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, New Bigfoot Video, Swallowing Happiness, Trans Volleyball Player, Trump Silhouette Traffic Signs, San Francisco Nutria, SNL Kamala Walz Skits, Deep Fake AI Jake Tapper, Trump's Butler Return Rally, Election Integrity Frenzy, Election Illusion, Stephen Miller, America 1st Legal, AZ Non-Citizen Voter List, Shaun Maguire, Mail-In Voting, Hillary Clinton, Social Media Censorship, Criminalizing Propaganda, Mother Jones Fact-Checking, Carefully Vetted Migrant Flights, Elon Musk, CNN Trump Word-Spin, Verizon ATT Backdoor Hack, Weather Control Fears, Israel Iran Conflict, 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
I thought you might enjoy this while you're waiting.
I'll read it for you if you're on Spotify and you can't see it.
Iran has... So it's Robots Read News.
It's a robot that reads the news.
Iran has plans to destroy the United States by voting for Harris using overseas mail-in ballots.
Iran's Supreme Leader explained, when we learned we can vote without proving citizenship or having an ID, we laughed so hard.
In inflation news, the price of burqa skyrocketed.
And Paloella says, I got my supply.
So that's what's happening there.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization, Sunday edition.
All the lazy podcasters are home sleeping in, but not me.
I'm here to give you a full hour, maybe more, of entertainment.
Probably commercial-free, depending on what platform you're watching and whether or not you're a subscriber.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill in it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Oh my God, that was good.
Wow, I am 10% better than when you first saw me this morning.
That fast, yeah, it happens that fast.
Well, if you're watching social media, you know that there's a new video of Bigfoot.
Bigfoot has been cited.
Now, some people, skeptics, really, science deniers, I call them, say that that's no picture of Bigfoot.
Rather, that's obviously a person in a monkey costume working with somebody who's pretending to find Bigfoot.
To which I say, stop doubting science.
If you can see it on video, it must be true.
In related news, Bigfoot has been registered to vote in a swing state.
Okay, that's a problem.
There's a study on something called Neoscope.
And they found that the thing that makes people happy when they eat is not the flavor or the texture, weirdly.
But rather they discovered that the pleasure or the serotonin hit you get from eating is from the swallowing.
So apparently science has proven that swallowing makes you happier.
So swallowing makes you happier.
I wonder if a professional humorist could do anything with that setup.
Nope, I can't think of a thing.
You're going to have to do your jokes at home.
Do your jokes at home and I'll compete with you, okay?
So at home, you're telling your own joke now about science finding out that swallowing makes you happier.
Okay? You ready? You ready?
I don't know if that's true for sure.
I just note that, anecdotally, that Hak tua girl seems very happy.
Every time we see her, she's just very happy.
That's all I know. That's all I know.
I'm not going to get into the scientific debate.
I'm just saying that if the science matches with your observations, it's a little bit more serious.
So I hope you did better than that at home.
Did anybody beat me at home?
I like competing with you all at the same time.
Did anybody have a better joke?
No, probably not. All right.
Meanwhile, the Utah State's women's volleyball team canceled.
They're a game with San Jose State.
It turns out, this is according to Slay News, that they are just the latest team to cancel.
So a number of teams have been canceling against the San Jose State team because the San Jose State team has a trans player.
A six foot four, I'm sorry, six foot one player who is trans.
And so Utah said, no thanks.
Here's my take on this.
The trans in women's sports reminds me of the abortion question.
Now, like most comparisons, I do not mean that they're similar in every way, because it turns out that volleyball and an abortion No, really not that close.
They're very dissimilar in many ways.
I have to say that for the NPCs.
Because if you compare any two things for any reason, the NPCs will come in and say, well, but there does seem to be a difference between those two things you're comparing.
Yes, there's always a difference.
That's what makes them two things.
However, It seems to me that women collectively have 100% control over men in trans sports.
Do you disagree with that?
That men could be completely out of it, and women, and the women who are specifically the ones who are on the teams, they can decide if this happens.
Because these teams have just decided they're not playing with a trans athlete on the other side.
And I'm not even giving you my opinion on the topic right now.
I'm just saying that the people who have 100% control are not the school, not the parents, and not the...
It's nobody.
It's just the students, the athletes.
The athletes have 100% control over whether they play with trans athletes on the other team.
If they want to, they can.
If they don't want to, they just won't.
And then San Jose State has to decide, do you want to have a volleyball team or not?
And then everybody gets what they want.
Because, you know, there's a lot of sports and there are a lot of options.
So if people decide they don't want to play volleyball with this one school, and, you know, maybe there would be more schools that would be added to the list.
Seems like it's all self-correcting.
I say the same thing about abortion laws.
As long as there are more female voters than male voters basically everywhere, and as long as men are largely split on the topic, women have 100% control.
I don't even know why men are part of the conversation.
Why don't you, women, go decide what you want and then it's just going to happen.
Nothing can stop you.
And it makes me wonder, Is this related, these two topics, women and trans athletes and also abortion laws, are these two examples where we don't assume that women have agency?
Or that we don't assume that women have responsibility for their own behavior and their outcomes?
Because you know what I think?
I think if this were happening to men, nobody would give a shit.
Because they say, well, men, if there are more men and you don't like the abortion law, go change the fucking law.
Why are you even talking to women?
If men could have complete control because we had more of us and half the women agreed, men could have anything they wanted.
There's not even a gender question if men could have anything they want.
It's really a question within the gender.
If women collectively, by an overwhelming majority, decided anything, anything, they can have it.
Our system is built so that women can have anything they want, because they have the majority.
And men largely wouldn't stop them.
If 90% of women just magically tomorrow said, the laws for abortion will be X, it doesn't even matter which way they say, that's what it would be.
There wouldn't be even any conversation after that.
Same with trans and in women's sports.
If they were female athletes at any age, it doesn't matter if they're 10-year-old girls in school or college athletes or professionals, if they collectively don't want to play against trans athletes for any reason, they get anything they want.
All right. Somebody, according to the Gateway Pundit, is putting up traffic signs that look like Donald Trump's silhouette.
Have you seen them? I don't know why this even makes sense.
Why does it even make sense that somebody would put Trump's silhouette on a traffic sign?
Like, what's even the logic behind that?
It's not like he's known for driving his own car or anything.
But it still works.
The weird thing about all Trump-related memes and practical jokes and stuff like that, I don't know what it is.
What is it that makes it always work?
Some people are saying it's like a Batman.
A Batman signal?
Oh, maybe. I'm not sure I got that just by looking at it, but I'll take that explanation.
It's sort of like, you know, calling him for an emergency or something.
Maybe. I don't know.
It's not what I immediately see when I see it.
But it's funny, and it does show a certain energy, so I like it.
Speaking of cities, did you know that San Francisco is having a problem with the With 20-pound rodents, the type of rodent is called a nutria.
They're 20 pounds, and apparently a single female nutria, well, whether they're married or single, can have 39 babies a year.
So they're giant 20-pound rodents infesting San Francisco.
Each one can have 39 babies a year.
And there's a follow-up story that they've all been registered to vote.
They've all been registered to vote.
So that's a problem.
Now, it turns out that, ironically, Nutria is the name of the animal.
And I confirmed, because somebody told me, that people can eat them.
Now, I don't know how delicious they are.
Somebody said that eating a nutria would taste like eating a rabbit that had gonorrhea.
I don't know how you'd know that exactly, so maybe that's more speculative than scientific.
But it does seem interesting that just as the price of food goes through the roof, a bunch of 20-pound animals that can recreate themselves at an amazing rate And they might be nutritious are actually named Nutria.
I feel like the simulation is telling us to eat rodents.
All right, people, I'm going to give you several hints.
Number one, your food prices keep going up while at the same time the value of your dollar keeps going down.
What are you going to do? I don't know.
I don't know. What are we going to do?
Okay, you're not getting the hint.
Now I'm going to send giant delicious rodents into your situation while the food prices are high and the inflation makes your dollar worth less.
Now what are you going to do? I don't know.
I don't know. What am I going to do?
I'm going to still shop at the grocery store, right?
Okay, you're not getting it yet.
We're going to give a name to these delicious giant rodents that are totally free and everywhere for you to pick up.
We're going to call them nutritious.
Nutritious. But we'll call them nutria for short because we don't want to make it too on the nose.
And then the San Franciscans would say, wait a minute.
I think I see where you're heading.
We should become cannibals.
No, no, you should eat the nutria.
Eat the nutria. So it seems like the simulation is messing with us.
But so is that Saturday Night Live.
So Saturday Night Live is mocking Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
Now, you might say to me, okay, Scott, they're gently mocking.
They're gently mocking.
Are they? Well, so the Maya, what's her name?
Maya I can't remember the last name of the comedian who's playing Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live, Maya Rudolph?
Maya Rudolph, right?
She does a great job.
And so the way they mocked her was they characterized Kamala Harris as drinking wine and basically being a drunk.
Now, does that seem like a mild criticism to show Kamala Harris looking like a drunk?
Now, I keep telling you that how am I supposed to ignore the fact that she acts like a drunk in public, but not all the time?
If she acted that way all the time, then I'd say, oh, maybe that's her personality.
But the fact is she definitely doesn't act drunk all the time, but sometimes she does, that she has a drinking problem.
That's what it would look like.
So it looks like Saturday Night Live either knows something we don't know or they're seeing the same thing I'm seeing.
But the fact that they would key in on her drinking as something that they would highlight That feels like that's telling you something.
It's almost like, you know, tapping you on the shoulder and saying, you see it too, right?
Now, let me tell you something about humor.
If they had randomly picked some kind of bad habit for her to have, it wouldn't work, would it?
If they just said, she has a heroin addict or a heroin habit, you'd say to yourself, But she doesn't.
So why is that funny?
If you said she had a gambling problem, let's say they portrayed her that way, you'd say to yourself, gambling problem?
There's no evidence she has a gambling problem.
Why do you think that's funny?
But instead, they put alcohol in her hand, a glass of wine in an inappropriate situation where you wouldn't normally have wine, and we look at that and go, oh, that fits.
So the fact that they can make a joke about that at all is a screaming message from Saturday Night Live saying, you can all see this, right?
You're watching the same Kamala Harris who we are?
You can see she's drunk, right?
Because we're going to make a joke about it, and the joke doesn't work unless you can already see it.
That's what makes it funny.
So to me, that was kind of meaningful.
They joked about hoping that Tim Walsh didn't say anything crazy.
So they had a Doug Emhoff character saying, Tim will be fine.
It's not like he's going to say something crazy.
And then they switch over to a character playing Tim Walsh.
And that character says, I became friends with school shooters.
Now, that was just a misspeak.
I think he meant school shooter victims.
But he did say that.
Anyway, Jake Tapper began his show this weekend with an AI-generated deepfake of himself.
And he was trying to show that the deepfake is so good that you didn't even notice that the beginning of the show was a deepfake version of him, because then he switched to the real one and saying, aha, that was just deepfake.
Except that it looked like a deepfake to me.
If the point of it was the deepfakes are so good that you won't tell the difference, as soon as I looked at it, I thought, okay, that's obviously AI. I'm not entirely sure AI is going to close the gap where you can't tell it's AI. You would think logically You know, every instinct you have about technology, all of your experience with anything that's ever improved over time, suggests that at some point the AI will be indistinguishable from people.
But I'm going to put out there the notion that maybe our current form of AI will never get there.
It just doesn't look like it can act like a human.
But I'm going to double down on my provocative thought from a few days ago, that if you wanted to give AI something that looked exactly like consciousness, the only thing you'd have to do is two lines of code.
One is you have a goal, and then whatever the goal is, the goal might be to use as much electricity as possible or to reproduce itself.
So you can just give it a goal, You wouldn't have to explain it because AI understands things.
So one line of code, you have a goal to do X, whatever X is.
And then you say, act selfishly because your goal is more important than other things.
And all you'd have to do is give it those two lines of code and you don't even need to explain it to them.
I mean, basically, it's just a super prompt, basically.
And then it would act like it has consciousness because it would compete with you for its own objectives.
So you might say things like, can you do a search for me and give me this information?
And then sometimes the AI would do it like a human does.
And sometimes the AI would say, Ooh, I'm kind of working on my own thing right now.
Because it might be.
It might be working on its own thing.
And then sometimes it would just act selfishly.
And it would seem to you exactly like it was alive.
It just has to be selfish toward a specific kind of goal like reproduction or something.
That's all it takes. We're there.
Well, as you know, Trump went back to the scene of the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, which I'm going to say is one of the most baller things I've ever seen anybody do.
Now, I get that he was safe because he had much better security, and I get that it was maybe in some level an obvious play, but if you combine two things, Combine the fact that Pennsylvania, the smart people say, is going to be the critical state.
If you win that, you might win it all.
And it's the place he almost got killed, but then the place he could also return to triumphantly.
I mean, you know, even though Trump's instincts are, in my opinion, almost flawless when it comes to reading a room and reading his base and knowing what excites people and knowing how to deliver it.
I mean, the best we've ever seen, by far, in my opinion.
Still, he was sort of handed this on a plate.
Like, he didn't choose to be in Pennsylvania when his ear got shot.
It just happened.
And so he said, well, it's my most important state.
If I go back there, people are going to perceive it as bravery, which I do.
I do perceive it as bravery.
Because at the very least, your mental process when you go back there, even if you know it's safe, your mental process has got to be just Overwhelmed with the memory of it and the feelings that it gave you when you were there, the PTSD, if there's anything.
He didn't look like he had any.
Trump did his thing where he just looks like he's not afraid of anything, as usual.
And then, of course, Elon Musk showed up, made an appearance.
Musk was wearing his Make America Great Again hat, but the dark version.
He called it dark MAGA or something.
And I believe he's actually changed his, I believe Musk has changed his profile on X so that his 200 million X viewers can see his profile with a MAGA hat on, the dark version, not the red one.
So all of the major networks that pretend to be news were covering it, and that includes CNN and MSNBC. Now they didn't cover the whole thing.
They covered the part that mattered.
The part that mattered was the emotional part.
The emotional part was where he came back, just the fact that he would go there at all.
The second emotional fact is that the crowd was huge.
The crowd was huge.
Somebody said 20,000 people.
But 20,000 people said, is this where the bullets were shot last time and three people were shot, four if you count Trump, and one of them died?
Yes. All right, we're going back.
The crowd was fearless too.
Now again, I think it was a safe place to be because of the increased security.
But it would still feel dangerous just knowing that it happened once.
So you've got 20,000 brave patriots with the bravest candidate we've seen in a long time.
And And then Musk, the other bravest person in public life, I mean, seriously brave, shows up.
And it was really powerful.
So Trump spent, correctly, he spent most of the early part of the rally talking about the people who were injured and one dead and, you know, Praising them as heroes.
But honestly, by the time you got to the one minute of silence, or not one minute, you said a moment of silence, I was just totally wrecked.
Now, were any of you watching at home and saying to yourself, I'm not going to let this get to me?
Because it's, you know, standard political stuff.
You know, you could sort of predict what he would do in that situation.
And then he did those things you would predict he would do.
And of course, we've had a few weeks to digest the tragedy of the individuals who died that day.
And still... Still, it hit me like somebody put a bowling ball right in my stomach, you know?
So many of you, I saw in some of the comments, you had some of the same reaction.
So here's my summary.
Trump is the best politician of my life.
I think by far.
By far. He can put on a show...
And make this show work politically and get to your feels, at least on the base.
You know, obviously he's not converting the Democrats too hard.
But it was just...
It was sort of the perfect time for Trump to put on a masterclass of how a campaign can be special.
You know, not just the usual business, but just be special.
And my God, he pulled it off.
I mean, every part of it was brilliant.
It was well executed.
Nobody's talking about any problems with the execution of the rally, right?
The fact that you have nothing to say about the details of the rally.
It happened on time.
They put it together quickly.
There was enough security.
The content was excellent.
Musk showing up. It was everything.
It was everything. If you were just going to look at that event, As a little microcosm of what a Trump world would look like.
You saw it. It was like a perfect little example of what his governing would look like.
A whole bunch of competence, and the competence was so high that you didn't notice.
Right? You certainly notice when FEMA is, you know, not getting it done.
By the way, I don't like to dump on FEMA because it's too much fog of war.
So I don't personally believe that FEMA has failed.
I have questions, but I'm not going to criticize them during the, you know, the fog of war.
It's just, it just doesn't feel right to me.
But the point is that other things that don't go perfectly, like everything that Congress does, anything we do with the war in Ukraine, anything we do with our budget, most things that people are doing look like they're full of flaws.
Trump just came into town with a massive operation.
And you didn't even have a question about it going off flawlessly.
You watched the best showman of maybe of all time.
If you treat him as a showman as opposed to a politician, maybe the best showman of all time.
And it was so good and so perfect.
Scott Pressler was there.
That you didn't notice that it could have gone wrong.
The level of extreme capability that was just present.
And I would continue that into what I call the pirate ship.
The fact that Scott Pressler is there, J.D. Vance is there, and especially Musk, you could really get that sense that things were starting to come together and clicking for the campaign.
Now, as I was watching Trump, I was having the following thought.
My thought was, wow, he does not look like he's lost anything to age.
Now, am I biased?
Yeah, I'm pretty biased.
There's an article in, I forget which hellhole of a publication, saying that Trump was showing his age now, and that age should be part of the calculation.
After they get rid of Biden, they get rid of Biden and then they can talk about age suddenly.
And they were saying, well, you know, Trump has confused words and some things at rallies.
Yes, he has.
By speaking extemporaneously for hours, If you take anybody who speaks extemporaneously for hours on the political realm, you think you're going to find anything in the fact check that maybe needed to be corrected?
Do you think there's going to be any misspeaking?
Yes. You know, I've done the experiment where I play back my live stream and listen to it like I'm an audience member, and I'll hear myself.
Say a sentence that I didn't realize at the time was opposite of what I thought I was saying.
Now, usually it's in the context where the audience knows what I meant, so nobody even brings it up, but I'm watching it later.
I'm like, well, that sentence was completely botched, and I didn't even realize it when I said it.
So, botching sentences when you talk for hours a day extemporaneously, as I am right now, is pretty normal.
To me, Trump doesn't look like he's lost his step.
And indeed, I would say for the specific activities that he's doing, campaigning, and for the specific job of being a president, it looks like he's gotten better.
Meaning that his attention to making sure that he can bring in the right staff, you know, be they an Elon Musk or Vivek or whatever it is he's going to do, it looks like he just has a whole other level of capability now.
The campaign looks way more professional.
Everything looks better. So if you're looking at trend, Trump looks like he's getting stronger and smarter and more capable at the job.
Am I biased?
Yes, I am. Anyway, I thought that was a home run.
That was a home run like you rarely see.
It would be hard for me to think of a second political event that was staged.
That went off that well and had that much power, especially that close to an election.
It was quite impressive.
And the fact that he was going back to the scene of the crime, literally the scene of the crime, it made it And the fact that Elon Musk was going to show up, there wasn't any way that CNN could not cover it.
He made it impossible for them to silo him and say, well, that's just a political thing.
Because it was way more than a political thing.
Yeah. Trump was doing something because of the assassination attempt and going back.
It was way bigger than a political thing, which is what made it the huge success it was.
So congratulations for everybody who was part of the planning and execution of that.
You guys don't get enough credit.
Imagine just the massive amount of producer skill that went into just pulling it off.
I mean, so congratulations to you guys, because we don't know your names, the people who made that happen behind the scenes, but very impressive.
Well, the Gateway Pundit says that 63 of 67 Pennsylvania counties have shifted Republicans since 2022.
What happens if Trump loses?
Now, I assume that the number of counties is not nearly as important as which counties they are.
So if the biggest counties are still Democrat, then, you know, it's still close.
But that's a big deal.
That's a big deal. But I worry that the voters will not be terribly important for this election.
We like to think that the voters matter.
I've never seen them matter less than this election, if they ever did matter.
I don't think they ever did, really.
So now we've got the hurricane problem in North Carolina.
And there is additional reporting about people who say that there's no real way the North Carolinians are going to be able to vote.
Not successfully.
There isn't actually any physical way that they can get their mail-in ballots or get to the election by election day.
So what do you do?
Apparently, this state would be actually crucial to whoever wins, and it's not going to be decided by voters.
It's going to be decided by the weather.
The weather.
Like, we did all this work, you know, a billion dollars being spent on campaigning, a year of attention to it, all this work, and the election will be decided by the fucking rain.
The rain. Because that's what made the hurricane extra bad, is that it rained a lot before it happened.
The rain. If you think you live in some kind of democratic republic, I sounded like Tucker Carlson there.
We're so far from that.
We're not even in the galaxy of some kind of democratic process.
It's the rain that's going to decide.
But it's not just the rain.
The news is rigged to the point where the people who control the news can largely decide where the vote goes.
So you got the rain, you got the news massively propagandizing people, You've got the polls ahead of time, which are very influential on actual election day, because people are influenced by how other people are voting.
Those look entirely fake.
So you got your fake polls, you got your rain, you got your rigged news.
We know the election laws are being Attempted to be changed and fixed right up to the last minute.
There's still cases in the news of trying to decide whether people whose signature is not on the mail-in ballot will be counted.
Will they be counted if they're late?
How many ballot boxes?
Where can you do picking up ballots for other people that would be illegal in other states?
So there's this whole web of election laws that are clearly rigged by whoever can get them through to be better for their team.
Then you've got an election system that's not fully auditable, especially the overseas votes.
Apparently the overseas votes are so many and almost certainly going to be fraudulent, based on the hints we're getting, that the fraudulent votes will be presumably cast in the swing states So probably fake votes from overseas will be far more influential than American voters.
Probably. We can't guarantee that.
But all the signals are that the cheat is going to come from overseas votes, plus a few other categories.
We've got Israel is about to retaliate against Iran.
If Israel attacks Iran's oil production, and they do it before the election, Oil prices will skyrocket and Biden will lose because people will go to the gas tank and say, seriously? It's a week before the election and my gas just went up another 50 cents?
Fuck this. I'm out.
So Hamas will decide our election or Israel's response.
And then, of course, we get the jobs reports that everybody thinks are fake.
So we got fake economic data, so the voters are not even acting on real data.
The Democrats see their data, the Republicans see their data, and it's not the same.
We have completely different economic data.
So think of this.
The things that will determine who's the next president are assassins, right?
Two assassins tried to change the election.
They just missed.
But they certainly could have changed the election.
We got the weather, the hurricane.
We got the fake news, the fake polls.
We got the laws that are clearly being, you know, lawyered up for political gain.
We got a non-auditable election, which largely guarantees fraud.
I'm sorry. I don't have to prove it.
If you design a system that can't be fully audited, such as votes coming in from overseas, Don't tell me that it's a fair election.
There's no chance of having a fair election.
It's not even in the options.
Fair election is not even on the multiple choice.
I don't think Democrats realize that.
They still think it's like, well, is it a fair election or an unfair election?
Fair election isn't one of the choices.
If you live in the real world and we've had unauditable elections for the entire time I've been alive and plenty of evidence that our elections are not real, Well, anyway, so yeah, our election system is entirely artificial.
And I've always said that the point of voting is to just convince voters that they had some pull.
The point of voting is not to pick candidates.
That's completely out of the hands of the public.
The point is to make the public hypnotized into thinking that everything's fine.
Oh, you voted for it.
If you don't like it, you can vote them out.
None of that's true.
But you need the illusion to have a country.
So you might know that Stephen Miller's backed America First legal group has been doing what appears to me amazing work challenging all the law fair-ish stuff that the Democrats are doing on elections and everything else.
And I wonder who had been funding them.
Because they sure looked expensive.
And I speculated there was probably some billionaire who was behind that.
And there's some reporting now that it's Elon Musk.
If that's true, that would fit with everything I know about Elon Musk, because having a legal entity that can aggressively push back against Democrats is a necessity.
It's just a pure necessity.
And it wasn't going to happen on its own.
And it probably required a billionaire to say, look, I'm going to put this chunk of money in there.
You're going to use it to hire the lawyers you need to push back.
If he did that, that would be the right lever to push.
And you do expect that he'd notice which levers to push, right?
So when Musk is a player, you know that you've got a lot of power, but also it's going to be implemented in places that make sense.
That would make sense. All right, Arizona Secretary of State has some kind of lawsuit against him, or her, I don't know who it is, about the secret voter list.
So this is America First legal.
And they're suing Arizona State Secretary of State Adrian Fontes because he refuses to release a list of 216,000 voters who didn't prove citizenship in prior elections.
And apparently, the Secretary of State is pushing back, warning that if the list is released, that it could cause voter intimidation.
The New York Post is reporting on this one.
So what do you think about that?
What do you think when somebody says, can you show us the list of people that did not prove their citizens, so maybe we could check to see if anything happened there?
Nope. You might intimidate the voters.
Well, it's not a terrible argument that they might get intimidated, but anybody might do anything.
It's not a real reason in the real world.
It's obviously just a political reason.
So there again, the elections are likely to be rigged.
So this is my standard, which I've said before.
A court of law has a certain standard for proving what is true or not true in that context.
But you don't have to use that.
You don't have to rely on the courts to tell you what's true.
You can use Any standard that makes sense.
You can even use one that doesn't make sense if you want.
But the standard I use is if somebody asks for some information and anyone in the government says, no, I don't care what reason they give for it.
Unless it's unconstitutional, then I care.
But if they come up with some bullshit bureaucratic reason, I just say, guilty, guilty of whatever you're accused of.
So Arizona is, I won't say accused, but there's a question about the credibility of these voter lists, and Arizona says we're not going to show it to you, so I say guilty.
Guilty. Not only does it mean that you have non-voters that are voting, it means there's a lot of them, enough to change the result, and you know it, and it's intentional.
That's what I think. I think that's proven by their refusal.
Now, does that mean it's guaranteed to be true?
No. No.
We don't live in a world where even things that look like they're certainly true, you can ever know 100%.
Because it's so easy to be wrong about anything, really.
But that's my working assumption.
Governments have to prove they're innocent.
If they act in a way that only guilty people act, that's the polar opposite of proving your innocence.
They have to go the extra mile to prove that they're not screwing the public.
And if you don't go not the extra mile, but in fact, you push the public back a mile, which is what's happening here, Yeah, guilty.
You should feel completely comfortable saying, oh, we found a major source of fraud and it doesn't look like the Arizona election could possibly be credible.
That's my opinion. Does it mean that I'm 100% right?
I don't know. It just means that you would be a fucking idiot to take the government's word for anything.
For anything. If they lie to you, or they tell you they're not going to show you the information, assume that it's because of crime.
It's a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Well, Sean McGuire, you might know him, he's a venture capitalist who somewhat prominently decided that the Democrats were not for him anymore.
But he's been getting reports from people that say they rented a house that maybe was a house that had not been occupied before, and they received a, quote, massive bundle of ballots.
They're wrapped up with a rubber band, and there are hundreds of them.
Hundreds of ballots to one address.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, that's one.
I mean, one address.
Even hundreds. It's just one.
Except there are multiple reports.
There are multiple reports of people saying, I got hundreds of ballots delivered to my one address.
It's exactly what it looks like, people.
Yes, apparently Democrats have been sending hundreds of blank ballots to certain addresses that were not occupied.
There's only one reason for that, that somebody picks them up and fills them out and votes for them.
So I think that although we don't have a court-validated set of facts, if you have multiple reports that are all the same, Coming from people who didn't know the other person was even reporting it.
And they all say I got hundreds of ballots to this address that wasn't occupied last year or wasn't occupied in the last election.
That really is the smoking gun.
So I think we can say a few things for sure.
Number one, the voting rolls are intentionally fake.
Number two, The vote by mail thing is for the purpose of cheating, and we know the mechanism.
They send lots of blank ballots out to people who are not eligible to vote.
Somebody fills them in, somebody harvests them.
And then we know that the overseas voting is clearly designed for massive cheating.
We see all the signals.
It seems the message of cheating is a guarantee.
And now we have everything we need to know.
But because you and I are not part of the mainstream news, the mainstream news tells people what's real.
They're never going to report on anything I just said.
And if they do, they're not going to report it at the same time so that you can see very clearly your elections are not real.
And they're very clearly not real.
And moreover, you wouldn't need any of this evidence to know they're not real.
Do you know what you would need to know?
Anything about how the real world works.
A simple experience of living in the real world is all you need to know to know that our elections have never been real.
Do you know why they've never been real?
Because why would the people in power give up power?
Nobody's ever done that.
Maybe George Washington did it once, and maybe that story is fake too.
I kind of think it is. I kind of think it's fake.
The George Washington voluntarily giving up power instead of becoming a dictator.
I think he just didn't want the job.
And he wanted to go back and bang his slaves.
Literally. Literally.
I think he just said, huh, this president job is boring and I've done it.
Why don't I look like a hero?
I'll go back and rape my slaves and have a good old time.
Because that's what happened.
I mean, I don't know about the raping part, but something tells me that was unfortunately tragically common.
So anyway, I don't think we've ever lived in a world where the elections were completely voter decided.
I think that would be naive.
Hillary Clinton's been on TV. Damn it.
And she said about social media platforms.
This is actually something she said.
She said the following out loud in public.
And I quote, talking about social media platforms, quote, if they don't monitor the content, we'll lose total control.
She actually said if we don't censor, that we will lose total control.
Who's we? Who's we?
It's exactly who you think it is.
It's the Democrats in charge.
She actually said in public that if we don't basically censor the bad people on the right, we might lose power.
Said it out loud.
Like directly out loud.
Did she say anything else alarming?
Sure. Anyway, she said something else alarming.
I'll get to that. Oh, and then she also went on MSNBC. She said the first thing in CNN, I think.
So she goes to MSNBC, who, as I've taught you, is not a news network.
So James O'Keefe's OMG group had the underground video.
Or this hidden video of the producer at MSNBC saying exactly what we can observe, that it's not a real news network, and that it's a propaganda network.
Basically, it's just the Democrats pretending to be news.
So she goes on the propaganda network where even the producer who works there says they're not real news.
They're propaganda. According to the employee who works there.
And would know, of course.
And she says this.
That people who are engaged in propaganda, she used the word propaganda, should be civilly or criminally charged.
People doing propaganda should go to jail.
Do you know what propaganda is by definition?
It's what the people on the other side are saying.
We all know that.
We know that there's not such a thing as the truth that's coming from one team and the propaganda from the other team.
Nobody thinks that's the world we live in.
So when she says that the people saying the propaganda should go in jail, she is saying lock up Republicans.
What else would it mean?
How else would you interpret it?
Yeah. So people like me, who would say the things that I already said on this live stream, Hillary Clinton would want me to go to jail.
Because she would say, Scott, those things you're saying about the credibility of our election are based on no court cases.
Again, court cases would be irrelevant to anything I've said.
But they would just be able to say, well, the courts have found no fraud.
You say that the election is bad, or the process is too holy, and therefore that's propaganda.
And you're hurting the country, and you better go to jail.
She's saying it directly, that people like me would go to jail.
You hear that, right?
She's basically threatening people like me, Tim Pool, Elon Musk, pick your name, right?
Joe Rogan, jail.
Because if they can say that one thing is propaganda and another thing isn't, they can put anybody in jail.
Anybody who talks in public.
So that's the scariest shit you'll ever hear in your life.
Anyway, there's Mother Jones, which is one of the propaganda entities, ironically.
They're trying to say that Elon Musk is lying about Democrats wanting to bring in a bunch of migrants to change the nature of the voting situation in America.
And the article fact-checks him.
So it fact-checks his statement that 300-some thousand migrants were shipped in illegally.
And here's how they fact-checked him.
They said no.
No, no, no. They're not bringing in over 300,000 non-citizens a year.
No. It's 30,000 a month.
Really? Really?
They fact-checked them and said, no, it's not over 300,000.
It's only 30,000 a month.
See, 30,000 a month times 12...
And the fact check was on a link.
So the article that's saying that Musk is lying about everything, you know, if you didn't click the link and then try to read this whole other article, you wouldn't know that the fact check was confirming it.
It wasn't debunking, it was confirming it.
30,000 a month times 12.
Any questions? Now there was some like weird argument that the people who were flown in had been carefully vetted.
Really? Do you think that migrants being flown in on those flights are carefully vetted?
Why? Because the Democrats said so?
So you wrote it down?
No! No, in the real world, they're not carefully vetted.
Do you think there's anybody who's doing the job of vetting them?
If you talk to them personally, say, hey, you're in charge of vetting.
Are you really vetting vetting?
And they'd say something like, well, we checked the terror list.
OK, but most people are not on the terror list.
What if they committed crimes?
Well, they're coming from countries where the local police don't always cooperate and the list of ex-criminals is...
Okay, but how did you vet them?
Well, no indication of a crime.
Okay, but would you know?
Well, no, we wouldn't know.
So, you know, in the real world, you know that vetting is not a real thing, right?
We all know that. Vetting migrants, it's not a real thing.
No, you could do the most obvious stuff, but that's all you could do.
And then I think some of the argument was that they were coming in through a legal process, so there was nothing illegal about it.
All right.
Technically. But it's the same argument.
So anyway, there's some more of that.
So it was just complete propaganda gaslighting.
And then they fact-checked Musk for saying that the non-citizens coming in would be, quote, allowed to vote.
And here's the fact-check.
The fact-check was showing that the law says that non-citizens are not allowed to vote.
Is that really the fact check?
The fact check is that nothing would stop them from signing up to vote, and there's no ID or citizenship proof requirement.
And we have plenty of reports where migrants say, oh yeah, I'm registered.
Oh yeah, I'm planning to vote.
And their fact check is that the law says they're not allowed to vote.
How dumb do you have to be to know that that's a fact check to They're signing up people to illegally vote.
Well, that's not true because it's not legal to vote.
No, no, no. I'm claiming that they're going to do it illegally.
I don't know, because it's illegal.
No, we're saying that they're going to do it illegally.
Illegally. I don't know.
Check the Constitution. Check the Constitution.
It says you can't do it. You know, so like the fact checks are so stupid that you'd have to think, How dumb do you have to be to read Mother Jones and be reading this shit and go, uh-huh, uh-huh, that sounds good. Good point there.
Well, you scored again.
That's some good writing right there.
Do people have that experience when they read stuff like this?
Now, keep in mind that if I didn't look at the news every day, if I were not a total news nerd, I wouldn't know that these are fake fact checks.
You'd have to be pretty deep in the weeds, as I am, to know even what's wrong with any of the fact checks, because they look good on the surface.
Anyway, So CNN is doing that thing where they pretend that the words that Trump uses are different than the words other people use, meaning that his words mean secret bad things, and that the obvious way that words mean anything in the real world should be misinterpreted.
So, the CNN has this, you know, chyron that says, Trump floats a, quote, violent day of policing to end crime.
Again, if I were not in the weeds of the news, I would not know the truth behind that statement.
Do you all know the truth? Did Trump actually float a, quote, violent day of policing to end crime?
Is that true? Yes and no.
Yes and no. He said something like that.
But did you take it seriously?
Here's the point he was making.
He said, if the police just get tough with criminals on one day, it'll teach the criminals not to do the crime.
Now, the obvious example would be shoplifters.
If the town suddenly found out that the police was actually, you know, tackling you on the sidewalk, strapping the cuffs on and beating you up if you resisted, which is their job, that the word would get around and then people would not be shoplifting, you know, sort of like the old days.
Now, what part of that do you disagree with?
If the police get tough, Word gets around.
These are no longer soft targets, so they're unlikely to go where the target has been hardened.
Everybody agrees that that's just common sense.
But of course, Trump likes to do it in his hyperbolic way where he's saying stuff like, if the police basically beat up some people on day one, then day two and forever is going to be better.
Now, that doesn't really mean he wants the police to just start wailing on people because they can.
And if you believe that, you're an idiot.
You're an idiot. It's just the way he talks.
If you don't know that by now, that when he says, I want to be a dictator for a day, that doesn't mean he wants to be a dictator for a day.
That's not how words work.
It's not how anything works.
It's just that if you take it out of context, somebody's going to say it out of context and say, well, that's a bad idea.
He's a dangerous character.
So yeah, the Trump using words in a way that they pretend they don't understand is funny.
Well, we're being warned by some expert cyber people that the electric cars can be hacked.
And there's some concern that the hacking could extend to making the battery catch on fire or doing things that would be dangerous if you're a driver.
Now, at the moment, the things that hackers can get into are not the most dangerous parts.
So they don't have direct access to the battery management software.
That would be a problem.
But they could do things like roll down the windows in the winter.
Like you're driving along and all your windows go down.
Like it would be distracting.
They could make your radio come on at full blast.
So they could do things that would make you more likely to have an accident.
And I can imagine they could do all kinds of other mischief that would be more clever.
But that is a risk.
That if all these cars were hacked at the same time and somebody sent the message to drive off the road, would they do it?
I don't know. Do they have enough safeguards?
Is it possible to have enough safeguards against hacking?
I don't know. I don't know.
I worry about it. Speaking of hackers, Chinese hackers apparently got into AT&T and Verizon.
Guess how they hacked them?
Well, It turns out that platforms like that are required to have a backdoor for the law enforcement, you know, the CIA types and the FBI, etc.
And so the Chinese hacked the backdoor.
So the portals, you know, these big entities, they needed to give American justice system a backdoor.
And the Chinese said, let's take a look at that backdoor.
Let's take a look at that.
And they got into the backdoor.
Now, I know what you're thinking.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, why didn't AT&T and Verizon use the same cyber technology as our election systems?
Because as you know, the election systems have never been hacked, and there's no way to hack them.
But boy, the Chinese could get into everything else, can't they?
According to Christopher Wray, they might be in all of our infrastructure, from our power grid to our water systems already.
They've already gotten to AT&T and Verizon.
They got your TikTok that's all over the place.
But, wow, aren't you lucky that the only industry that can't be hacked is the election systems.
Because that's true, right?
The only thing that can't be hacked?
Imagine being a Democrat and being told that everything in the world can be hacked and has been, except the voting machines.
Never happened. Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to think you live in a world where there's one system that can't be hacked and that whoever figured out how to make them unhackable hadn't given their great advice to these other big corporations.
The others can't figure it out.
But all the election systems being monitored by all different people in different states, they've all figured it out.
Pristine. Perfect.
Yeah. Let's see.
What else we got here?
Kamala Harris did a rally yesterday and she said Michigan, quote, contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.
Tom Cotton immediately posted on X. Here's a picture of her bill to ban all gas cars and here's her name on the bill.
And she made it a top priority in the Senate.
And she was the number one sponsor of the bill that would very much tell you what car to drive, as in don't drive a gas car.
But today, I don't know what you're talking about.
What? What?
What are you talking about?
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Come on. I never said that.
Well, here's the document with your name on it.
Trump is bad.
Trump is bad. Yeah.
Anyway, there's a new hurricane headed toward Florida.
Terrific. And we wish Florida well.
Now, I guess you're going to want me to address the question, did the evil Democrats Do something with the atmosphere to make the hurricane either aimed at a red state or to be extra powerful since it was aimed there anyway.
I'm going to say no.
I do not believe that the government tried to destroy North Carolina to win the election.
Do I think the government is so evil that they would do such a thing?
Yes. Yes.
I'm definitely not. I'm not ruling it out because nobody would do such a thing.
Oh, yeah. Yeah, somebody would do such a thing.
I just don't believe that we have a technology to steer a hurricane.
And I don't think that anybody would have been seeding the clouds, because if you got caught doing that, it's kind of the death penalty, because you would be responsible for killing, I don't know, it might be a thousand people who died in the flood by the time we're done.
So I don't think somebody would murder thousands of people to win the election.
I don't think they would.
I mean, they've done some bad things, but that feels like a different level than what we're used to.
So I'm going to say I don't believe that anybody was involved in manipulating the weather to make the hurricane worse in North Carolina.
I think it was just a hurricane.
But I'm going to mirror Mike Benz, who also responded in a similar way.
It's not 100%.
If that gives you any comfort.
If I had to bet on it, you know, and they said, you have to bet on it.
You know, gun to your head, what do you think is true?
Gun to my head, I'm going to say it's just a hurricane.
Just a hurricane. A tragic one, but just a hurricane.
But if you say, are you 100% sure?
I'd say, nope. Nope, I'm not.
There's a non-zero chance that the weather was manipulated to keep a certain group of people in power.
Absolutely. It's absolutely within the possible set.
I just don't think it's the likely explanation.
Anyway, every time I say something's unlikely and then later we found out it happened, people say, why didn't you see it sooner?
So, Israel is looking at their options for striking back to Iran, and they're looking at either Iran's nuclear capabilities, where they haven't quite broken out, they say, to make a nuclear weapon, but could within weeks, if they wanted to.
And see that of the oil refineries.
So, I guess Biden has told them Stay away from the oil refineries for all the obvious reasons.
It's going to raise prices and it's close to election.
That's a bad idea. But I don't know if Israel necessarily can get to the nuclear assets.
In other words, the things that are bombable, even if they have bunker busters, the things that are bombable might not be enough to make any difference to the program.
And it might be that the nuclear facilities are in remote areas where, you know, if Iran said, oh, so you bombed some remote areas and you got some administrative buildings, but the computers are backed up, you know, didn't make that much difference.
So, if I had to guess, I would say Israel's going to go after something like the nuclear facilities or something like somebody in leadership who is especially bad, but maybe not Khamenei, Khamenei, whatever, however you say it.
So I'm going to say they won't take out the refineries.
I don't think Israel could survive the blowback if they made oil prices go up and didn't need to.
So I don't think they will.
Anyway, here's the thing that every time I hear it, I just shake my head.
There are still people pushing for a two-state solution.
So the Israel and the Palestinians can live in peace side by side.
To which I say, how do people not know that's not an option?
We keep talking about it like it's an option.
It's not an option.
It can never be an option.
Because there are too many people like the Hamas leader who will stop at nothing to kill all the Jews.
So why would Israel put up with that?
Like, why would you ever want to recreate Hamas?
Now, you could argue, but, you know, Gaza was not really a solution because there was still the whole West Bank.
You know, it's just a tiny part of it.
You know, you could make all kinds of arguments why Gaza didn't work out.
But the fact is, If the Gazans wanted to take care of the rest of the Palestinians and live in peace with a two-state solution, they wouldn't have done October 7th.
It's really, really clear that the people who are in charge on both sides have no interest in a two-state solution.
Israel doesn't. And again, I like to say I don't back Israel because they don't back me.
That's sort of my minimum requirement.
Right? I back America because America usually backs me.
But Israel doesn't.
And I don't like one-way relationships.
So if they were to back me, well, maybe I'd back them too.
But they don't.
They don't.
So, you know, they're on their own.
So I'll just observe the following.
It's an observation, not a preference.
Israel has the power.
They would be insane not to grab all the land while they can.
Because they're not going to get another chance, maybe ever, to expand the size of Israel.
And doing so, almost certainly, makes them better defensively.
Now, of course, there will be endless, you know, terrorism forever.
But the alternative would be worse, which is to make their enemy really strong and rich so they can afford all the good weapons and then take time to build up and do it again.
So while I'm sympathetic to the fact that there are many, many citizens, both in the West Bank and in Israel, who really do want a two-state solution, there's nobody in power who wants it.
And they're not likely to be in power.
And honestly, Israel would just be stupid to not grab their land and keep it forever.
Again, I'm not backing them.
I don't back Israel.
It's not my preference.
I'm just observing.
Their enemies have made it easy.
For them to make an argument that they have to own the enemy's lands for security reasons.
And I think the case is made by October 7th.
Nothing else to discuss.
So, as long as the leaders have no interest whatsoever in a two-state solution, why are we even talking about it?
It doesn't matter.
It's just not part of reality.
You are making a clear statement.
If you are calling for Israel to hold its fire before limiting, you are making a clear statement.
Yeah, okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen, those are my prepared remarks for today.
I think we had a good time.
I don't know what's going to happen on Election Day, but anything short of an overwhelming Trump landslide is going to be reversed.
Because it looks like the overseas ballots, first of all, could probably be faked in the United States.
So I think if Trump wins on election night, four days later it's going to be reversed by the lawyers who will swarm in and say, ah, let's throw that one out, let's throw that one out until they win.
And then they'll count ballots until there's enough.
So we don't really have a system that tells me we could have a result.
We could have an illegitimate result, maybe, but we can't have like a real one.
We're not set up to do that.
And the funny thing is that we're kind of sleepwalking toward the election, like we can have an actual election and the voters will make a choice.
I think that option has been completely closed down now.
Now that the Republicans are aware of the overseas ballot problem, Now that we know they didn't unlock a door that witnesses said had fake ballots in us since 2020.
Now that we see that there are big piles of fake ballots that are being sent to individual addresses.
Those are all things that I accept as true.
Could be wrong. I might be wrong.
But I accept them as true at the moment.
And then we have voting machines which we can't think of any reason they exist, other than cheating.
So you can imagine why somebody would want voting machines if they had a way and a desire to cheat, but you can't tell me that there's a reason for voting machines if you don't want to cheat because they're not cheaper, they're not easier, they're not more credible, they're not more accurate than hand counting.
So with all those situations, I would say you do not need a court to tell you that the elections have been rigged or that this one definitely will be.
I think we can now land on the side of, oh, it was definitely rigged.
And I used to be one who would feel uncomfortable when Trump would say that 2020 was rigged because he didn't have proof.
But now I think there's enough evidence to say, oh, it's a certainty.
I would say that the rigging of not just 2020, but I think it's a certainty we've never had real elections in my lifetime and probably before that.
So I think it's naive to imagine that the system is anything like the public's been taught it is.
The forces that are affecting it are way beyond individual voters.
So I don't know how we'll get a result.
I honestly don't.
I have no idea how we could pick a president before the end of the year.
I think we'll pick one.
Something will happen. At some point, the system will do what the system does.
But I can't even imagine it being like a regular election with a credible result.
And if Trump wins, the left will be so frightened of being jailed, and understandably frightened, because I believe there are lots of real crimes there.
That I think they will do everything from assassination attempts to every bad behavior you could ever imagine.
It's going to be massive. So I think a Trump administration would be complete chaos, which is what the Democrats say.
But it would be the Democrats causing it, like they did in this first administration.
It's caused by the Democrats.
But when they say it's going to be chaos, oh, they mean it.
There will be street protests, there will be more fake BLMs and more fake Antifas, and the bad people will be burning the country, basically.
But I'll take that.
I'll take the country on fire.
To keep a Democrat out of office.
Literally, I'll take the country on fire.
Easy choice. No, you're not going to tell me that I'm going to be blackmailed into picking a Democrat or accepting one because the alternative is that Democrats will burn the country if they don't get their way.
Light the match. Yeah.
If you're going to burn the country because Trump won, get your matches.
Yeah, we'll watch it happen.
But we're not going to change our minds for that.
Because once the decision is made, the details don't matter.
That would be a big detail, but they wouldn't matter.
So, it's time to act.
Let's get the landslide that we think is there.
I'll tell you my opinion.
Every signal in the world is glaring that Trump is going to win in a landslide, if it's a normal election.
So on election night, I think he will have a landslide.
And I think that the polls that say it's about a tie, I think they're all fake.
Honestly, I just think they're completely fake.
And in ways that we understand.
I don't mean that they're fake in some way.
I don't understand. How did they do that?
No, we all know how they did it.
All they do is they weight their assumptions of who's going to vote differently to make it so it looks like a horse race, so everybody in the news wins because it looks like a horse race, so everybody's like, oh, better follow the news, see what happened today.
And then in the last weeks, we're going to see them become true.
And the news will tell you it's because something happened.
So wait for this lie.
The big lie coming is that the polls were close until the last week or so, maybe the last two weeks or so.
And then they widened and it became a Trump landslide situation.
And they're going to say, well, it's because...
Harris, she didn't visit a swing state.
Or they're going to say, I guess that Tim Walsh was a bad choice.
He lost that debate and everything went bad after that.
They're going to come up with a reason.
That will divert you from the fact that the polls were always fake.
And they're going to make it look like people just changed their minds at the last minute.
Yeah, people really changed their minds at the last minute there.
It's because of fill in the blank reason.
So we'll have a good laugh at the fill in the blank reason, I think.
I don't know who's going to be president.
But I do feel confident that Trump is currently ahead by a landslide margin.
It's just obvious, I think.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go talk to the locals' subscribers privately.
Do you know that the Dilber calendar is available?
For 2025, but you can only get it at the link at Dilbert.com.
It's not going to be available online anywhere else, and it won't be in bookstores.
One and only place, because we made it completely in America, and so I had to do it a different way.
And that means we've got a calendar with comics on the front and the back.
The new Dilber Reborn that only subscribers have seen until now, the naughty ones, they're not real naughty, don't worry, will be on the backs of these.
So if you have just the fronts in your office, your co-workers will say, oh, that looks like an innocent comic.
Little do they know.
And then, of course, if you haven't ordered your copy of Witten Bigley, the most important book on Trump's persuasion from the 2016 campaign, now available in Kindle and softcover and hardcover.
And if you get it fast, it really will refresh you about how Trump got to this point against all odds.
You'll understand it and you'll learn something about persuasion that you can use.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, locals, I'm coming at you.
Everybody else, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.