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, Kamala Hispanic Support, BLM Atlanta Leader, Wildfire Aid Trump Hoax, LNG Export Pause, Sean Combs, Clive Davis, Hurricane Helene Election Interference, FEMA Helene Response, Nicole Shanahan, Pilgrim's Motivation, Nuclear Powered Data Centers, Kamala Teleprompter Glitch, FEMA Funding Shortfall, NC Hurricane Supply Flights, Pete Buttigieg, Elon Musk, GA Judge Rejects Cyber Experts, Job Numbers Fakery, CNN Harry Enten, Overseas Ballot Fraud Potential, Election Monitors Suppression, Iron Law of Oligarchy, Mike Benz, Intel Asset Migrants, Ireland Wokeness, Josh Shapiro, Butler Trump Rally, 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
Dogbert and Bob says, I took a DNA test to see if I have any living relatives.
And Bob continues, it turns out I'm related to a bird from across town.
We got together last night.
Then I killed him because I didn't like the direction he was evolving.
And Dogbert says, you have good stories.
So in case you're looking for more Dilbert comics, that's where you can find them.
Good morning and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time in your life.
This is the weekend edition, because lazy people take the weekend off.
Not me. Not me.
I'm here every day. And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go! Oh, man.
So good I can barely stand it.
Well, here's some more science that could have saved a lot of money just by asking me.
You didn't need to do a study, but they did a study to find out that if you keep your brain challenged and you do lots of mentally difficult activities, that your brain will be healthier into old age.
Huh. I wonder who you could have asked.
Oh, you could have asked me.
Because it turns out that your brain is like the rest of your body.
The more you use it, the better it is.
I find that my brain stops working after about two days off of work.
One of the reasons, and this is true by the way, one of the reasons that I don't like not working any given day is if I take a day off from working, I actually find it harder to work the next day.
Meaning that if I take a few days off from writing a comic, it's hard.
Two days off, and suddenly you just forget that little muscle.
It's almost like taking time off from exercise.
So yes, you should be looking for something that keeps your brain active in your older years.
It'll make a big difference. I feel as if I can feel the difference.
It's such a difference that you can actually feel it.
It's not just hypothetical. Well, according to Science Alert, there's a study that found that omega-3 supplements Reduce aggression by up to 28%.
And fairly immediately.
So if you give somebody omega-3, which is a common supplement, one that I use actually, it will reduce your aggression.
Now, my question to you is this.
How many times will science need to prove to you that free will is an illusion before you're going to believe me?
What does it say about free will if you can take a common supplement and it changes your behavior radically?
Where's your free will?
If you had free will, a supplement wouldn't make any difference.
It's the supplement that's making the decision for you.
It's not you. You're just an observer.
Once you realize you're just an observer in life, it does take a lot of pressure off.
One of my favorite reframes Is to tell myself I'm just an observer and I can't control anything.
Because sometimes when things are going wrong, you think, oh, I must do things differently to fix this, but maybe there's nothing you can do.
So I just tell myself I'm an observer.
My body's just going where I observe it, and it's almost like a hobby to watch what happens.
All right, just calling up my...
Comments here? Nope, that's not it.
I want to make sure I'm looking at the locals comments.
Now, it would be great if locals put the content in the order that it happens instead of completely out of order.
Don't know why it does that.
Probably because I think I'm pinning things.
I'm wrong. All right, we won't have an argument about free will.
I know you love that one. According to Zero Hedge, food prices might be jumping up again because of supply chain problems and conflicts in the world and everything else.
But apparently the biggest increase is in sugar, which is in a lot of things, and certain oils.
I'm sure this sugar is just Satan at this point.
Do you think if you just said, alright, sugar is Satan, everything would make sense?
I think that sugar is why we have, you know, every health problem, probably every chronic health problem that's not caused by maybe fertilizer or something, or weed killers or something.
I think sugar is just the thing that's making all the other chronic problems worse.
So now it's making your inflation worse too.
Sugar is the devil.
Alright, here's another one you should have asked me.
So Psychology Today says there's a new study that says when kids play with dogs, it releases the hormone oxytocin.
Oxytocin is that hormone that we seek the most.
It's the one that makes you feel good and like life is okay and somebody loves you and you're connected to the world.
It's really a good chemical to have working for you.
And kids can get it from playing with dogs.
Well, you could have saved some money on this study, because the day before I read about the results of the study, literally, this is not an exaggeration, I was curled up on the floor yesterday talking to my dog while I hugged her, and I was explaining to her that I was boosting our oxytocin.
Literally. I literally was talking out loud, like with real words, to my dog, Yesterday.
And today I find out somebody spent money on a survey or a study to find out what I knew laying on the floor with a dog.
So you just should have asked me.
I could have told you. And by the way, you feel it.
Have you ever had the experience where you just curl up with a cat on your lap or a dog and you just feel that little extra warm comfort?
That's the oxytocin.
That's what that is. So once you learn to recognize it, You can tell you're getting it from the dog, for sure.
Well, according to Slay News, the Harris campaign is taking a big hit from Hispanic support.
And apparently she has less support than Biden did and he had less support than, I think, Obama.
And now Harris has less support than Biden.
So the Hispanic community is moving quite noticeably toward the Republican side.
Did you need to do a survey about that?
No, you did not.
Because I believe that one of my better predictions in this world, and I've been saying it for five years.
So think about, take yourself back five years.
So this is way before it was really super obvious that the Hispanic community was moving away from the Democrats.
Five years ago, that wasn't obvious.
And I was telling you, okay, if you don't live among the Hispanic community as I do, I have lots of connections to the immigrant Hispanic community, you would maybe not know that they love their family and they love their God and they're here to work hard and to follow the rules.
They're Republicans.
They're Republican from top to bottom.
And I don't know how you can change them into something else.
Now, they might get here and maybe they haven't figured out how everything works in America.
So there might be a short time where the Democrats get them registered as a Democrat, and that can be a little bit of sticky.
But once they pay attention a little bit and they see, wait, what are the Republicans offering?
What are the Democrats offering?
It's kind of a slam dunk.
The Democrats are not even close to being competitive to what the Hispanic community that I observe wants out of the world.
What they want out of the world is not more trans in school.
That's not what the Hispanic community cares about.
So this is one of my, you know, better observations that I think bringing enormous amounts of Hispanic people in through immigration is not going to work out in the long run the way the Democrats hoped.
They think that they're bringing in Democrats.
I think that's a short-term strategy.
Now, it could be that if the short-term strategy works, they'll gain enough power that nobody can take it back.
So it could be that the short-term strategy is all they need to have total complete control forever, but you can tell which way things are moving.
All right, let's see what else is happening.
So the former head of Black Lives Matter from Greater Atlanta, he is going to jail because he was guilty of taking donations that were meant for Black Lives Matter and He used them to travel and buy a home.
It makes you wonder, was any of the Black Lives Matter movement real?
Any of it? Yeah, I think it was 100% fake.
And do you wonder if George Soros knows that?
Did he know it at the time?
And does he care one way or the other?
Because it looks like Black Lives Matter might have been used just for political reasons to be anti-Trump.
It doesn't really look like anybody was trying to help black Americans through Black Lives Matter.
It doesn't look like the members, or at least the leaders, the members probably were sincere, but the leaders were not sincere.
And the person who funded it, I doubt they were sincere.
So now we know that it was exactly what it looks like.
But the part B of this story is they showed a picture of the former head of Black Lives Matter.
And I'm just going to say this about that.
After looking at the picture of the former Black Lives Matter, Candace Owens might want to look into his background.
I'll just leave it there.
You know, you would think that the head of Black Lives Matter should look a little bit more black than some of the heads of the Black Lives Matter look.
You should at least look completely black.
You know, not 10%.
If you look 10% black, well, okay.
I guess the standard is if you want to call yourself black, you're allowed to do that.
In our big old world, you can identify the way you want.
But it's a strange look.
I'll just say that.
It's a strange look.
There's a new Trump hoax.
There's some ex-aide, and I'm assuming that this is anonymous.
I didn't care enough to read the actual story.
But the anonymous near-the-election story is that an ex-aide says that Trump refused to give California wildfire aid.
So when California had the wildfires during Trump's administration, he wouldn't give them wildfire aid until somebody told him how many people there voted for him.
Does that sound true? Do you think Trump said, I'm not going to give wildfire aid to California until somebody tells me how many of them voted for me?
That sounds so hilariously not true.
It's exactly the kind of story you expect a few weeks before the election.
An anonymous story.
Somebody anonymously.
Yeah, no, I don't think that Trump was talking out loud in front of witnesses and suggesting that he wasn't going to give wildfire aid to a place that had too many Democrats.
Now, that did not happen.
I'm sorry, I wasn't in the room, but that did not happen.
So that's the new hoax.
Anyway, have I ever told you that all data that matters is fake?
Not all data. But anything that matters to policy or to politics is all fake.
Engineers sometimes have real data, right?
If you're measuring the fault rate of machines, that's probably real.
There's a good chance you got that right.
But the political stuff that goes to policy and who's in charge and where the money goes, none of that's true.
You can count on none of that being true.
Just none of it.
Now, I know I can't sell that.
You're not ready for it?
Because we're all being sort of slowly blackpilled into understanding the real system that we live in.
It's really, really hard to wrap your head around none of it being real.
Because you're pretty sure that at least the stuff that agrees with you is real, right?
Well, that stuff must be real because it agrees with how you feel.
No, none of it's real.
Now, some of it might be accidentally accurate, but it would be just an accident.
Here's an example.
So, I wasn't keeping up with this story, but apparently the Biden-Harris administration paused LNG exports.
Now, LNG would be the liquefied natural gas.
It's a gigantic energy market.
And apparently there was some pause because there was some study that said that the LNG was worse for the environment than coal.
And then somebody said, yeah, but you did the numbers wrong and you got some wrong assumptions and the data's wrong.
So what's true?
So the administration, at least maybe temporarily, they're accused of maybe changing their policy.
Because of this study, and then somebody said, no, it's none of it's true.
That is the world we live in.
Now, is the study wrong?
I wouldn't know. Would you?
Maybe the people who say the study is wrong are the ones that are wrong.
But my point is, sometimes the studies or the data will be correct, but it's never going to be credible.
So you still can't use it, or you still can't trust it.
You can use it, but you can't trust it.
Here's some more data that is fake.
The data might be real, but the interpretation would be fake.
So you know that the lawyer representing over 120 victims of the Diddy party situation.
So there's a lawyer who says he's got 100 clients that are going to try to get money, I guess, from some kind of reports of bad behavior.
But since the lawyer went public with all those people who are going to be Complaining and maybe trying to get money.
They've received 12,000 phone calls with tips on various bad ditty behavior.
12,000. Now here's what you need to know about that.
If you took any public figure Even one that wasn't real, like Mickey Mouse.
I'll use Mickey Mouse as my example because Mickey doesn't exist.
If somebody did a press release and said, we have 120 complaints that Mickey Mouse was sexually assaulting them, what would be the most obvious thing that would happen after that?
Well, I think you would get 12,000 phone calls from people who said, Mickey Mouse sexually assaulted me too.
Can I get in on this?
Yeah. So what you should not interpret from 120 people who got a lawyer to go after Diddy, triggering 12,000 phone calls of more reports of Diddy, this will be your toughest challenge For assuming innocent until proven guilty.
There are 12,000 reports of guilt.
And you somehow, as a citizen of the United States, if you're playing it right, if you're playing it fair, still innocent.
Still innocent. Now, trust me, I have the same instinct about this that you do.
It feels like he's not innocent.
It feels like he's not.
But I'm going to try as hard as I can to set a standard here that only the government is guilty from the get-go.
They have to prove they're innocent.
But as citizens, you're really going to have to prove they're guilty, and this doesn't do it.
12,000 phone calls doesn't do it.
One lawyer with over 100 clients doesn't do it.
That's not good enough. It might be later.
I mean, of course, after the evidence comes in, we'll re-decide.
But don't decide because so many people said that they were there or saw it.
I mean, all it is is the anonymous source about Trump times 12,000, basically.
Well, speaking of Diddy, I was looking at Netflix for something to watch last night, and there's a Netflix documentary about Clive Davis, the music mogul guy who made a lot of people rich and made a lot of stars.
And I got to say, it was fascinating.
But it's twice as fascinating now that you know the context of the accusations against Diddy.
Here are some things to look for, and I want to say this very carefully.
I'm not aware of any accusations against Clive Davis.
So again, everybody I mentioned is innocent unless some court of law says they're not, right?
So I'm making no allegations.
I'm just saying that if you watch this documentary, which is made to be very complimentary to Clive Davis, I assume he was behind the making of it because it's just so complimentary.
But you have to watch this with your current context.
Everything looks different.
Now, I don't know if the everything looking different is my bias creeping into a story in which there was nothing that was wrong.
I don't know.
But some of the things I learned were that I didn't know that Clive Davis had come out as bisexual at some point.
So he liked relations with men and women.
And in the context of hearing the ditty, allegedly, again, we don't know for sure, was allegedly forcing himself on young male people.
And then in the documentary, we see that Clive Davis discovered Diddy, or he was a big part of Diddy's advance, and that Diddy saw him as sort of a mentor.
Now again, I want to be really clear that I'm making no allegations, and I'm not aware of any allegations against Clive Davis.
But when you see it in the context, it really looks different.
But I'll tell you the two creepiest things.
There were two references to grooming.
In the documentary. But both references were in reference to grooming musicians.
So he would find people who are, you know, talented but not famous, and he would groom them.
And that was the actual word they used.
So they used the word groom twice in that documentary.
How many documentaries have the word groom in it twice?
It's a weird thing.
So again, I'm not making any kind of accusations and I'm not aware of any that anybody else is making.
But wow, does this look different when you put the context of what you think you know about the nitty story that who knows how much is true.
Well, Walter Isaacson says that the quote, the script will get flipped next week on October 10th when Elon introduces RoboTaxi.
And things that operate in the real world.
So we've got AI, and AI is the subject of several of our biggest companies.
So Elon Musk has his version of AI, and Google has theirs, and Microsoft and OpenAI have theirs, etc.
I didn't realize this, but maybe I knew it, that Musk is making his version of AI, which is called XAI. He makes it open source whenever he releases the new version.
So when he releases the new version, he makes the version just before that open source for competitive reasons.
Maybe he wants to not make the new one open, but then he reveals it.
So here's my observation.
So you're Elon Musk and you are really good at business models and making stuff work.
He's making his model open source.
What's that going to do to AI as a valuable commodity in the future?
Shouldn't it bring it down to a commodity?
Are we building the world's most expensive new technology with these multi-billion dollar chip-based data centers and building nuclear power plants just to power them?
And that when you're done, because there's a version of the same thing you just made with all of your billions of dollars, there's a free one over here that's open source.
Don't they all become worth nothing?
Because the competition is free.
Well, here's a free one.
So I suspect that you need all the billions of dollars to build the thing.
But once you've built it, how much smarter is it ever going to get?
In other words, when you reach the point where it can't get much smarter, and it's already absorbed the total knowledge and language patterns of all conversations that's happened before, and then it can also search the internet and maybe update itself once in a while.
Aren't you done? Like, there's some point where there's nothing left to train it on.
And then it becomes a commodity, doesn't it?
But, suppose you're Elon Musk.
And you know that the AI is not just going to be on your phone, it's also going to be in your robot, and it's going to be in your robo-taxi that will drive itself when you call it.
And here's the thing, if Musk can, you know, through making the previous versions open source, if any of that turns out to make AI by itself a commodity, meaning that's the economic word for meaning it's not worth much, you wouldn't pay much for it, but he also is the best American manufacturer of complicated things.
So he can make a car.
I guess they can make their satellites wherever they make them.
And he can make a robot.
So if he makes a robo-taxi and robots, nobody who's also making AI can compete with him.
Because the part they'll be selling will be the commodity that's worth nothing eventually.
The part he's selling will be the super valuable part because Americans can't manufacture, but he can.
So what is Microsoft going to do if they've developed this AI that's really cool but everybody else makes one and they're all the same and maybe one of them has less censorship so you like it better?
I don't know. It seems to me that Musk may have developed one of the best competitive models you'll ever see.
Which he's going to get the AI, spend his billions, but he'll have robots to put it in, and that's the secret sauce.
I don't know. We'll see.
I don't see Microsoft competing with him on manufacturing, so what are they going to have to sell eventually?
Good question. Well, Politico is mentioning what we've all been thinking, that the Hurricane Helene, since they hit some states that are important to the election, electorally speaking, and they also have more Republicans than Democrats, especially Georgia and North Carolina, the guy hit Politico is saying it could change the election result, meaning that there will be fewer Republicans who can get to the polls,
and it happens to be in some of the most important states.
And since the elections are always close, this could be the difference.
It could be the actual hurricane is the difference between who wins the election.
Now, that brings us to question number two, which is, is FEMA and the Biden administration doing enough, or is there any regard to maybe they're not doing enough because they don't want to do enough?
In other words, are any decisions being made at the leadership level that are making it less likely that Republicans will recover fast enough to vote?
Now, we're seeing lots of reports that I don't consider completely credible yet, because it's still fog of war.
So we're seeing lots of reports of just horrible, horrible behavior by FEMA, but also reports that the reports of the horrible behavior are fake.
It's way too early to know what's going on.
Are there terrible inefficiencies in the system?
Well, almost certainly. But I imagine that always looks that way.
You know, if you could see everything that's happening during a disaster recovery, I imagine there would be all kinds of pockets of what looks like incompetence and poor communication.
Probably kind of normal.
Because if you go into any war or...
Well, you know, you've heard the old thing about Your battle plan only lasts until the first bullet is fired.
And then after that, you've got to scramble to figure it out.
Or I think Mike Tyson says that your strategy for the boxing match goes away after the first punch.
I feel like disaster recovery is like that.
You've got a great plan.
But then you get there, you go, 130 substations for our network are gone and all of our communication.
Now what do we do? So, I can't tell from a distance that FEMA is failing or should have done something differently.
We can tell for sure that a lot of people are not getting served.
It's a little different.
Because there might be some natural obstacles that are just unique to this case.
The massive amount of the widespread electrical problem, taking out all communication, means you can't even find the people who need help.
So there's something about this one that's different than a lot of different recoveries.
So it looks like Incompetence at a level that you almost think is intentional.
How many of you would go so far as to say that based on what you've seen so far in the news, or even other reports, it looks intentional?
Does anybody feel that way?
That the incompetence looks like an intentional incompetence because they don't want to really help the Republicans?
I don't see it.
So let me see directly.
On a factual basis, I don't see support for that theory.
Factually. Will your election depend on facts?
No. As others have said, this is a vibe election.
If you think the vibe of one team is better than the vibe of the other, you're going to vote for the good vibe.
But let me tell you the vibe that white people are getting.
And I can't speak for all white people, but you can see my post I posted today.
You'll see if people are agreeing or not, so you can determine it yourself.
But I'll tell you the vibe I'm getting.
It feels like the Democrats have gone from overt discrimination against white Americans in the form of DEI and ESG, very overt, obvious racial discrimination, to actually killing white people and replacing them with immigrants.
Now, is that a factual statement?
No. No, it is not.
Did I say it was a factual statement?
Nope. Nope.
I'm making no claim of fact because I don't see the facts.
But let me tell you how it feels.
As a white person in America, it feels like they're fucking murdering us because they got away with everything else so far, and why wouldn't they?
It feels like they're murdering us.
It feels like we're literally targeted for murder.
Now, again, let me be very careful.
That's not what's happening.
That is not happening.
That is not factually happening.
They're not targeting us for murder so they can win the election.
But it feels like it.
It feels like it.
Now, Does the fact that I am quite aware that there's no factual support for that, does it change how I feel?
No, it doesn't, because the pattern that's been created by all of the other activities in the last several years looks very much like an anti-white long-term trend to which everything is folding under.
So the vibe is not like anything I've ever felt before.
Now it looks like, it feels like extermination.
It isn't. It isn't.
And there's no factual basis for that, but goddammit, it feels like it.
How many of you feel the same way?
Do any of you feel like we've turned some corner here?
And the hurricane, again, this is a false signal.
I would be super surprised if we ever learned that anything about the hurricane had something to do with politics.
I don't believe that that's true.
But damn, it feels like it.
It just feels like it.
And that's...
So I'm not trying to convince you to feel like it.
I don't think that's helpful.
But I just think you probably do.
And if you don't think that that's going to change people's behavior in voting, I think you're wrong.
I think that Republicans and white Republicans in particular are voting for their life.
And I think that black Americans suddenly got a tap on the shoulder.
It's like, you know, the massive immigration, that's not good for you.
And your side's doing it, and that's not good for you.
And I think that black Americans see it too.
So it's not like any of this is based on race.
It feels like it's political, and they don't care what race they have to manipulate.
Could be blacks, could be whites.
They just need the power.
So I think that's why you're going to see a lot more black Americans joining white Americans to say, Nicole Shanahan said she was shocked By the intolerance of the Democrats that she used to be, because when she left the Democrats to become independent, apparently the people that were friends and people who respected her just turned.
So it became socially and business-wise, she just became poison as soon as she turned away from the Democrats.
Now, keep in mind that she didn't turn away from the Democrats to Trump right away.
She turned to the most Democrat family member you could ever have, which was Kennedy.
And that was enough to be, like, excommunicated forever, and, you know, she was basically dead to her friends and business people.
Now, here's the thing that I take away from that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not a historian.
The people who got on the Mayflower, the original pilgrims, correct me if I'm wrong, but did they not risk their lives to get on that ship to cross an ocean under the worst conditions to get the fuck away from these assholes?
Right? America was founded by people trying to get the fuck away from these assholes.
It's the same assholes.
The same assholes are telling you how to live, how to think.
Yeah, it's the same fucking assholes.
They're trying to take away your free speech.
They're very pointedly trying to do that.
They're trying to get rid of all your freedoms.
Very clearly. Yeah.
And if you don't think this is 1776-ish, if you don't think this is time for whatever blood it is that makes Americans Americans to get our act together and realize that we came here to get away from this fucking shit and we're not going to let this happen again.
Men, men, men, can you get it together and fucking vote?
And guess somebody signed up?
If you're a man in America and you haven't gotten at least one other man to sign up to vote to save this fucking country, you're not a man.
Step up, men.
Step up. This is the real thing, by the way.
This is not a drill.
This is the real thing.
Don't fuck around.
It's time to step up.
All right. This is interesting, trend-wise.
There are now at least four companies that are looking at nuclear power just for their own data centers, because AI is going to take so much.
Amazon just bought a nuclear-powered data center.
Now, I did not know That a nuclear-powered data center existed.
So this must be in another country?
I don't know where that is.
Oracle is building some data center that will be powered by three nuclear power, nuclear, small nuclear power plants.
And Microsoft is looking at Three Mile Island to turn it back on, the parts that still work.
And Google is looking at nuclear power as well.
So your biggest companies are looking at Having their own nuclear power.
Now, look at these four companies, Amazon, Oracle, Microsoft, and Google.
Do they have enough clout to force the government to, let's say, be smarter about their regulatory environment for nuclear?
Yes, they do. If you just waited for the government to say, you know what, we've been looking at our regulations and, you know, we think we should reduce a few of these.
Nothing's going to happen. Our government does what it's paid to do.
Let's be honest.
It does what it's paid to do.
And I don't mean paid to do what the people want.
I mean paid by donors, special interests.
The government does what it's paid to do.
So now that we have our biggest, richest companies who absolutely, positively, no doubt about it, need nuclear energy or they're fucked.
They're just going to pay the government to get rid of the regulations so they can do it.
Problem solved. If you believe our government is as corrupt as I do, then the only way you can remove regulations is that gigantic companies who have the money to bribe anybody Just bribe people to get rid of the regulations so they can go on with their business.
I think at this point, if you don't own some stock in the nuclear power companies, you might look back and say, why didn't I see that coming?
And by the way, I should note I do own stock in an index fund of nuclear power companies for this reason.
And I also, I should have mentioned, I do own some stock in Tesla.
Every once in a while I should have mentioned to you that I own stock in some of the companies I mentioned.
I've got some Microsoft stock.
I don't have any Amazon or Oracle.
Except in index funds.
All right. There's a new video of Kamala Harris.
People are saying that her teleprompter glitched.
It looked like it.
I'm not sure that's the answer, but...
MNE is only one of the companies.
I've got a different one I'll tell you about later.
So she's talking along at a rally and maybe the teleprompter glitched.
And she just started saying, oh, 32 days until something.
Ah, 32.
Ah, 32.
And you could even see the panic in her eyes.
And I was trying to say, could you imagine the teleprompter goes out and let's say it's Vivek Ramaswamy.
Is that a problem?
No. No.
Vivek can do an hour within a teleprompter.
He can do two hours within a teleprompter.
Let's say it's RFK Jr.
and the teleprompter goes out.
Is he in trouble? No.
No. RFK Jr. can talk for two hours within a teleprompter and it will all be brilliant.
If Trump is giving his talk and his teleprompter goes out, which I think has happened actually, what happens?
Is he panicked? No.
He does stand-up comedy.
And it gets better. The crowd likes it better.
So you could go right down the line.
If JD Vance lost his teleprompter, is he in trouble?
No. No.
JD Vance can talk for two hours without a teleprompter and it all makes sense.
But Kamala Harris couldn't do it.
And we're actually looking at her as maybe a president.
You realize that in the fullness of time, it will seem hilarious that this was ever close.
It's only because the brainwashing operation from the government is so powerful that they've convinced people that this should be a close race.
This one really shouldn't be.
And by the way, I do think that most Most elections, I can completely understand why they're close.
When Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, I had a strong preference, but Hillary Clinton is very capable and very smart and very experienced when she ran for office.
This isn't like that.
This is not that.
It made sense that Hillary Clinton was very close in the polls to Trump.
This doesn't make sense.
I don't know how unreal our environment can become, but we've really reached some kind of new level of, are we supposed to believe this, that this election is close?
No, thank you.
I choose not to believe it.
There's a new deep fake.
This one's clever because it purported to be some kind of hidden camera thing where the face of the person talking was concealed.
But when you listen to the words, since you can't see a mouth moving because the face is blurred out, The words sound to me like AI or some actor, but the alleged person is suggesting that Kamala Harris is the owner of the cocaine that was found in the White House.
I would give zero credibility to that, and if you couldn't tell that was a deep fake, you need to be a little more cautious.
Do you know how many people couldn't tell it was a deep fake?
2.1 million have viewed it so far.
Over 2 million people viewed it and a lot of them reposted it.
So this is really dangerous because in my mind it was obviously fake.
But to a lot of people, it wasn't.
And what is it about it?
Let me test you.
What is it about it, even without seeing it?
So you don't have to see it to answer this question.
All you have to know is the topic.
What made people believe it when it obviously looked like it was fake?
What made people believe it?
It's because they wanted to.
It was a fun recreational story that if you could make a case that it was Kamala Harris's cocaine in the White House, and again, I'm aware of no evidence of that whatsoever.
It's only based on a fake video.
It would be fun to believe and it would be compatible with maybe some of your prior beliefs.
It's just a bias. So the deep fakes you have to worry about are not the one...
This is my learning.
My key learning here is that you don't have to worry just about them looking real.
This one didn't look real and it's still sold.
Because it was compatible with what people wanted to believe.
So the key lesson here is, the deep fake just has to agree with what people are already thinking, and they will completely be oblivious to how poorly you made it.
I hate to say that's true, but you can see it in this one especially.
Anyway, there's a whole bunch of conversation about the FEMA budget.
People on the right say that FEMA gave tons of money to settling or helping migrants, and therefore they're running out of money.
To help in the current hurricane situation.
FEMA would say, and Democrats would say, nothing like that happened.
Those were different budgets and different buckets, and we never spent the money for the hurricane stuff.
It was just a different bucket, blah, blah, blah.
Then Republicans would say something like, there's no such thing as different buckets.
To something else, then logically that was half a billion that could have been available, but isn't.
Is that a good argument?
I'm going to go with both of them are full of shit.
So I'm going to say I can't back either argument, because they both look like they're lying.
So I don't believe the Democrats when they say, oh, it's a different bucket.
But I also don't believe the Republicans when they say, that's the reason that there's not enough money.
Or even that there isn't enough money.
Because the White House says there is enough.
We're giving them everything they want.
So I think both sides are lying on this story.
Or mistaken. No, I won't say lying.
I'll say mistaken. Or they're adapting a version that's compatible with their preconceived notions, let's say.
I don't know what to believe on that, but I don't like it.
There was a story that the FEMA was blocking private flights and helicopters from bringing stuff in.
Elon Musk got into it on the X platform because people were contacting him and saying, we've got this stuff, but they won't let us deliver it.
And then Buttigieg weighed in and said, that's not true.
Nobody's blocking any flights.
And then Musk tried to get in touch with him and did.
And Buttigieg was successful in expediting the approval of the flights.
In other words, Buttigieg was not aware that there was something that needed to be expedited.
Now, is that a giant failure of FEMA or Buttigieg?
Yes. Yes.
Yes, it was a giant failure.
But I'm going to put some context on it.
In the context of this big operation with so many moving parts, it's not that unusual that the top person or persons are not getting the information from the bottom persons.
That's not unusual.
So my guess is that Buttigieg literally didn't know it was a problem.
Until he fixed it.
It was the fixing it that guaranteed it was a problem because there was something to fix.
So even Buttigieg says, you know, that he expedited.
You don't expedite during an emergency unless something's broken, right?
Because the expediting is what the emergency response is.
The entire emergency response is an expedited response.
So if he has to go in and expedite the thing that should have been expedited, Something was broken.
But he did fix it.
So we'll give him that.
I tend to be very generous in my scoring during a disaster.
Because people are just doing the best they can.
And I think they are doing the best they can.
There's, according to The Hill, a Georgia judge has tossed out a lawsuit about voting machines because the judge says that the The alleged, let's say, holes in the voting machine process are purely hypothetical.
So some security risks were presented to a Fulton County judge in Georgia, and the judge said, you have not made your case, that these weaknesses in the system are purely hypothetical.
Now, here's what you should learn from this.
If you have a computer or you have a company, You may be worried about the cybersecurity of your company or your own computer.
If you're worried about the cybersecurity of your company, you should see a judge.
No, some of you are saying, no, why wouldn't I talk to a cyber expert?
No, you don't need a cyber expert to tell you who can and cannot hack a machine.
No, you need a judge.
Somebody went to law school.
They're the ones who can tell you if the security problems in your machine are purely hypothetical or the real kind you need to worry about.
So don't worry, people.
Don't worry. A judge says that hackers can't get into the machines.
No, a judge said it.
Stop complaining.
A judge said it can't do it.
Have you heard about the event where the hackers get all the newest, well, I don't know if they're the newest, they get all the voting machines in one room and then they hack them?
And they hack everyone every time?
They're all hacked.
But the judge says, these particular machines, no problem.
It's only hypothetical.
So I don't trust that.
Have I told you that all data that matters is fake?
The closer you get to an election, the more fake it is?
Well, here are three takes.
Remember you saw the report that the jobs are looking great and the jobless rate is under control?
What was the first thing you said to yourself when you saw that the job numbers looked great right before the election?
Well, you probably said what I said.
These numbers aren't real.
Do you know who else said these numbers don't look real?
Let's see. I think it was...
Bloomberg and CNBC. So both Bloomberg and CNBC, when they saw the job numbers, said, uh, no.
So this is one of those situations where you really have to divide the world into people with experience in the real world and people who are inexperienced.
Suppose you're 25 years old, you're trying to decide who to vote for, and the numbers come out that says the jobs are great, and that may be the thing you care about the most, especially if you're looking to work your way up through the employment world.
So you're 25 and you see that the jobs are just killing it?
You're going to vote for a Democrat.
But, if you happen to be experienced, let's say you're over 50, and you've seen how the real world works, you've seen how numbers are always weird when it gets to the election, and you know that they're usually revised, and often revised in a major way, downward, but after the fact.
If you had experience in the real world and those numbers came out, you said what CNBC and Bloomberg said.
No. No, these aren't real.
These are not real numbers.
So I have that kind of experience.
So as soon as I saw it, I didn't need to consult with Bloomberg.
I didn't need to consult with CNBC. They did not need to consult with anybody either.
Because if you have a certain amount of experience in the real world, you just look at those numbers and you shake your head.
You go, no.
No. I've been saying the same thing about science measuring the temperature of the earth.
People in the business world tend to give scientists like their own space.
As in, the scientists are somehow immune from all the things that make every other number fake.
They're not immune. It's exactly the same.
If it's a political domain, such as climate change, their numbers are as real as the job numbers, meaning that it's all motivated numbers and you can't trust any of it.
So that's the difference between being experienced and not experienced.
So you can sell climate change to young people because they do not yet know that all the important data is fake.
They don't know that. But once you know that everything that matters to policy and to money is fake, or at least you shouldn't trust it, then everything looks different suddenly.
All right. So there are three different arguments, at least, why it's fake.
So one of them is that the raw number might be real-ish, but the people who got the jobs are coming in from other countries.
And the people who got the jobs are mostly government hiring.
So there was massive government hiring.
Oh, that's a big coincidence.
Right before the election.
And there was a lot of people took part-time jobs.
So basically the jobs numbers, even if the data was correct, the way you would interpret it could be opposite of the number.
So the interpretation would be, hey, jobs are way up.
Good news, everybody.
Great job, Democrats. Or Let's look at the details of these numbers.
Wait a minute. All the jobs went to people who are not even citizens who just came in the country this year.
Oh, that's the worst thing in the world.
Well, it's not the worst thing in the world, but it's bad.
So you can't even tell if the job report is good or bad for somebody who is a citizen.
That's how bad our data is.
You can't even tell. Well, CNN's Harry Enten.
Talking about the poll results on CNN. And he says, quote, so there's no historical precedent for the White House Party winning another term in the White House when just 28% of the country think we're on the right track.
And said, simply put, it would be historically unprecedented.
Huh. So, under the current conditions, Kamala Harris was judged the winner on Election Day.
Harry Enten of CNN told us that we shouldn't believe it was real.
Am I misinterpreting this?
Harry Enten is saying that it would be unprecedented and there would be no history of this ever happening in the United States for somebody with such a low rating for being on the right track would ever get re-elected.
So doesn't that automatically mean that if Harris does get judged the winner on election day, that a reasonable citizen would say there must be fraud?
Because this is so far out of the historical norm that we can't certify this.
Right? Am I wrong?
Now, one of the reasons that people didn't believe the 2020 election is that there, I believe, you'll have to give me a fact check on this, but I think there were some bellwether situations, you know, places where the vote always goes a certain way and you can rely on it, where it didn't.
And only in the kind of critical places where it made a difference.
To me, that's pretty good evidence of fraud.
It's not proof. It's not proof.
But I would say if Harry Enten has told us a few weeks before the election that nobody can get elected with these numbers, and then they do, how am I supposed to interpret that?
How am I supposed to interpret that somebody gets elected with numbers that you can't get elected with?
Do we say, well, I guess history certainly surprised us this time.
I might. But it's far more likely I'm going to suspect something was wrong with the election.
Well, I would say the rigging has already begun and maybe is already done and has determined that Harris will win.
So the Amuse account, which is really a high value account on X, if you're not following the account on X called Amuse, just one word, Amuse, you're missing some of the best independent reporting.
I mean, it's a level above anything you're going to see on the TV news.
And I don't even know who's behind it exactly, because it's sort of anonymous.
But I get some of my best stuff just from that one account on X, Amuse.
The other one that's similarly good is George.
Follow those two.
George is great.
I don't know who's backing George, but wow, he's got quite an operation going.
So here's what we know.
So we know we've got a potential election weakness because if you're voting overseas, you don't need to show that you're a citizen, you don't need to show your address or even your ID. And here's what the Amuse account tells us, that between 2016 and 2020, That there was a big increase in non-military overseas ballots.
So I guess we can tell fairly easily how many military people are overseas, and that number stayed about the same.
But the non-military people skyrocketed in numbers of people who voted in 2020.
Why would that be?
Did a lot of people move overseas between 2016 and 2020 for non-military reasons?
I'm not aware of that.
And of those votes coming in that were just the overseas ones that are non-military, how many of them do you think voted for Biden in Fulton County and Maricopa, two of the ones that we have the most questions about?
Well, according to Amuse, The Fulton County numbers, the votes for Biden that came in from this suspicious overseas unverified bunch of voters, that 100% of them went for Biden.
100%. Now you know that's not possible, right?
That is proof of rigging.
That's not a suspicion.
That would be proof.
That would be proof.
How about Maricopa?
74% for Biden.
Do you think there's anybody from, you know, you could take any group of Maricopa people and get 74% for Biden?
No. No.
These numbers, if they're true, remember data is always suspicious.
But if it's true, Then we know exactly one of the big sources of cheating.
So if you're wondering, hey, was there cheating in 2020?
Yeah, there it is. There it is.
If the data is true.
If the data is true, I would call that citizen-level proof, meaning that I don't know what a court would say, because a court would probably need you to track down every vote and check the ID and stuff like this.
But on a citizen level, like what do you and I decide is evidence versus proof?
To me, this is proof.
If the data is true, right?
I'll still put an if on, you know, you always have to wonder if the data sources are good, but if the data is true, yeah, this is proof that the election was rigged and that they plan to do it again.
There's a FBI whistleblower, according to the Gateway Pundit, That says the FBI is planning to have their own agents undercover.
I think undercover.
I'm not sure they said undercover.
But they would be monitoring the Maricopa County polling stations to monitor the Trump voters.
You thought I was going to say the FBI was going to monitor the election to make sure the election was fair, right?
No. They're going to monitor the monitors.
They're going to monitor the Republicans.
Now, let's game this out.
Let's say you're an attorney, And an election monitor.
You've been trained by the Laura Trump-Watley group, and you're like trained to be a good observer.
And suddenly you see something that looks suspicious, and you go to everybody and say, hey, I'm an observer.
This is suspicious.
You know, we need to keep an eye on this or whatever we need to do.
What happens then? Well, the Democrats, of course, push back.
And they push and they push, but it's sort of a fair fight.
You've got some attorneys that are trained to do this, so that's pretty powerful.
But the Democrats are going to push back hard, and they're pretty powerful.
So at least you've got a fair fight, okay?
So that's the situation without the FBI there.
Now, imagine the same situation, but the FBI there are to make sure the observers don't get out of hand.
So the observers say, hey, hey, we just saw something in that batch.
You've got to stop everything until we look at it.
Democrats say, no, no, no.
And then the FBI walks in and says, what are you talking about?
And the Republicans say, this batch looks bad.
Can you help us?
We'll make sure this one's guarded.
And then the FBI says, nah, I think it looks fine.
The Democrats say it looks fine.
And then what does the lawyer do, the trained lawyer observer do?
Well, the trained lawyer observer is outranked now, because you're not going to not do what the FBI tells you if you're a lawyer.
I mean, most lawyers.
So, to me, it looks like they're just adding muscle so that the Democrats can hide anything they want, and the observers won't have enough clout to make sure that they can check it when it needs to get checked.
So, to me, it looks like rigging.
Now, you could say, but Scott, this is not proven in any court.
No, as a citizen, I'm using my own standards for what I would consider proven versus alleged or hypothetical.
To me, if you put the FBI in there to watch only the Trump observers, that would be a rigged election.
At least in that way, it would be rigged.
Now, keep in mind this comes from a whistleblower.
I don't know if the whistleblower was anonymous.
If it's an anonymous whistleblower, we'll give it the same treatment as the Trump hoax, which is anonymous doesn't count.
Anonymous is not evidence.
But if he gave his name, and we know who he is, or he's at least given his name to law enforcement or something, maybe.
Maybe. So keep an eye on that one.
Mark Andreessen, famous investor in Silicon Valley, one of the big names there.
He teaches us something called the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
I've never heard this before, but it matches what I've believed.
And it says that, so there's something called the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
And what it says is that all forms of organizations, no matter how democratic, will turn into oligarchies.
Thus, democracy is practically and theoretically impossible.
Yes, that is correct.
If you have a democracy and a free market, it's inevitable and unavoidable that some people will succeed more than others.
So far, you all agree.
That's just what a free market is.
And then once those people get rich, they will, of course, Look at ways to stay rich.
And they will look at ways to, you know, increase their advantage.
And they'll look around at other rich people and say, you know, if you and I agreed, we'd be way more powerful than if we were just one of us.
And they don't even need to say the words, because they all know what's good for them.
And it's probably good for you too, fat cat.
And then suddenly the oligarchies have so much money and power that they start running the show.
And that democracy becomes just a window covering or something that makes the citizens feel they're participating, but really not.
Does that sound like America?
Yes. Yeah, that's America.
I don't believe there's any such thing as an actual functioning democracy.
And if there is, it's a temporary thing.
Because, yeah, to me this is an iron law.
I don't believe it's possible to have a long-term democracy republic situation.
I think it just devolves into really the fat cats are in charge and the citizens are diverted into thinking that voting makes a difference.
So, this is closely related to my observation that no government can survive free speech.
And that's why we don't have it, and never will.
Now, you thought you had free speech for most of your life, but really you only had the free speech to say things that the mainstream would agree with.
Otherwise, you were in trouble.
It didn't have to be the government.
So we watch the government using social media platforms and foreign entities to censor things in the United States, and it seems to pass the test of not violating the First Amendment, but we don't have free speech.
I mean, be real, we don't have anything like free speech.
Ask Nicole Shanahan.
She had free speech, went from being a Democrat to an Independent, and suddenly The pressure from other citizens because they've been brainwashed by whom?
Why is it that Nicole Shanahan gets so much bad treatment from Democrats when she leaves the Democrat field?
Is it because those Democrats have free will and they thought it out and they thought that was a good way to act?
Nope. They have been literally brainwashed to not tolerate certain kinds of speech.
And so they acted out that way, thinking it was their own opinions.
It was not their own opinions.
They were brainwashed.
And those opinions were assigned to them.
So as long as your government can control the media, it can assign opinions to people.
And part of its assignment is that, you know, here's one of the opinions I'm going to assign to you.
Even though we have this thing called free speech, you can't say that stuff.
So you can't say stuff that's true if it disagrees with what we're trying to push on people, like the pandemic situation.
And you can't say something that would be bad for somebody, because they even made up a thing that the Constitution has something about hate speech.
It doesn't. So hate speech is completely legal under First Amendment, but there was a poll This showed that women, and especially young women, think that the Constitution already makes it illegal to do hate speech.
Which makes it really easy for Democrats to blame people for hate speech and then get rid of their speech.
Because they've already convinced two-thirds of women that that's a legal and valid constitutional thing.
It's not. It's the opposite.
It's not legal or valid to monitor or stop somebody's speech if you're the government.
If you're the government, it's not appropriate.
So, here's a reframe that I hadn't heard until this morning.
That's really breaking my brain.
So this is a Mike Benz.
Again, Mike Benz is a...
I'm going to say this as clearly as I can.
If you're not following Mike Benz, B-E-N-Z, You really don't know what's going on.
Because the stuff he does is not in the news, and it's so well-sourced and so well-communicated, you end up listening to it and going, oh, wow.
I didn't know that.
All right, here's one of those. So you know that all these...
Dangerous-looking people are coming across the border.
You're seeing all these military-age-looking people from different countries.
It's not even one country.
It's not Mexico. It's from all over the world, all these military-age people.
And then we heard that there's a whole bunch of people that are allegedly on the national security list.
There's something about them that automatically makes them look like a national security risk, probably where they came from.
And you're saying to yourself, how in the world Is our government letting this happen?
Well, Here's a spin.
If you haven't heard this, this is going to blow your freaking mind.
First of all, you do know that the United States has, for decades and decades, tried to control as many other countries as possible, to have influence over the government, to do coups, to have protests.
So basically, America has tried, with every mechanism they can, from military to financial to covert, To control every country we can, because the more we control them, the more business we can do.
So the oligarchy needs control over other countries to get raw materials and also to have markets.
So really, our CIA is sort of an extension of our commercial enterprises.
It just makes sure that they're softening up these markets and these sources of raw materials so that it's good for the free market, basically.
Good for America specifically.
So, as part of that process, there's a lot of training of rebels who might want to take over their own country with American support.
So we got 1.7 million migrants who could pose some national security risk, according to the GOP Judiciary Committee.
And Mike Benz says this, My mind is completely blown by this, by the way.
You have to listen to this carefully.
Mike Benz, if you follow my streams, you know why.
So you know why that all these dangerous men are coming into the country.
Yes, sometimes it's recklessness and negligence.
So a lot of it could just be we have bad borders.
But most of the time, DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, is importing CIA And Department of Defense backed paramilitary gangs and their families because they're, quote, our guys in regime change ops in their countries of origin.
Haiti, Venezuela, Somalia, etc.
Democrats support the military intelligence op on political grounds, because they think it's changing the voter demographics, while Republicans support the military intelligence op on commercial grounds, because this is how you get your cheap labor in other countries and cheap resources.
So, here's what I hate about this point of view.
It explains everything.
It explains everything.
I don't know how completely accurate it is.
I'm willing to bet, based on Mike Benz's credibility, that there's some of that in the mix.
The question I don't know, and he's not giving us an estimate because he wouldn't know either, is what percentage of it Is our guys, meaning people that we're trying to influence, maybe to send them back or maybe because they already did something for us and we're protecting them.
But apparently there's some big secret part of why so many men are coming into the country.
Now, I would love to think that our CIA and Department of Defense are so capable that the dangerous looking people that are coming in are going to be dangerous on our behalf.
That feels like a lot to ask me to accept.
I do not believe that our CIA and Department of Defense can bring in 1.7 million people, or whatever the number is, some subset of that, and that they can control that situation.
So, I don't know.
This one blew my mind when I read it.
But, like I say, Benz has high credibility on this topic.
Tucker Carlson had an interesting observation when he was talking about wokeness.
He says wokeness is basically just an anti-white racist thing.
And one of the ways you can tell that is that Ireland is woke.
Now, Ireland basically was colonized.
They weren't colonizers.
They weren't a bunch of white colonizers.
They were victims. They got colonized.
And I don't think they were big on slave ownership.
So why is everything going woke in Ireland?
What did the Irish do?
Doesn't matter. As long as they're white, You need less of it, apparently.
Now I'm exaggerating a little bit, but it was an interesting point.
If we can understand why the wokeness in America is driven by the bad behavior of white people in America, but then the wokeness still applies to a country where that argument couldn't possibly make sense, then it tells you that the argument in America probably is just artificial.
And that it really is biological and it just has to do with whatever group wants to be more in charge.
Let me tell you, I have greatly enjoyed growing up in a country where people who look like me were the majority for a while.
It made me feel safer.
I feel safer in any group that looks mostly like me.
Just natural. Now, that would be true for everybody.
I think everybody would have that same experience.
Now, I like diversity. Where I live in California, It is wonderfully diverse.
My neighborhood is wonderfully diverse.
I love it. It actually is terrific.
But literally it's terrific.
But you still feel if everybody's a stranger, like if you didn't know them, you'd feel safer if everybody looked like you.
It's just biological.
So whatever's going on looks to me more like people who are not comfortable with a white majority and they're trying to Take down the white people in any way that they can.
I don't know that they necessarily intellectualize it that way.
But I think it's just such a natural mammal impulse that you want more things that look like you and fewer things that look like something else.
So that's probably what's happening.
Anyway, here's an interesting thing.
Liz Harrington reminds us that I've told you this story before.
Oh, actually, this is Related to the overseas voting.
So at some point, there was a request in Pennsylvania from a prior election to audit the 25,000 votes that came in from overseas.
Remember, Pennsylvania was really close.
But there were 25,000 votes coming from overseas.
And Pennsylvania, some people were asking to audit that because that may have been the difference and that may have been where all the cheating was.
But that was stopped.
Who do you think... Oh, of the 25,000, only 3,600 were military, which means, again, it was one of these weird places where there was an unexplained large number of non-military people overseas who voted and didn't need any ID and didn't have to prove that there were citizens and didn't need an address.
Who do you think blocked that?
Remember I always tell you that if you only know what the news is, you don't know anything.
If you know the people and the background of the people, then maybe you understand the news.
But if you don't know about the people, the story doesn't make sense.
Let me give you an example.
If I just told you that Pennsylvania blocked an audit of the overseas votes from the prior election, you'd say to yourself, well, I'm sure they had the reasons.
Probably had their reasons. Now I'm going to tell you who blocked it.
It was then Attorney General Josh Shapiro.
He's the one who blocked it.
Lands differently now, doesn't it?
So the guy who blocked the audit was on the short list to be VP. You know, we always think we live in a blackmail-ocracy, like everything is based on who knows what about who.
You know, Shapiro, you could go places, but not if this audit happens.
You know what I mean? If the audit happens, you might not be on the shortlist.
If the audit does happen, you're going to be on the shortlist for something really good.
So, Yeah.
The Butler Rally, as you know, is happening tonight.
I guess it's 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, and we believe that Elon Musk is going to join.
Now, I don't know what they've planned in terms of where Elon will be fitting into the proceedings, but here's what I hope happens.
Fingers crossed. I want to see a SpaceX rocket landing in the field next to the rally, like landing, you know, upright.
And then I want to see Elon Musk get out of the capsule and then go to the rally.
Now I know that's not possible, but wouldn't it be cool to show up in your own space rocket?
It'd be very cool. That's all I'm saying.
It's not going to happen. Maybe you could bring a robot, though.
Just bring one robot.
Come on, Elon, you can do it.
Bring us one robot. Anyway, so I'd like to remind you about one of my best predictions of all time.
Now, I do this not only because I like to brag, Which I do.
But because since my show is largely about figuring out how people think and work and then making predictions, it's important that I revisit my predictions even if they're wrong.
This one happened to be right.
I predicted that after Trump lost in 2020, That every day from that point on, he would become more popular.
So once he reached his depth of unpopularity around January 6th, I said every day after that he would become more popular.
Here he is. Here he is.
More popular. So that really was one of my best predictions.
I predicted that if he lost that Republicans would be hunted.
I hate that that was right.
Now, Democrats still think that's not true because they don't get real news.
But clearly, Republicans have been hunted.
I mean, there's no doubt about that at this point.
Anyway. So, also, the head of Hamas's military wing has been killed in a targeted attack by Israel.
So they took out the head of the Hamas military wing, but also his family at the same time.
It looks like he got him at home.
Now, I'm no terrorist mastermind, but I'm going to give a little bit of advice for those who are.
If you plan to be an international terrorist or even a local one, like Hamas, Don't work from home.
Don't telecommute.
If you're a terrorist, far better for you to go to work and maybe sleep in the office until the trouble goes over.
You don't really want to go to work and manage your international terrorist gang and then go home to the family and sit around the dinner table and have dinner.
You're going to blow up with your family.
Now, how many times have we seen these masterminds of international terrorist groups driving around with their families?
I mean, it makes sense that people go home to their family, but this is the one time you really shouldn't.
You really shouldn't go home to your family if you're being hunted by Israel.
It just seems like not loving your family enough, if you know what I mean.
So I don't want to make jokes about people's death, but I will note that when we get all bent out of shape because somebody's celebrating some tragedy that happens in the United States, we're not better than that.
We're not. We celebrate tragedies that happen in other places if it's somebody we don't like.
And unfortunately, that's just who humans are.
So I'm not happy about it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that completes my prepared remarks.
I think you know that the Dilbert calendar for 2025 is back after taking a year off.
And now, better than ever, because you have comics on the back, the Dilbert Reborn, and then the classic ones on the front, like they always were.
Twice as many comics.
And you can only get it at the link at Dilbert.com.
You cannot get it in bookstores this time.
You used to be able to. You cannot get it on Amazon.
This time. The only place you can get it is the one link that you'll find on Dilber.com.
And then, of course, I've reissued Win Bigly.
And time for the election, because if you want to figure out how could Trump go from January 6th, worst of everything, to back at the top of the race, this will tell you.
So this is about persuasion in the context of the 2016 election, which will tell you a lot about what tools he's using in the current run.
And it will allow you to be more powerful and effective in your own life.
All right, so get that.
That one's at Amazon, so you can get that at the normal place.
I think it's only on Amazon and maybe in one other bookstore.
Maybe at Barnes& Noble.
I think so. Anyway, I'm going to say bye to X and Rumble and YouTube, and I'm going to talk to the subscribers on Locals privately.
