to your hotel room and be inside the hotel room for extended periods Knowing, knowing that nothing good could come from that.
And there's not the slightest chance that something appropriate is being planned.
And it still happens.
If you've heard the Harvey Weinstein stories, it's always some actress goes to his hotel room.
I mean, already you're like, what?
You went to his hotel room?
There was nowhere else you could meet to talk about your movie prospects.
And then the story always goes that the next thing, whoever it is, they always appear naked.
Like, who does that?
If you got somebody to your hotel room, And let's say you weren't a celebrity and you hoped you could get busy with them.
Would your first move be to come out of the bathroom completely naked?
Would that be your first move?
But apparently there's all these celebrities we keep hearing about who get a woman in their hotel room and the first thing they do is take off all their clothes.
You know, the guy. Who does that?
Have any of you ever done that?
Have you ever had somebody that you've never been physical with, and then your first move is to take off all of your clothes, and then appears standing there fully aroused, like, hey baby, how about some of this?
Now, I don't know what Garth Brooks looks like without clothes, and I also don't know what Harvey Weinstein looked like without clothes.
But it can't be your best look.
Like, I don't see that that's...
You know what? She doesn't appear to be into me fully clothed, but wait, I've got an idea.
I know how to get her into me.
I think I'll take all my clothes off and show her my big old fat belly.
Yeah. So there's something about all of these stories that I don't understand.
Either all of them are made up, and nobody ever did that, Or, here's the weirder part.
Sometimes it works.
Do we only hear the stories where somebody complained?
Is it so common that the celebrity just drips and says, all right, let's get going?
Is it so common that there's just the one time you heard about it that somebody didn't like the outcome, but all the other times it worked out and everybody was like, oh, that was a pretty good time?
It makes me very curious about the whole situation.
But we don't know what's true.
Hurricane Helene is now the deadliest storm since Katrina.
Death toll is over 200.
I saw reports that there may be way more dead people than we know because communication is bad and the mudslides are going to be really hard to clear to figure out who's at the bottom of them.
But on top of that, apparently we have 370 substations for the power grid that were underwater or at a service.
370 substations.
But thank goodness we keep a reserve of extra parts for the substations.
So, you know, in case there's an emergency and you had like a big problem with a lot of your electrical grid, you would just take the stuff that you hold in reserve in case of emergencies and you'd move it into the grid.
So we'll be going to Ukraine and taking it out of their system because apparently our excess transformers and such have been shipped to Ukraine.
Do you know why? Ukraine had an emergency with their network because of the war and we wanted to back them up so we gave them our emergency reserve and then a hurricane hit and now we're not going to have electricity.
So As much as I am always wowed and impressed by American ingenuity, I'm going to tell you something that just feels right based on having lived in the world and seeing how things work and don't work.
I've been part of big companies with big projects, installing networks and things like this.
If you tell me that there are 370 substations that are knocked down by water, Water especially.
And you tell me that we don't have spare parts, and it could take years to build a spare part, just like one.
I don't think they're getting electricity back.
If your impression of what's going on is, wow, this is going to take longer than normal to get electricity back, I don't think that's what's going on.
I think that the residents are going to have to leave.
I don't think they're going to get electricity.
Because everything's covered with mud and 370 substations are gone?
You can't fix that.
If you don't have the spare parts already in the warehouse, you can't fix that.
I don't even think there is a path.
So, I'd love to be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.
Like, I'd love to hear, oh, we just found another source for them, or we use a different vendor, or we pay it a little extra and they'll make them faster.
Maybe. Maybe.
But if you told me 370 substations were knocked out and we don't have spare parts, my first thought is you better move.
Like, if you can get to any kind of transportation, because that's not, the lights aren't coming back on, I don't think.
Now, I would love to see, ideally today, somebody in the news business talking to somebody who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about, somebody who's working on the grid, and ask them, 370 substations around, is the power ever coming back?
And, you know, of course, eventually it will, but we could be talking years.
We could easily be talking two to three years, I'm just guessing, before they have electricity.
And it might have been four months if they had parts.
Still, it would have been hard.
I mean, 370 stations, they can't even have that many people who know how to fix a substation.
How many people even would know how to repair a substation?
It can't be that many.
So I have a feeling that the situation is way, way worse than we're being told.
Way worse.
There was a great thread by Owen Gregorian, you can see it on my feed or Owen's, on the number of times that we've transferred electric transformers and that kind of equipment to Ukraine.
So if you're wondering if I'm speculating about that equipment going to Ukraine, it's pretty well documented.
You can see all the instances in the thread.
All right, Mark Cuban went on the all-in pod.
I haven't seen it all.
I've just seen clips from it.
One of the questions was, how do you explain Kamala Harris being the most open-border person of all time, then suddenly going to, oh, I'm going to be tough on the borders?
It happened kind of instantly when she looked like she was going to be in the VP job.
Mark Cuban's responses to it and the other things.
Here's my take. As much as we like to talk about public figures and their opinions on politics so that we can mock them or say that they're right or wrong or say that they have TDS or say that they're coming around, I don't know that any of that applies to Mark Cuban.
Because honestly, when I see him talking about politics, it doesn't look like he's trying to be useful and honest.
It doesn't even look like TDS. It looks like whatever he's doing is...
He has reasons, I'm sure.
But we don't know the reasons.
But he's definitely not being in, let's say, a...
I don't want to say dishonest because in politics everybody's shading everything.
It would be too far to call somebody dishonest in politics because it's kind of everybody.
I don't know what his game is.
But it's definitely not playing it straight.
What he's definitely not doing is trying to educate you or...
I don't know. So, I mean, obviously he has a preference for who wins, but I think all of his reasoning just follows from the preference of who wins.
None of it looks useful.
It doesn't even look a little bit useful to even understand what his opinion is or why he has it.
So, recreationally, He is certainly fun to watch.
So I recommend him recreationally, but I wouldn't even get into the weeds of why he's responding the way he is.
I mean, it just looks like trolling to me.
And it may be trolling with a purpose, but it doesn't look like he's trying to get into a logical and useful conversation about politics to help us all sort out what is true and what is not.
It doesn't look like anything like that.
But I don't think he has TDS. I think he just has a preference, and he's good at trolling.
Well, this is fun.
OMG, the OMG group, got a producer for MSNBC to go on a date.
This is how O'Keefe and his OMG group like to operate.
They meet all these people that they'll get on the hidden cameras by pretending to go on dates with them.
So one of the OMG journalists went on a date with Basil Hamden, who's a producer for MSNBC show Amen.
And when he talks about MSNBC, he just says directly, That what Harris' message of the day is, is their message of the day.
In other words, MSNBC's job is simply just to boost the Democrats.
And that MSNBC actively pushes Harris' narrative to help her win.
And he said that MSNBC is doing, quote, all they can to help Harris get elected.
He says the network is operating as an extension of the campaign.
And he went out to say that MSNBC is indistinguishable from the party.
But here's the best part.
He said, the producer said, that MSNBC has made their viewers dumber over the years.
He actually said. He's a producer.
He's the one who decides, well, he helps produce what gets on the air.
And he says, directly, my network is making people dumber.
Because it's just lying to them and telling them it's the news.
Now, you knew that, right?
If you watch MSNBC, CNN, and then Fox News, You get sort of the whole landscape.
I would say that MSNBC is in the bag for the Democrats in the same way that Fox News is clearly in the bag for the Republicans.
CNN, weirdly, at least this election, has been the most balanced network.
It's not anywhere near balanced.
They clearly lean left.
But they are allowing CNN at the moment Is allowing contrarian voices.
And they're giving them time.
Scott Jennings is just tearing up the network.
I mean, he's their voice of Republicans.
And ever since they fired Steve Cortez for being correct, Steve Cortez had been sort of the Scott Jennings role.
But Steve did too good a job, so they got rid of him.
He did too good a job of defending Republicans.
Now, I think maybe the management has changed.
Because Scott Jennings is doing as good or better.
I mean, he's just killing it with viral videos of responses.
And they're letting him talk.
They're giving him time.
And they're giving him time on the most visible programs in their prime time.
And I'm going to have to...
I'm just going to have to be honest and say I appreciate it.
So at the moment, CNN is...
It's hard for me to say.
At the moment, CNN is the least biased network.
Isn't that weird? But you have to give them credit.
It looks like they intended to find the middle.
They don't always do it.
But even Abby Phillip, somebody that you'd sort of identify with being in the bag for the Democrats, said directly that it didn't even look like Tim Walsh was prepared for the debate.
Now, when you have an opinion like that, he doesn't look prepared, that's not the news.
The news is people say they didn't like him.
The news is there was a debate.
The news is the moderators did or did not fact check him.
But to say he doesn't look prepared, that's an opinion.
And that's a very negative opinion about one side that you wouldn't expect.
So there's something happening.
That's a little bit positive.
Anyway, so it's fun to see the MSNPC, at least the producer.
And don't you assume that most of the people who work there are completely aware of this?
I think so. Like, do you think that this is the one producer who knows what he's doing and all the rest are in some kind of fog?
I don't think so. I think they're all completely aware of what their mission is and it's just to help the Democrats by pretending to be a news network.
Anyway. My most fun story of this October is Candace Owens trying to determine if Kamala Harris has any black relatives.
Now, I want to be clear, I'm not embracing this as true.
So Candace apparently contacted one of Kamala Harris' uncles and gave him the name of the person who was supposedly Kamala Harris' grandmother and the uncle said he never heard of that name.
He doesn't even know who that is.
If that grandmother was supposedly on the same side of the family as the uncle, then that would certainly indicate there's something strange going on, maybe some lies about heritage or something.
But since the part that I read didn't specify if this uncle was on the same side of the family as the grandmother, because if it's a different side of the family, you could easily not recognize the name.
So I don't know if Candace has the goods.
I'm not convinced.
I'm not convinced she has the goods.
But she's gone pretty deep.
And she's got a story that hangs together.
You know, it doesn't have any holes in it.
I just don't know if it's true.
Wouldn't that be the most amazing October surprise to find out she has no black DNA in her at all?
That would be shocking. Do you think anybody's ever asked her if she's taken the 23andMe test?
Oh. Oh, I got it.
Somebody should ask Kamala Harris if she's ever taken the 23andMe test.
Or have her children.
Wait, she doesn't have natural children.
That doesn't work. Wouldn't you like to know?
Hey, Kamala, can you show us your 23andMe test?
Because that would answer it, right?
There would be no ambiguity if you had the DNA. So do you think that...
Well, let me ask.
How many of you have ever taken a 23andMe test?
It's quite a few people.
I have. I've done it.
So wouldn't you love to know if she's ever taken the test?
She could put the whole thing to rest, like Pocahontas did.
Maybe not the way she expected.
Anyway, I'm going to put this in the recreational beliefs and anything's possible, but I am not convinced.
I'm not convinced that Candace has the goods.
She might. If she does, it would be just one of the greatest independent journalist scoops of all time.
So I'm rooting for her because I like Candace.
So I'm kind of rooting for her to be right, but I wouldn't bet on it yet.
Wouldn't bet on it. Well, according to Joel Berry, who's a managing editor of the Babylon Bee, but he had some serious things to say.
Here are some things that we should know about overseas ballots.
As you know, you can vote in an American election if you're overseas, and you just have to go through a process to get a ballot and send it in from overseas.
And of course, we're all in favor of that.
Because if we have military or ambassadors or people whose job it is to be out of the country, we don't want them not to be able to vote.
So, of course, we're all in favor of American citizens being able to vote no matter where they are.
But is the system that is set up to do that, does it have any holes?
Well, according to Joel Berry, Managing Editor of the Babylon Bee.
Here are some things you may not know.
So it's called the UOCAVA, so that's the name of the program for the overseas voting.
Did you know that you can register to vote online without providing an ID, social security number, or proof of citizenship, or even an address?
Now, I don't know how to understand that, except that anybody who's not an American citizen could easily sign up to vote.
Is there any other way to interpret that?
All right, here's some other things you might want to know about those overseas votes.
You can register in any state at any address and nobody verifies.
So you could say you live in a swing state, even if you didn't, even if you're not an American citizen, and the vote probably will just slip right through.
Did you know that many states allow you to send your ballot via email?
Email. Not even physical.
Email. So, does this tell me that in order to create fake votes for any swing state you wanted, you could just get some foreign people to sign up on a website and send some fake emails?
It looks like it.
Now, I don't know if it's happening, but what would stop it?
Are there any red flags that they might actually be trying to use these problems in the system to cheat?
Well, we'll get to that.
Did you know that a recent Democrat memo, this again according to Joel Berry, a recent Democrat memo announced their plan to collect 9 million overseas Democrat votes.
Out of how many? So they want to get 9 million, but what do you think is the total possible that they could get that are overseas?
Out of 9 million.
Well, according to federal government report, there are only 2.8 million eligible voters overseas.
So the Democrats have announced in writing that they want to get 9 million votes out of 2.8 million people.
Now remember what I always say about data?
You can't really trust any data.
Is it true that there are only 2.8 million eligible voters?
I don't know. But I'll tell you what I definitely don't believe.
That there are 9 million.
Do you think there are 9 million voters living around the world who are eligible to vote?
Maybe? Maybe?
I don't know. 9 million?
So that's a red flag, that they plan to get more votes than there are people eligible to vote.
In 2020, the number of civilian votes, so in 2020, remember that election that we weren't sure who won?
What do you think was the change in the number of people who voted overseas through this program in 2020?
Do you think it was about the same as always?
You know, kind of a baseline, normal, same as always.
Or do you think it doubled?
It doubled. Inexplicably.
So, it doubled?
It doubled. Is that because they did a better job of informing people how to vote?
Maybe. Maybe.
I don't recall them bragging about their successful attempt to get people to legally vote overseas.
Seems like you'd be bragging about that if you doubled it.
Somebody should be getting some kind of reward or a feature article about how they really changed things with all their good work to improve the ability to vote.
But I don't remember that story.
It doubled. Huh.
There's a red flag.
The Democrats have also spent six figures on the Vote for Marlora program to make sure that everybody knows how to do it.
Did the Republicans spend any money on that?
Not that I've heard of.
Hmm. Money can make anything happen.
Did you know that in 2020, Remember, we're talking about getting 9 million extra votes.
9 million.
In 2020, just 44,000 votes across three states won Biden the presidency.
So we're within a few tens of thousands that will determine the entire race, in all likelihood, and the overseas voting will overwhelm that number by, what, 10 times?
And none of this looks like it could be easily checked.
Do we have an election system?
What? All right, let me give you the hypnotist take on the elections.
Now, I would be the hypnotist in this case.
Now, I have an unusual talent stack.
Now, this doesn't mean I'm better than you, because your talent stacks would be awesome for other things that I can't do.
But just by coincidence, I have a background working in corporate America on pretty large projects that had lots of moving parts.
And so you kind of get a sense of what's possible and what's not possible in the real world.
On top of that, being an hypnotist, I'm a little more keyed into brainwashing and propaganda.
So I'm just sort of primed to spot it.
So here's how I see the world in terms of our elections.
And I posted this, if you want to see it, it's on my X account, it's pinned.
So our national brainwashers, those are the people in, let's say, MSNBC, they would be brainwashers, are so talented that they made most Democrats believe that we can know who won a national election.
If you stopped any Democrat in the street and said, after an election, do we know who won?
I think almost 100% would say, yeah, I mean, there might be some cheating, but we'd probably catch it.
You know, we could always audit.
If it looked weird, we'd catch it in the audit.
So yes, you know, you could have individual, you know, little imperfections, but basically, yes, you can know who won an election.
Is that true? How many of you think that our system is designed in a way that it's possible to know who won?
It's not even close. Now I'm going to give you some argument for it, and I want you to fact check me.
Because I might be wrong on one of them or more, right?
But just fact check me.
See if these sound real to you.
So I say our election systems are designed to make it impossible to know who won.
Intentionally. Now again, when I say intentionally, Here's the standard you use for that.
If something is designed poorly in the short run, that doesn't tell you anything.
It just means, oh, we didn't nail it this time, we better fix it.
If something is designed poorly in the short run, and then you check back 20 years later, and it's exactly the same, at that point it's intentional.
Because you know what it's doing.
And you could take it out.
You do have the ability to change it out.
So if in the long run you don't change it out, well then that's what you wanted.
You wanted it the way it is.
So I would say it's somewhat obvious, and I'll give you more backing for this opinion, that our system is designed to make it impossible to know who wants.
And that probably most of the systems around the world are the same.
It wouldn't be unique to the United States.
Democrats have been brainwashed to believe that the courts can find problems with elections.
How do they find things that nobody found?
Because courts are not investigative.
They can only judge what is brought to them.
What if the nature of the cheating makes it hard to find?
Democrats believe that all cheating can be detected, and then courts can effectively rule on it to make it right.
Nothing like that is even remotely close to true.
I mean, the direct opposite of that is very supportable, but the fact that a court could tell you if an election was true, it's not even the right tool.
It would be like, Trying to, you know, be a carpenter with a piece of paper instead of a hammer.
It's just the wrong tool.
The court can only judge what is brought to them.
But if the cheating remains concealed so that literally nobody can tell somebody cheated, what is the court going to do about that?
And yet, and yet, The Democrats in this country believe the courts can tell you if an election was real.
No, they can't.
If somebody could somehow collect all the facts and do it on time and they had standing and no deadlines had been missed, yeah, in some real special case, a court could be involved in repairing an election that had been rigged.
But not in any realistic way.
Here are the problems with why the court isn't really a solution.
Would you know if a postal worker discarded mail-in ballots?
I assume at some point in the process, the mail-in ballots end up in one box, closer to the time that they're going to be delivered to their destination.
So everything would come in from various places, but then the post office's job is to sort out the incoming mail, And put it in literally boxes or bins.
And then when it's already...
So when they go to your house, they've already sorted your mail.
Same with the ballots. So at some point in this system, there are big buckets of ballots and nothing else, just ballots.
If a postal worker decided to throw them away, just literally just drop them in a lake somewhere in a remote place where nobody would find them, how would you know?
Would the person who mailed them know?
I don't know. Is there any system to know that something got lost in the mail?
I've never heard of it.
How would you know? And it wouldn't be hard to know if a certain zip code was going to be more for Trump or more for Harris, so you just throw away only in the zip codes where you want to make a difference.
How would anybody know?
How about How about if millions of overseas ballots come in through that system I just told you, and let's say five million of them were fake?
How would you know? Well, you could know eventually, because you could get people to search each vote and do some sampling to find out how bad it was.
But the election would be long certified before that happened.
Long certified. So that's not going to stop anything.
We're not going to take a president out of office after they've been certified.
That's never going to happen. So that can't work.
How about... How would you know if some state actor, whether it's CIA or some other intelligence unit, had co-opted an insider in any of our electronic systems and that they'd figured out how to tweak things so that they could change it without anybody noticing?
Now, that might require, you know, having a Confederate on the inside of something, you know, as well as outside.
But how would we know?
We wouldn't know. No.
There's no way we would know if some things got changed and then there was somebody on the inside who made sure you couldn't tell it got changed.
We'd never know. How about if someone printed fake ballots and then just inserted them in the system, how would you know?
Well, there are some kinds of audits and some kind of observers that might say, hey, those look alike.
And we have those reports.
In 2020, there are credible, I believe signed under oath, reports of multiple people who saw what were definitely, according to them, photocopied ballots that had been sent to the machines.
So was the election reversed?
No. Do you know what the people who were accused of having photocopied ballast did?
They locked it in a closet.
And then when the court said you have to unlock that, they just didn't.
And then people went back to the court and said, hey, you told them to unlock it and they didn't.
So let's get serious.
And the court said, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And nothing happened. So we have the new election coming up that's four years later, and the request to open one closet.
Just open the closet.
Can you just unlock this door?
That's the only thing we're asking.
We know where the door is.
We're looking at the lock.
We have a court order that you can open this door and we can just look to see if those ballots look okay to us.
And it didn't happen in four years.
So do you think if there are fake ballots that the court is going to sort that out?
No. The court told them to unlock the door and they just decided not to.
And nothing happened.
And here we are. Now, if you live in the real world, There's no way that the court could really help you tell if the election is fair.
They're just not involved.
And they can be ignored.
How about...
Would you know the extent of ballot harvesting in states where it's not legal to do it?
Some states it's legal.
But if it were an illegal place, how would you know if one group did more illegal ballot harvesting than another?
How would you know? How would the court know?
If the people who did it don't talk, how would anybody know?
The worst, you would get individual stories.
Like, oh, this person collected 100 of them from the rest home.
So we'll take the 100 out.
But what if thousands of other people got 100 apiece?
You wouldn't know. How about if there are migrants in the country who, because they signed up for their, I guess, driver's licenses, and got automatically registered, how would you know if they voted?
Well, again, you could check each one individually, and then you could do a sampling to find out if, you know, you'd have to check each one to make sure they are or are not a resident, but if you've checked enough, you've got a good sample, and then you could say, oh, it looks like the illegal votes changed the election.
Do you know how long that would take?
I don't know how long it would take, but the election would be over and the president would be in office and everything would be certified.
So you couldn't do it on time.
Even if you found a problem, you'd be like, well, better luck next time.
We already got a president that's certified.
We're not going to take him out of office.
All right. So with all of these things, this brainwashing, this is how the brainwashers can tell you that January 6th was an insurrection.
Because the vital part of the insurrection narrative, which is totally made up, it's just a hoax, the vital part is that the people involved knew that the election was accurate.
That's the opposite of reality.
The people who protested were sure that they didn't know the election was accurate.
In fact, it looked like it had problems just on the surface.
And then more importantly, Trump's entire jeopardy has to do with him knowing that the 2020 election was fair.
And believe it or not, there's something in this Jack Smith thing, the new Jack Smith indictment, Somebody characterized it, somebody on the left, characterized it as having proof that Trump knew the election was fair.
Do you know what the proof is?
I'm paraphrasing, but apparently there's documentation that says he said to somebody close to him, family member or staffer, that he didn't know for sure that the election was rigged, but that you should always fight like hell.
And they said, okay, there he knows that the election was fair.
And I say, wait a minute.
Your explanation of what he said doesn't match what he just said.
If he said, I don't know if it was fair or not, but you should always fight like hell, how do you hear that?
I hear it like normal language.
Here's how normal language works.
We have an election system that you can't tell if it's fair or not.
The unstated part, which is important, the unstated part is that it doesn't look fair on the surface.
So if something doesn't look fair and you can't tell, what is the smart thing to do?
Surrender. Is that the smart thing to do?
Is that good for the country?
Is that patriotic?
That you're not sure if an actual election happened and it looks like it was cheating?
Just on the surface, it looks like it's cheating.
And you're just going to let that go?
If there's no way to know for sure?
That doesn't even make any sense.
So I predicted that the Jack Smith thing would make his case based on the fact that you can brainwash Democrats To believe that ordinary language is being used in a different way than it's ever been used in the history of people talking.
And that only Trump uses words opposite of what he says.
So that when he says, go protest peacefully, he really means fighting.
When he says, find the votes, he means manufacture them as opposed to it's obvious that something got miscounted.
And now they're going to do that if you don't know if the election was rigged, you should fight like hell as proof that he knows that they were fair?
Where is that in his statement?
The quote doesn't have anything to do with an opinion about knowing an election was fair.
Knowing you don't know is reason to fight it.
So what Trump said makes complete sense to me.
And more to the point, And honestly, this is the part that affects me the most.
You know, so this is not the logical part of the argument, but it's the part that affects me the most.
Who did you think you elected in 2016?
Did you elect the give-up guy?
Did you elect a president who, as soon as there's trouble, he's going to roll over?
No! No, no.
Trump got elected because he's this guy.
He doesn't give up. If there had been a way to know for sure that the election had been fair, do you think he would have fought?
I don't. If you knew for sure that it looked suspicious but you couldn't know if it was fair, do you want somebody who surrenders?
I don't. I very much don't want somebody to surrender if it looks like they got cheated and you can't tell.
If it looks like you got cheated, it feels like you got cheated, it doesn't match your anecdotal experience in life, and there's something that's just glaring as a like, whoa, this looks a little weird, you know, like maybe some victories in places that a Democrat never wins or never wins by this much, you know, suspicious stuff.
You want the person who would fight that to the death.
And he's that guy.
Do you like how he did it?
Maybe not. Do you like that he doesn't give up?
Yeah. He took a bullet in the ear.
He's going back today.
Today. He's going to be back in Butler where he took a bullet.
Elon Musk is going to join him reportedly.
That'll be interesting. Anyway, Liz Harrington reports that Dominion has been using the same basic password since 2008.
If you'd like to hack their machines, the password is dvscorp08!
Not only do we know that they've been using the same password since 2008, we know the password.
So if you'd like to hack them, that's the password.
Now, I can't believe they haven't changed it since this became public, so probably it's not the password.
Anyway, and as a bonus, if you've been brainwashed into thinking we can know who won an election, you probably also think that scientists can accurately measure the temperature of the planet, even though the mechanisms they've used to measure the planet over time have changed continually.
Do you know why the mechanisms for measuring the planets change continuously?
Because they're not happy that the old methods were accurate.
So how do you compare the new temperatures to the old temperatures if the reason that you updated the way you measure the temperature is that the old ones weren't reliable?
Well, you adjust the old ones.
That's right. You adjust them.
Anybody who's lived in the real world knows exactly what that means.
If you don't have experience in, say, big organizations or governments or corporations, and you heard that, well, we use new instruments to measure the temperature now, but to make sure that they were also right in the past when we didn't have good instruments, We're going to use an adjustment based on the algorithm and the averages and the assumptions.
No. If anybody ever tells you they're doing that, that's just such bullshit.
Now, can I get an agreement?
Those of you who have extended experience in any corporate big project world, you back me, right?
That if you've changed the measuring devices over time and then adjusted the estimates in the past to make sure it all worked out, you're not dealing with serious people.
That's just a scam.
Anyway. As the Amuse Countdown X and Musk was agreeing with this, That apparently a lot of these migrants that are shipped into the country coincidentally get shipped to the states that have the closest elections.
The ones where getting a few more Democrats voters into that state would make the difference, flipping it to blue.
And once you see that it's very clear that they have targeted the swing states, if this is true, by the way, this is a claim.
I haven't researched it myself.
But if it's true that they moved the migrants into the swing states to basically turn the country blue forever, then it's exactly what it looks like.
It's an attack on the country and a takeover.
Anyway, National Review has an estimate that says we spend $451 billion a year on illegals.
I've taught you how to look at data before.
This data agrees with your preconceived ideas that we're spending too much on immigrants.
So it's accurate, right?
It's accurate because it agrees with your point of view and it would help your argument?
Eh. Again, I've lived in the real world too long.
I haven't looked into how they calculated it.
But I'll make an assumption.
I'll make an assumption that they're measuring the short-term cost and they're not looking at the 20-year, 50-year outcomes.
Because if you bring somebody into the country and they're in a bad shape and they need a lot of help, they're just an expense.
If simply you added up all the expenses of people you brought into the country and needed help, it could be $451 billion or some big number.
Maybe not that, but some gigantic number.
But how did they calculate how we turn out as a country and our GDP in, say, 20 years?
You can't ignore that.
Because if it's being done as sort of an investment, and by the way, immigrants are an investment, because if you don't bring in all criminals, you get a lot of people who end up paying taxes, they have children who are citizens, the children grow up and they pay taxes, they're better educated, the second generation is doing well.
So, if you've watched me enough, you know that I'm completely against open borders.
It's insane.
I mean, it's just criminal that we have open borders.
100% against the unrestricted borders.
But I also don't think there's a slightest chance that the National Review did the calculation correctly.
I don't think there's any chance.
Now, that's only because it wouldn't matter who did it, right?
If the Democrats had come up with a number, it wouldn't matter what the number was.
I wouldn't believe it. So this is not really the sort of thing you can calculate.
But it might be true that we're spending a god-awful amount of money in the short run, and nobody thinks that's a good idea.
Would you agree? Yeah, I think we could still say, yeah, spend too much money.
But $451 billion?
I don't know. Not buying it.
Well, Hezbollah's had a bad week.
How bad? Well, worse than any week you've probably ever had.
So as you know, Israel blew up all their pagers and took out a lot of the leadership and then they bombed the top guy and they took him out and a bunch of his generals and they keep bombing other people they took out.
Now they hit some guy who's in the head of communications and then I don't know how confirmed this is.
But it looked like the person who was going to be the replacement for the head of Hezbollah got his lieutenants together, the surviving ones, and they all met in an underground bunker.
Do you know how the rest of the story goes?
The leaders of Hezbollah got together in an underground bunker.
It didn't work out.
Yeah, Israel bombed their bunker.
So we don't know how many layers of Hezbollah leadership has been taken out, but I'm going to introduce to you what I call the three-layer hypothesis.
I just made this up.
It's the three-layer hypothesis.
It goes like this. If you have some, you know, terrorist group or bad entity, and they've got a leader like Osama bin Laden, That might be the best leader.
So maybe they're doing so well because their leader is so good.
So you take out the leader.
But unfortunately, the number two guy really worked with the number one guy and is pretty good as well.
So you've got to take out the number two guy.
Number three guy goes in and, damn it, the number three guy was trained by number one and number two.
Also pretty good.
Not as good. Not as good, but pretty good.
So you kill the third guy.
Now you've got the fourth best terrorist.
In order to be like a world-class terrorist, I don't think you can be fourth best.
I think that doing something as spectacular as Al-Qaeda did, you know, in 9-11, if they did it, you need sort of your highest end persuaders, smartest people, and there aren't many of them.
You know, that's why there aren't a lot of Al-Qaeda's, because it's hard to get that charismatic, brilliant leader and all the parts come together.
So here's my three-layer hypothesis.
If you can take out the top three layers of good managers from any entity, the entity will collapse.
So you could do it to Apple Computer.
So you take Steve Jobs out of Apple, and oh, it's good that Tim Cook is very good.
He's very good. So they're not really innovating much, but making a ton of money, doing great.
Upgrades are looking good.
Now suppose Tim Cook decided to retire early.
Well, probably there's a number three that's solid, like a good solid person who's really made a mark in the industry.
What if the third one left down unexpectedly and you got down to the fourth best leader of Apple?
Probably would be better than most people at most things.
Like if you're the fourth best Steve Jobs, you're still pretty awesome.
But are you good enough to bring that company into the future?
Probably not, because it's so rare.
The Steve Jobs capability is not normal.
Take Elon Musk.
If Elon Musk decides to retire tomorrow, would his businesses continue?
Probably. Probably, because he's got really capable leaders in each of his business, obviously.
Otherwise, he would have no ability to run them.
But what if they retired?
Still, third best might be good enough to get you to Mars.
What about the fourth best?
Well, at that point, it probably all falls apart.
So Hezbollah's down to fourth best leader.
I don't think he'd come back from that.
That may be complete destruction.
It just takes a while. So we'll see.
But I would also encourage you to remember it's fog of war and our brainwashers tend to be from one side of the spectrum.
So it could be that Israel is not as incredibly professional and successful as the news is telling you.
They might have some flaws.
Maybe not everybody's dying as fast as they think.
Maybe they're having a little more trouble getting those rocket launchers than maybe the reports will tell you.
So I wouldn't believe too much of the news coming out of there unless it's confirmed by the other side, such as the death of their leaders.
Anyway, Nicole Wallace on the propaganda brainwashing network MSNBC asked Representative Zoe Lofgren, I guess she's a Democrat, if she would update her passport because if Trump gets into office, he said that the January 6th committee, upon which she served, should be in jail.
And she said, quite smugly, that Congress is above the law, and that Congress is uniquely exempt from the kind of attack that Trump would want to use to put anybody in jail.
To which I thought, huh.
Because I watched that J6 committee, and to me that all looked criminal.
That looked criminal. It looked like an actual insurrection.
It looked like treason. Because they were so obviously hiding information that could have been useful.
I mean, the whole thing was corrupt from the top to the bottom.
So I just assumed there was something illegal going on.
Because how could you have such bad behavior?
And there's no law that got broken by that?
Trying to put somebody out of office, take power by just lying?
How is that legal? But it probably is.
So the next time somebody says nobody's above the law, here's your answer.
Well, that's not true. Congress is.
Congress passed the law.
Did the Congress pass laws or didn't the Constitution?
Must be Congress, right?
Congress must have passed the law to make them above the law.
Am I wrong? Congress is the only entity I know that has a fund for paying off sex abuse complainants, and they just sort of chug on like his business does normal.
Why? Well, I guess they're above the law.
Must be above the law.
How about Adam Schiff telling you that he went into the SCIF and that he saw the stuff that would say the Russia collusion thing was true, and then we find out He didn't see anything like that.
He just made it up. How is that legal?
I mean, these are things which have gigantic consequences in American life.
I mean, really, things that affect you personally.
And he could just lie about it.
But he's in Congress.
He's above the law.
Now, probably there's no law against lying in that context.
But nothing else seems to be illegal either.
So yes, we do have a system in which our elected congresspeople are literally above the law.
All right, Melania has a new book, and apparently in it she comes out in favor of abortion.
She thinks only women should make decisions about their bodies.
I say the Republicans are crazy because they should say that women get to make all the decisions now because there are more women voters than men.
And now that it's in the states, Trump has taken it away from himself, a man, and taken the decision away from the courts, mostly men, and given it to the states that are mostly women.
So to me, one of the most compelling arguments is I moved the decision from a domain that was mostly men, himself, Trump, and the Supreme Court, mostly men.
I took it out of the domain where mostly men were deciding and I put it into a domain where women are the majority.
Now, to me, that's a solid argument.
But I have been told by somebody very smart that it doesn't work for everybody.
Does it sound good to you?
Because I think there's some research that says that's not exactly the one that's going to break through.
I think the real keywords Well, here's how I might want to go about it.
Why does he not say that?
I don't know. I think he maybe doesn't test well or something.
I'm not sure. But here's maybe what Republicans need to be better at.
Because of the abortion question, It seems like Republicans have accidentally created a brand that can be easily looked at as anti-woman.
Now it's not, or anything like it, but it can be easily reframed that way by the Democrats.
So maybe you need to lead with, we want what's best for women.
Because if you lead with, we want what's best for the unborn, then all the women who vote say, um, that's the wrong order.
The correct order is, I'm first.
The unborn is second.
Now, there's probably a way that you can say that without changing your views on abortion.
In other words, you can say something like our primary concern is the women involved and we know it's a terrible situation to be in and it's a very hard choice and we'd like to do everything we can to support that woman having the best outcome.
I know some people think the best outcome is abortion and women are the majority in the states and they'll make that call.
But we think we should be supporting women more through IVF, through better adoption processes, in some cases through education, and maybe improving our standards for who's getting pregnant and who isn't.
And we think that we could work hand-in-hand with the Democrats because we all like IVF, we all like better adoption, We'd all like that.
And we'd like more people.
So we'd like these women to have those children.
And we also think that the people who are happiest are in a stable family relationship.
So there might be a lot of situations where they would have been happier having the child.
But we want to make sure they have all those options.
So there's some way to sell this where you've put the woman first, but you haven't changed your mind about whether or not there should be an abortion.
A lot of it is just the way you frame it.
So it might seem creepy to Republicans to basically take the chance of throwing away a baby, as you would say, to support some green-haired feminist.
But I think it's not immoral or unethical to say that you care about the adult woman.
You can make that the first part of your message and still not change your opinion on abortion.
So it'd be a little better framing.
I don't know if it'd change anybody's opinion, but there's a better way to say everything.
All right. Apparently, Scott Pressler got another win.
He's been registering people in Pennsylvania, and he alerted us to the fact that That although Trump is going to have his rally there in Pennsylvania, in Butler, the same place he got his shot, and of course it'll be a big event because it's being held there.
And I guess Scott Pressler was hoping there would be a lot of voter registrations because there'd be a lot of attention on that and he'd be able to use that to boost his voter registration stuff.
But then the people who run the systems in the state decided to do maintenance on the voter registration system the evening of the rally, which looks, first of all, there are some reports that that would be uncommon, that normally they would do it from, let's say, midnight or 3 a.m.
They wouldn't do it at 6 p.m.
to midnight, the exact time that people would be likely registering because they got inspired by the By the rally.
And that got reversed.
So Scott Pressler took it to the public and embarrassed the people who were in charge.
And the people in charge said, ah, we'll do maintenance at night like we always do.
Good job, Scott Pressler.
I'll tell you, if Trump wins and Pennsylvania is the state that makes all the difference, Scott Pressler needs some kind of national recognition.
I don't know what it would be.
What's available, like a, I don't know, some kind of medal of something?
There's got to be some kind of an award for that.
He's really representing the best of the American spirit in so many ways.
He's got the hard work.
He's got the supporting the system.
He's got the trying to do it right.
Lots of people are trying to do their weasel thing.
A lot of people lying in politics and hiding things.
He's just trying to do it right.
How about we sign you up to vote?
That's doing it right. So congratulations, Sam.
I hope it works out.
All right, Medal of Freedom. There you go.
The Medal of Freedom. Why not?
Medal of Freedom. I mean, he certainly would have saved the country.
I mean, maybe.
It could be he's saving the country.
I mean, it could be that close that his work makes a difference.
All right. A bedazzled Medal of Honor.
Yeah, let's make it special. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say hi to the subscribers on Locals.
That's all I have for the rest of you.
If you're on Axor Rumble or YouTube, thanks for joining, and I will see you same time tomorrow.
