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, Nuclear Power Plants, Scientific Funding, New Zealand Warship Sinks, Karine Jean Pierre, Polymarket Election Betting, Charlamagne Tha God, Gay Trump Supporters, Kamala Medicare Policy, NIH Fluoride Warning, Epstein Client List, Elon Musk Tucker Interview, Opportunity Economy, Trump CA Rally, NC Bridge Repairs, NC BOE Changes, No ID State Voting, Overseas No ID Voting, Voting Machine Purpose, Election Audit Shortcomings, Blank Ballot Bundles, Dallas Voting Machines Fail Testing, CNN Aisha Mills, Democrat Puppet Masters, Cenk Uygur, 60 Minutes Kamala, Bill Whitaker, Rapid-Blinking Word Salad, Konstantin Kisin, First Principles Subjectivity, 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
Israelis and Palestinians can live securely side by side in a lasting peace with equal measures of safety, opportunity, and dignity.
All right. So that's a dilly meme.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.
Well, for that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Well, if you were here when I was showing the video of the spokesperson, Jean-Corinne Jean-Pierre, in her gigantic zoot suit, you know that the non-modified video looked like she was wearing a giant suit and had a tiny head.
So when it turned tidier, it was pretty hilarious.
All right, well, the important news is, of course, Hurricane Milton is bearing down on Florida.
The strength of the storm has changed a little bit every few hours, but when I went to bed last night, it was a Category 5 and one of the strongest hurricanes that we've ever tracked.
I did hear it went down a little bit, but I don't know if it could pick up again.
So if anybody has an update on that, is it still as strong as it was?
Is it still Category 5?
But we're going to really see if Florida's got the goods because they're ready for it.
It's a well-managed state, so we're wishing the best for all of our Florida friends.
Well, in other news, the White House, the Biden administration says they're looking into making some plans to decommission Or to bring back decommissioned nuclear power plants.
So this feels like a victory for me.
Because you know, if you started following my live streams around 2015 or 16, that I've been saying since then, hey, we need to get real serious about nuclear energy and reopen plants and do all that stuff.
Well, it's all happening now.
I think it has to do a lot with needing lots more electricity for robots and electric cars and especially AI. So that's happening.
I guess I'll trust the science for now.
Speaking of trusting the science, Ohio State University Found that when a drug manufacturer is the one who funds the clinical trials, you'll be surprised to find this, but compared to when a drug is tested by somebody who doesn't have any financial incentive, if it's funded, if the trial is funded by somebody who has a financial incentive, you get much better efficacy.
Psychiatric drugs are reported to be about 50% more effective in clinical trials as long as the trial was funded by the company that makes the drug.
So, does that worry you at all?
That you get radically different results depending on who's funding the science?
Trust the science.
No, you can't trust the science.
You can't trust data about anything that's important.
Well, people keep asking me to talk about this story.
Poor New Zealand.
They had a $100 million warship that just sank, thanks to the incompetence of the captain and maybe the crew.
Now, of course, what makes this story extra spicy is that the captain was a recently promoted lesbian woman.
That's the only kind of lesbian, right?
Lesbian woman?
I think so. It's all confusing.
But then, of course, that raises the question, is it DEI? Was it DEI that caused that ship to sink?
Now, I would caution you that if you're looking at any one specific story, you almost never know the real details.
So, was there anything wrong with that particular lesbian captain?
I don't know. There's no direct evidence of that.
Could have been, who knows?
Fog of war. We don't know the story.
So, I would Capture this story this way.
I wouldn't believe that DEI is telling you anything about any one given situation, like any one person in one situation.
That's a little too much to stretch the idea that DEI is destroying the world.
But you can know for sure that all of our major institutions will become incompetent if they focus on identity over capability, which they are.
So the most predictable thing in the world is that the New Zealand military, as well as all the Western militaries, would become fairly incompetent.
But you'd also expect FEMA to be incompetent, our election system to be incompetent, our government You'd expect it all to be incompetent, and our colleges as well.
Do we observe that?
Do we observe exactly what I've been predicting for years, which is that you'll see mass incompetence in every large organization?
Yes. Yes.
Prediction matches outcome.
We have massive incompetence like we've never seen before.
How much of that is caused by DEI? Don't know.
Could be none. Could be none.
But it's the prediction.
The prediction is on paper it should cause massive incompetence, and we see it.
So probably, probably that's what's happening everywhere in the world, the Western world.
Speaking of Corinne Jean-Pierre, she got promoted to senior advisor.
Do you know why she was promoted?
Anybody? It was because of the fine, fine job she's done as spokesperson.
Obviously. What?
Oh, you're saying she's the worst spokesperson in the history of all spokespeople in any job at any time in the entire history of humanity.
Well, that's true.
That's true. So what would we say about her getting promoted?
She didn't get any extra work from the promotion and she didn't get extra money.
So what does that sound like to you?
If you don't get any extra money and it doesn't change your job description?
That sounds like a little bit of a fake promotion.
Maybe to look good on her resume or something?
Getting ready for the next job?
I don't know. But I wouldn't rule out that Corinne Jean-Pierre will be your next president.
After this next one, you know, 2028.
Because she has all the qualifications.
Doesn't she? Oh, yeah.
So you're probably thinking to me, you're probably thinking, Scott, you just said she's the worst spokesperson in the history of the entire world.
How could she be successfully running for president in 2028?
And the answer is, did you see the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris?
Apparently, there's no limit to how bad you could be and run for president and be a tie.
We'll talk about that, but oh my God!
My God! You have to see the clips from that interview.
It's the biggest train wreck of any interview of all time, really.
It probably broke every record for incompetence.
Well, meanwhile, the poly markets, which is the betting markets that includes election stuff, has made a big move, and now there's a big difference between the Trump supporters, which are now well above Harris supporters in the betting market.
So this is not the polling.
This is the betting market.
Should you trust the betting market to tell you what's going to happen?
No. No, you shouldn't.
The betting market doesn't tell you what's going to happen.
It just tells you what the people were betting to think is going to happen or they think is a good bet, which is slightly different than thinking they know what's going to happen.
Sometimes they just like the odds.
Somebody said that Polymarkets is in part funded by Peter Thiel.
Does anybody know if that's true?
Is Peter Thiel one of the funders of the Polymarkets business?
Because if he is, then you have to wonder about bias.
I think you should ignore the betting markets.
They're fun to talk about, but I don't think they're really predicting anything.
I mean, in this case, I think they're in the right direction.
So I do think that it's in the correct direction, but we don't know if that's an accident or telling us something.
Meanwhile, Charlemagne the God...
He was saying about Trump and J.D. Vance.
He said, quote, they'll be talking about things that are happening right here in America because of this election season right here in America.
And again, Charlemagne says about Trump and J.D., it's always America first.
But then you go to Tim Walsh and they're asking him about geopolitical politics.
And I think a lot of times that makes him sound, you know, very out of touch.
And then he went back and praised Vance and Trump again for being focused, laser focused on America.
I'll tell you, there's nothing like a common enemy to bring people together.
And if you haven't noticed, the black Americans have realized, hey, wait a minute.
All these white supremacists who kept wanting to close the border, They were on our team.
They were on our side.
All those white supremacists, alleged white supremacists.
Because the, you know, the Make America, you know, America Great Again people, America First people, want the people who are already here, and that includes everybody who's already here, to do well, and they don't want to ship in extra people to take what the people here have or could have.
And if you want something that's going to bring black and white America together, it's the common enemy.
Now, the enemy is not the people.
Let me be very clear about this.
I'm not demonizing the people coming through, because in most cases, they're excellent people.
Just as human beings are excellent human beings.
That's my experience. My experience with the migrant community has been overwhelmingly positive.
But as a system...
The system's going to destroy the country for everybody black and white and everything in between.
So the predictable outcome of the open borders should have been And now we're seeing it.
It took a while. But it should have been to bring together the people who are already here.
Because it's, again, when I say common enemy, I mean the system of bringing in too many people without vetting.
I don't mean that the people are enemies.
I want to be clear about that.
Some of them are murderers.
They're enemies. But in general, the people are not enemies.
They want to be on our team.
The people coming into the country are trying to join the team.
So they're not enemies.
It's just that the process is an enemy in a sense.
So there's some videos going around of a bunch of gay Americans who are saying that they're going to vote for Trump.
And they've got a little catchphrase that is, I am gay, not stupid.
I'm voting for Trump.
Now, how many people are in that camp?
I don't know. But probably the same thing's going on, which people realize that for the first four years of the Trump administration, there were absolutely no risks to anybody in the LGBTQ community.
So at least the gay people are saying, why do that?
Why not have America first?
So again, I think this is a case where Americans are coming together because of the external threat.
So weirdly, the immigration policies of the Democrats are a unifying force for America.
Not in the way they wanted, but it's working that way.
Allegedly, Kamala Harris is going to roll out A new major policy when she appears on The View today, I think.
The policy will be that Medicare would cover long-term care at home, which raises the question, who's going to pay for that?
Now, I do think this is probably a requirement.
You know, I hate to say it, but there's going to be so many old people who need care at home.
Probably this is unavoidable, no matter who's president at some point.
But we don't know how to pay for it.
In other news, did you know that the NIH has declared that fluoride in the water can reduce the IQ of children?
And it might be hazardous to human health.
So we've been intentionally putting fluoride in the water forever.
And now the government.
So it's not some weird entity that's making a claim.
It's the National Institute of Health, our government, that says it lowers the IQ of children.
Now, I don't like to brag, But when I grew up, I did not drink fluoridated water.
Because I grew up in the country, so we had our own well that was full of frogs and stuff.
It was a well where there was like a little crappy little pond of water full of frogs.
And we would pump that water up and drink it.
Turns out it was full of lead.
So, you know.
Apparently I had a lot of lead, but no fluoride.
So if I seem extra smart, it's because I didn't drink fluoride when I was a kid.
That's why. So Joe Rogan pointing out As many of us have, that the Epstein list has never been published and we don't really know who has it or even who knows what's on it.
It just sort of disappeared into a black hole.
That's never going to change, right?
As long as the people who are on that list are alive, or even their kids, we're never going to find out.
That Epstein thing is exactly what you thought it was, a blackmail operation that involved a lot of powerful people, and now those powerful people are going to make sure we never see it, which is amazing.
It's just amazing that that's a thing, that we all know exactly what's going on, Hold on.
I don't know why that just magically started playing on its own, but it did.
All right, so that's happening.
We're wondering what's up with that.
But at the same time, Elon Musk had a conversation with Tucker Carlson, and he made quite a bit of news.
So one of the things he said, he's hinted at this before, Musk has, but he's saying it pretty directly.
He says, part of why Kamala is getting so much support Is that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list will become public and some of the billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome.
So he says, some of the billionaires behind Kamala.
And Tucker says, quote, do you think Reid Hoffman is uncomfortable?
And Elon says, yes, and Bill Gates.
Holy shit.
Let me make a suggestion to you.
If you ever decide to make that kind of accusation in public, wait until you have a couple hundred billion dollars in the bank.
Because if they're innocent, not expect some lawsuits.
But I guess he can afford it.
However, You could also imagine that there would not be lawsuits because it would be discovery and none of them want that.
So they'd have to be really, really careful that they're innocent of everything and then they can sue them.
But no lawsuits have been announced yet.
So, if they don't sue them for, or at least try to sue them for whatever that would be, defamation or something, it would certainly suggest that they wouldn't want to go through discovery, and it's not like they're going to make any money that they need because they're already rich.
So, anyway, I guess we shouldn't put too much into whether or not they pursue it legally.
Well, I was seeing one of the Harris supporters talking about, Harris has this, what she calls
the opportunity economy.
What do you hear when you hear that?
I'd like to have an opportunity economy.
What's that mean compared to what it's always been?
Did we have an economy where nobody had an opportunity?
Because I don't remember that.
Is there some demographic group who is not clearly favored and has been for years for every type of solid employment?
What exactly is the new part of an opportunity economy?
Doesn't that just mean free market?
It's basically just the free market.
And she keeps getting away with that, and the news keeps letting her say it like it added something.
What did it add?
It doesn't say anything.
It's basically just pathetic and vague.
And the only part that I hear is that she's going to discriminate against white men really, really hard.
Because where does the opportunity come from?
It comes from suppressing the opportunity of other people.
Specifically, that's what DEI is.
I'm not using hyperbole.
It's basically saying I'm going to discriminate racially against white people.
That's my economy.
Because what else does it mean?
If everybody already has opportunity, but the problem is that there's not enough equity, that would suggest that white men have too much opportunity.
So you'd have to reduce some of that to make some available for some other people.
So basically she's saying that her economic plan is to discriminate racially.
That's what I hear.
And I don't think I'm exaggerating.
I think that's exactly what she's saying.
She's just using big words to make it look like she knows what an economy is.
So here's a weird thing.
Donald Trump is going to hold a rally in California, Coachella.
Why would Trump hold any rallies at all in California?
He doesn't expect to win California, does he?
Or does he think that enough people will see it from other places that will make a difference?
Why would you go to California at all?
And somebody was saying that Harris was spending too much time in California and New York, which again would be a waste of time because she's going to win those states.
So some people are saying that she's already decided she's going to lose, so there's no point in going to any of the swing states because she's going to lose.
But she can go to the states where you can raise a lot of money, And maybe that'll help the other races.
So some people are speculating that if you look at the activity of the people involved, it would look like Trump thinks he's already going to win, so he doesn't have to be in the swing state.
And Harris thinks she's already going to lose, so she doesn't need to be in the swing state.
Now, I don't know that that's the calculation.
But it is an open question.
Why would either of them be in a state this close to Election Day?
Why would any of them spend any time in a state that's really not up for play?
Do they know something we don't know?
Interesting. Well, here's my favorite story.
You know, North Carolina just devastated by Hurricane Helene, and they're trying to dig out, and one of the questions beyond the question of life and death and making sure everybody gets fed is there's a political element to it.
And the political element is will people be able to make it to vote?
And it doesn't seem like they're getting as much help as they want from FEMA, from the government.
And so what's happening?
Well, it turns out we're seeing videos now of men just taking matters into their own hands.
So there's video now of men with earth moving equipment building a bridge.
and of logs that you know they chop down their own trees or not chopped but you know so they're actually using a uh trees and logs and woods and and they're moving dirt and they're building they're just building their own crossings there's another uh bridge that these the residents built a temporary bridge using uh the flatbed from flatbed trucks And here's a question somebody asked on X. They said, doesn't our military already know how to make temporary bridges?
Do we have some shortage of military temporary bridges?
Is there some reason that our military isn't there right now putting up temporary bridges because they already know how to do it?
They might be or may be heading there.
I'd love to think that that's under control.
But so far it looks like the men of North Carolina, and I'm sure the women are supporting them, but the videos are 100% men.
They're doing... They're doing caravans on mules.
They're actually mule caravans to bring people food.
They've got something called the Redneck Air Force.
So a bunch of special forces, retired special forces people, put together their own airport, basically.
So they have volunteers with helicopters coming in and they've coordinated the whole thing.
Apparently they're very well organized because they're ex-military people.
And they don't even see FEMA. They did their own fundraising on GoFundMe, organized their own transportation, helicopters, and manpower, and they're just freaking doing it.
So I did a post on X asking people to include in the comments any video or reports of people just solving their own problems, and there's a lot of them.
Turns out there are all kinds of impressive things.
There are ATV caravans, there are helicopters, there are bridges being built.
And all of the videos I saw didn't look like there was any FEMA anything.
Now, I think FEMA's doing a lot.
I'm just saying that the videos look like people taking it into their own hands.
You give me three more weeks of what I'm seeing so far in North Carolina, and they're going to vote.
Turns out that the North Carolinians, besides wanting to eat and have medicine and all that, I think they're going to vote.
And I think they're going to vote hard.
And I think they're going to maybe break something.
They're going to vote so hard.
So watching the North Carolinians dig themselves out is deeply inspiring.
And I'd love to see a Trump ad campaign that maybe strings together the people taking it in their own hands.
Because there's something just so beautifully American about it.
You know, in the face of tragedy, I don't want to minimize the death and the economic destruction.
I mean, it's terrible. But it would be very inspiring to see the response in a video ad.
All right. And apparently the North Carolina Board of Elections already has made changes to where people vote, so they voted to modify the voting locations for the 13 counties, which means there will be some place to go.
You know, you were worried that the polling locations wouldn't exist.
They fixed it.
So within a week, North Carolina has fixed their election laws.
And you've got people all over fixing bridges and saving people.
It's very inspiring.
It's really just in terms of how it makes you feel.
And again, it's creepy to feel anything good in the context of so much disaster and loss of life.
But it still counts that we can recover.
It still counts.
All right. Here are some other things Elon said on his conversation with Tucker Carlson.
He said that the reason that no voter ID is required in our elections, depending on the state and the situation, the reason no voter ID is required is that it's obviously for massive fraud.
Now, that's as clear as you can be.
What else would it be?
There's no other explanation that passes the sniff test.
It's obviously for the purpose of massive fraud.
And we're all sitting here and we're watching it in slow motion, like we don't know why they're doing it, the lack of ID. So Elon's just saying it obviously.
Yeah, it's obviously for massive fraud.
I thought I saw a reference to some suggestion from Kid Rock.
I haven't seen it, the original source.
But was he suggesting that the Republicans don't accept the electors from states that don't have an ID requirement for voting?
Because that's kind of clever.
It's big trouble.
But you would have an argument for not accepting their electors.
Say, oh, are you from a state with no ID requirement?
Oh, well, we automatically assume that that's rigged.
But there's no evidence it was rigged.
I know. But the no ID requirement is all we need.
Because there's no other reason to have no ID. There is no other reason.
They might offer one, but it's not real.
And then, of course, we know the overseas voting doesn't require ID, and that's a mess.
So we're kind of sleepwalking And by the way, in Fulton County, one of the key counties for the entire election, in a prior vote, 93% of those overseas votes that we assume are largely fake went to Democrats.
93%. Okay, there's no way that happens naturally.
So I would say that the overseas voting as a source of fraud, I'd say that's confirmed.
To me, the evidence that we have publicly, and I haven't seen any of it debunked, is confirmation that this is a fraudulent...
It's designed for fraud.
It's for fraud.
And apparently it works.
So we're all sort of sleepwalking into an election that by its design can't produce a credible outcome.
It doesn't matter who wins.
Neither side will say it's credible.
It just won't be a credible outcome.
How are we allowing that to happen?
Why are we just walking like zombies into this big open pit and we all see the open pit and we're even talking about it and we're still just walking like zombies toward the pit and we're all going to fall in and die.
We don't have an election that could possibly give us, even under any circumstance, It can't possibly give us a credible result.
It can give us a result, eventually.
But there's no way in the world we're going to believe it was true.
Or at least whoever loses won't believe it.
So the things we know so far is that the overseas voting is big enough to completely change the outcomes of the election and that it's totally corrupt and fake.
We know that the no requirement for voter ID is only for one reason.
It's for massive fraud.
We know that the best argument anybody's come up with to have voting machines is that it helps people with handicaps.
So if you have some kind of disability, apparently the machine will help you.
That's not a reason for machines.
That might be a reason for one machine.
But how many handicapped people are voting in your precinct?
They could just use the one machine like they would use any other special accommodation.
So no, the fact that we have machines, as far as I can tell, the only purpose is for cheating.
Now, I'm open to the argument that somebody has a better reason for the machines, but doesn't seem to be saving money, creating better credibility, doesn't make them more auditable.
I can't think of any reason.
It's not faster. So again, we know the election systems by design can't be fully audited.
For example, you would never know if somebody threw away some ballots in the post office before they ever reached you.
You can't audit that.
So we have a non-auditable system.
If some state actor got into the electronics, we would never know.
How would we know? And we know there are credible reports of bundles of blank ballots arriving at addresses that used to be abandoned, but now there's somebody living there.
So they can tell that these obviously were being mailed to abandoned addresses so somebody could pick them up and fill them out.
So the method of cheating is all completely transparent at this point.
Now, only for people who are really paying attention.
So I would be in the top 1% of people paying attention to the topic of election integrity.
So I know that it has all these holes and that they're public, they're obvious, they're glaring, and there's no other explanation.
But we're just going to have the election anyway?
Wouldn't we know it couldn't possibly give us a credible result?
There's not even that option.
It's not like, well, maybe we'll get lucky.
No. No, that's not one of the options.
It's designed so that we can't have a credible outcome.
It doesn't have that option.
And I don't know how many times I can say that.
That this is different from any time in the past.
In the past, we didn't know about all the holes in the election system.
We just didn't know.
Now we know. So the answer to knowing that we have all these holes in the election system, the answer is not to go ahead and have the election.
We should actually just cancel the whole election.
Until we can make a system that we feel good about, I'm not even sure there's a point of having an election, really.
But we will. It's going to happen.
All right. So that's your...
That's your republic, if you can keep it.
So you're basically your...
So here's the setup.
The things that will influence the election are, of course, the media and how they cover stories.
Now, when I say that, I mean propaganda and brainwashing.
So a big part of our process is the propaganda and brainwashing.
This particular season is also going to be about hurricanes.
It will definitely have an effect on the election, one way or the other.
The other thing is that it's obvious that the Democrats are preparing for massive fraud.
It's just glaringly obvious.
But it's also true, and I think many of you would agree, that the pollsters are under-sampling Trump voters, because Trump voters know how to hide.
And they're preparing a prank, and the prank is, surprise!
There are a lot more of us than you thought.
So the Trump strategy seems to be to win by more than the margin of cheating so that any cheating would be glaringly obvious because they would have to cheese so much and in the last minute that they wouldn't be able to catch up with them getting caught.
So here's our system.
What you thought was our system is some kind of a democratic republic where every citizen has a right to vote and we become educated and informed and then we express our preferences and then the system takes our preferences and turns them into reality.
So that's what it's supposed to be.
But what we actually have is a system that will be entirely decided by four factors.
Brainwashing. Hurricanes, election rigging, and lying to pollsters.
Pranks.
So basically, that's your republic, if you can keep it.
That's your actual system.
Brainwashing, wind, cheating, and prank.
Those are the four factors which will determine who your next leader is.
Brainwashing, wind, cheating, and a prank.
I wish that weren't true.
But it's literally what we're watching and what almost certainly will be the case.
That's how we'll be determined.
If the pranksters are greater than the cheaters, the pranksters win.
If the brainwashers do an extra good job, then their side wins.
But that's all it is.
That's what it is.
Well, the RNC, Republicans are suing Fulton County.
For refusing to hire enough Republican poll workers.
So apparently the local standard that they're supposed to adhere to is to try to have a somewhat balanced left, right, Democrat, Republican poll workers.
How close did they get to having a balanced number of poll workers?
Well, they did get 15 Republicans who were hired.
So that's pretty good.
Right? I mean, it's not like they were ignoring the Republicans.
They hired 15 of them and of 800 and of 800.
And of course, this story comes with a picture of a DEI hire who's in charge of the whole thing.
And again, I'm not saying that that one employee is incompetent because they're a DEI hire.
I don't know anything about the one employee, but I don't know how to interpret hiring only 15 Republicans out of 800.
It's hard to explain that other than incompetence or cheating.
So, anyway.
The Gateway Pundit's reporting.
Actually, that other story was the Gateway Pundit as well.
But they're also reporting that the voting machines in Dallas failed a critical test.
So in Dallas they tested the voting machines and they had some critical error.
So what do you think they're going to do?
So of course they removed all of the voting machines.
No. Now they're just going to have the election anyway.
Have you ever worked with technology enough to know that even if your machine worked perfectly in the last election, It won't work in the next one, because there's always going to be something changed.
Something rotted, some software needed to be updated, something.
So does it scare you that just weeks before the election, there's some major failure in machines?
Do you think that all of the different precincts all over the country, where they should be testing the machines and really giving them a rigorous go-through before the real election, do you think all that's happening?
Do you think the crack technicians that couldn't get a job at Google, but they could definitely get a job taking care of election machines?
Do you think that they're all organizing some really good tests that cover all the possibilities and make sure that everything's working like a well-oiled machine by Election Day?
Or do you think it's a whole bunch of incompetent people who couldn't get a better job?
I would expect some voting machine problems, and not necessarily because there's anything wrong with the machines, but they all have a human element, and the human element appears to be terrible.
So, could be problems.
There's some Democrat operative called Aisha Mills.
I guess twice CNN had her on yesterday.
And her thing is that Trump is basically Hitler.
He's a eugenicist.
And the things he says suggest that he wants to exterminate certain groups of people.
Exterminate. Like literally like Hitler.
Identify and exterminate people with bad genes.
That's what she says. Now apparently Trump said something about the criminals coming in, polluting the blood of our country or something.
And then of course Democrats always take whatever he says about criminals and they act like what he meant was everybody in that demographic group.
As if he'd say that.
Anyway, so CNN, I can't believe they would have a blatant racist on and just give her complete time to run her mouth.
Amazing. So CNN, I take back all of my compliments for your recent, what seemed like more balanced coverage.
This is disgusting.
It's disgusting that you'd have her as a guest.
You should really be ashamed of yourselves.
I mean, she was on twice in one day.
After the first one, they put her back on.
Seriously? I think it was the same day or, you know, it was close.
Why would you have her on twice?
Having her on once, I could see why maybe if he didn't know exactly what she was going to say, catch you off guard.
But you'd have her on twice?
Somebody should be fired for that.
Whoever had her on the second time, that person needs to be sent to the door because that's not just a failure to the audience.
That's a failure that's literally dangerous, could get somebody killed.
It's so irresponsible that I can't imagine that whoever booked her still has a job today.
That would be irresponsible too, to keep her in that job or him in that job.
Well, Elon Musk also talking to Tucker about UFOs.
He does not believe that we've seen any space alien UFOs.
He thinks most likely it's some kind of classified weapons programs.
So when somebody spots something, there's no way to find out what it was, if it was a classified weapons program.
I don't think that explains all of it, but it could explain some of it.
However, I will say this.
If I'm just watching somebody in the comments trying to assign an opinion to me and then tell all the other people that they've done it.
No, you can't assign an opinion about my inner thoughts.
Alright? You can't.
So, cut that out.
Yeah, just don't do that.
Anyway, I think that Musk would know if there's even a possibility that some of the things we've seen are space aliens.
It doesn't seem to me that he would be uninformed about whether or not there are aliens flying around.
So I'm completely on board with him that we have not seen evidence that's compelling.
Now, Elon's going to get in trouble because he joked in that same interview with Tucker that no one's trying to kill Harris or Biden because they're just puppets, and their personalities and their individual skills are completely irrelevant to anything, and they would just pop in a new puppet.
So it A Democrat, because they're basically a machine, and the leader is the least important part of the machine.
Whereas, if you've got a populist, the candidate is the most important part.
So there's a big difference there.
But he's going to get in trouble because it's going to sound like he's suggesting it.
They'll twist it until it sounds like something it wasn't.
That's going to happen. And Tucker thinks that maybe there's a hundred Or people who are the real power behind the throne.
And Tucker says, I'll bet you know 80 of them.
And he seemed to agree that that was probably true.
So that's also my estimate.
My estimate is there are about 100 people who seem to be important.
Now, I'm having some fun because as we're learning which people are behind which hoaxes and schemes and ops, you start to see their network.
For example, you know that Brennan and Obama, John Brennan and Obama, seem to be part of the same op.
With Hillary Clinton, too.
So you could say, okay, if I see any one of them, like Brennan, you would say to yourself, well, that's probably got some Hillary or Obama behind it.
Likewise, anything with Biden.
But there are a few others that I'm adding to my list that I'm not going to mention yet, where you can see their network.
You can see that there's a dozen or so people That whenever they pop up, the other rest of the dozen are also involved in the plot.
In other words, they operate like almost a RICO, you know, organized criminal enterprise, sort of a mafia within the government.
So anytime you see one member of the mafia, you know it's a mafia thing.
It's never just the individual because they're part of an enterprise.
Look for that. It's one of the most useful things that I've learned, is if you find out who's part of what network.
For example, Peter Thiel has a number of connections.
If you see, you know, JD Vance has a Peter Thiel connection.
So if you say, okay, if I can identify one of the people from that little universe, Does that mean that that whole little gang of connections are all on the same page?
It could. It could mean that for sure.
So look for organized squads, like groups of people who operate in unison.
For example, you always see Swalwell and Schiff will be the ones taking the lead to tell the big lies, you know, the ones that are just absurdly crazy lies about Trump.
And they seem to be part of the same network, not just Democrat, but a subgroup of some kind.
So look for that.
Look for the networks of people.
So Cenk Uygur doesn't like Trump because he's always lying.
He's a big old liar.
So he doesn't want to vote for Trump because of the lying.
He can't get past it.
It's the lying. And he says it's pathological.
And he gives some examples.
Two lies that he says Trump has been spreading about the hurricane.
He says the people are only getting $750 for their whole houses that were wiped out.
Most of you probably know that's not true, right?
The $750 was just in case you need some groceries today.
But the larger question is still open.
So some of them will get some kind of compensation, although most of them didn't have insurance, it turns out.
So is that a lie?
So people are getting $750, but we have not heard what will happen for anybody's houses.
So, so far, that's not exactly a lie, is it?
Because if we haven't heard what FEMA will do for their larger losses, and the only thing we know about is the $750, if you put that in the context of money that's going to Ukraine or Israel, It kind of looks...
Not very comfortable if you're an American citizen.
So you can fact check him on that one.
But I think it's true that FEMA has not announced that they're doing more than the 750.
We just sort of assume it's coming, but I don't believe we have any details about it.
And then there's a question of whether FEMA is taking money for hurricane victims and giving it to immigrants instead.
No, technically.
Yes, in reality.
So Democrats will say, technically, it's a different box.
You know, this budget is separate from this budget.
Technically, I agree.
But in the real world, if you have limited money, you don't have unlimited money, then you can always move money from one priority to another.
And if some money went to another country, That is unambiguously money we could have used here and didn't.
In a technical sense, maybe no money is taken from, I don't know, the wrong budget or something.
But in a real sense, all money can be moved by the government.
And if they don't move it, that's telling you something.
So I think that...
So anyway, whether or not you want to fact-check Trump on those two claims, I would say this.
How in the world do you not notice that Harris and Walls lie about 100% of everything?
They don't leave anything that's not a lie, at least every topic.
You know, there might be facts within the topic that are true, but on every topic, it's 100% lying.
They're either lying about what Trump's view is, or they're lying about their own view, or they're lying about the data, or they're lying about their track record.
But I feel like when I'm in the presence of someone who thinks that only one side of a presidential election is lying, I don't think you should talk in public anymore.
That feels like the minimum bar you need to cross before you should ever open your mouth in public.
This should be like a little test.
Alright, so Cenk, we hear that you're considering doing a podcast and you'll be talking in public.
That's right, that's right.
Alright, we gotta give you a little test to see if you're qualified to talk in public.
Do you think that candidate one, running for president, lies?
Yes. Oh, total liar.
Pathological. I can't stand it.
Lie, lie, lie.
Very good. Very good.
You are correct. You are correct.
Second question. Do you think that the candidate that the big liar is running against is largely mostly telling the truth?
Yeah, totally. Are you kidding me?
One's telling the truth.
I mean, maybe slipped up or got a word wrong or something.
But basically, one's telling the truth and one's telling lies.
Nothing but lies. Okay, very good.
This completes your test, Cenk.
You will not be allowed.
You will not be allowed to speak in public.
Because you're too fucking stupid if you think only one of them is lying.
And it's independent of who's running, really.
By the way, I do think that RFK Jr.
doesn't lie. Like, I haven't seen one.
He might be wrong, like everybody could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything that looks like something he knew was true that he said the other way.
I haven't seen it. So that's pretty remarkable when you think about it.
But for the ones who are sort of traditional politicians, I'll put Trump in that box for now.
No, everything they say is some stretched, exaggerated, hyperbolic version of the truth.
And the only thing I ever say about Trump is I never say, oh yes, he really did pass all the fact-checking.
Of course he doesn't. Nobody does.
But he does seem to keep his bullshit directionally accurate.
I've said it a million times, and it remains true.
It is directionally accurate that the people in North Carolina are not getting as much money as we'd like them to get.
True? Yes.
Yes, that is directionally true.
If he throws in something about the $750, blah, blah, blah, those might not pass the fact check.
But his general messaging is we've got to do more for these people.
True. True.
How about the money being given to Ukraine instead of the others?
Well, directionally, no matter what technical bag you thought the money was in, directionally, giving too much money to other countries and not having enough for our own country seems like a bad idea, directionally.
So look for who's directionally true.
That's the best you can do.
All right, Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes.
So Bill Whitaker, I interviewed her.
Let me say that Bill Whitaker did an excellent job, and if you're thinking, hey, that Bill Whitaker looks like a DEI hire for 60 Minutes, definitely not.
Definitely not. He did one of the best professional interview jobs I've seen this election, maybe, because he asked very politely The right questions.
And when she avoided the questions, he very politely noted that it had been avoided and, you know, gave her another shot at it.
So he just tore her apart.
Now, I don't think it was his goal to tear her apart.
It looked like his goal, can't read his mind, but it looked like his goal was to do the very best job he could at that.
And then I watched it and I said, wow, You're doing a very good job there.
So don't give him any trouble for any DEI stuff.
If you can perform, you can perform.
He performed. So great job and lots of credit.
I give you lots of credit. But here are some of the things that Kamala Harris said.
And let me summarize.
Harris's appearance on 60 Minutes is the worst political interview I've ever seen.
Not really close.
I don't think anybody's ever done this poorly.
She looked pathetic.
She didn't look like she was unprepared.
No, she looked pathetic.
She didn't look like really anything but pathetic.
It was just, you just shake your hand and go, oh my God, what am I watching?
So she actually said that she was asked if she owns a gun, and she says she has a Glock.
She has a Glock, which is interesting.
So Glock is, if you're not a gun person, Glock is the name of a kind of a gun.
Coincidentally, it's also the noise she made when she was dating Willie Brown.
Glock, Glock, Glock, Glock, Glock.
All right, you can think about that at home.
We're going to move on.
And here's a side note.
According to Costas Moros, I saw an X, he says that all Glocks are determined unsafe in California.
So California has some kind of anti-Glock And there's something about the specifics of the Glock that California decides is unsafe.
Did she just admit having an illegal gun?
Now, it wouldn't be illegal if it's an older one.
If it's grandfathered in, it wouldn't be illegal.
But if you're the gun safety person and you just admitted you have a gun that's so unsafe that it's not even legal to buy a new one, you could only have a grandfathered in one, That's not a very clean answer.
And I'm not even sure anybody believed that she had a Glock or that she's ever fired it.
I'm not sure I'm convinced that that Glock actually exists.
Anyway, so here are some of the other problems.
So when Bill Whitaker asked her how she was going to pay for all her policies, she said she's going to make the rich pay their fair share, which doesn't mean a thing.
And she just looked stupid and she blinked too much and it looked like she didn't expect anybody to push her on any answers.
So it was just pathetic.
She lied and said that she caught fentanyl by 50%.
First of all, how would you know how much you didn't catch?
That's so dumb. How in the world do you know how much fentanyl you didn't catch so that you could know that the part you caught was 50%?
It's stupid! It's stupid.
No, she didn't cut fentanyl by 50%.
Now, maybe it got cut.
I don't know. But there's no way to know it's 50% or 1%.
There's no way to know.
So the fact that she just throws that in there, it's just like an outrageous lie.
But, but, if it were directionally true, I would still forgive it.
Same standard for Trump.
If it were true that they did something that really did make a difference and the fentanyl was down, I wouldn't fact check her because it went down 10% instead of 50%.
I'll take the 10% and I'll even give you directionally accurate.
But I don't think it went down 10%.
I don't think they have any idea what happened because you don't know how much you didn't catch.
Anyway, the funniest part is that she apparently doesn't know the most basic fact about her most prominent policy idea.
So her policy idea is that if you're a new business, you would get to write off $50,000 in expenses even if you didn't have real expenses up to $50,000.
She's selling it like you can't start a business without $50,000, as if she believes that her program is to give you $50,000, which it very clearly is not.
There is no small business that gets the $5,000 she says isn't enough, and there's also no business that gets the $50,000 she says is enough.
It's not about giving anybody anything.
It's literally about if you've spent your own 50,000, or let's say more than that because you had a loss of 50, that you could write off 50.
She doesn't even know what her own program is.
Now, I need a fact check on this because it's blowing my mind that the number one thing she's been promoting, she couldn't tell if it was cash or a write-off.
They're not the same.
Now you also hear them saying that Trump doesn't understand tariffs because he says we're bringing in money from it and he doesn't understand it's just a tax on people.
But of course the tariff thing is there are two kinds of tariff.
There's stupid kind and then there's a kind that's so smart it's almost essential.
So Trump is in favor of the essential kind, where you're protecting an entire industry from some other country trying to undercut you and put you out of business.
That's the smart kind.
And that's why Biden kept those kinds in place, which were the only kinds.
And it's why neither Biden or Harris or Trump is even talking about putting a tariff on just ordinary goods that we're not competing with them.
Nobody's talking about that.
So they're saying that Trump doesn't understand tariffs because they don't understand tariffs.
That's what's happening. The people who are criticizing Trump for not understanding tariffs do not understand that there are two uses.
There's the stupid kind that he doesn't promote and never use, and then there's the smart kind that literally everybody agrees with.
Like, pretty much every economist left and right would say if China is trying to destroy your, let's say, automobile industry, that you tariff that shit.
Make sure that you can protect your industry until it gets stronger, for example.
So, yeah, it's just mind-boggling that Trump is the one getting trouble for not understanding tariffs.
A lot of Harris's answers were the rapid blinking word salad.
If you haven't seen rapid blinking word salad, it goes like this.
Ms. Harris, you've changed your policies so many times that voters, they don't know what you stand for or what you believe.
You start with the blinking.
So it looks like you're glitching out.
And then you give a nice and vague word salad answer like, I've been traveling this country and listening.
Hmm, what does that remind you of?
Oh, I know. I grew up in a middle-class family.
It's the same play, except I've been traveling this country and listening.
That's good, because there are a lot of people who travel and they block their ears.
But no, she's listening.
She says she's been building consensus.
Can you put a number on that?
How much consensus did you build?
Are you up 3% or 50%?
Is fentanyl down 50% but your consensus is up 50% because you're just fucking making shit up?
Keep going. Traveling the country and listening, building consensus.
We are a diverse people.
Okay. Relevance?
Not sure. We want leaders who can build consensus and compromise, as long as not compromising on values.
Okay, didn't need to be said.
None of that needed to be said.
Not relevant. We all understand that.
And that has been my approach.
Wait, what? What?
Was that even closely related in any way to the question?
No. And then Bill Whitaker mocked her for her answers.
And so it was mostly word salad and rapid blinking and complete stupidity, doesn't understand her own policies.
Honestly, it's the worst interview I've ever seen.
I doubt you'll ever see worse.
Because, you know, when are you going to get somebody who's this much of a blithering idiot who gets this far in a political race?
That's pretty unusual.
We got here in a weird way because, you know, Biden, who started out capable at one point, just disappeared.
They had to quickly figure out what they were doing.
And she just happened to be there.
So... Anyway, Harris also went on a podcast called Call Me Daddy.
And I guess it's a big deal with the young people.
And so part of that conversation was two idiots.
And one of the things that the two idiots said was, can you think of any law that gives the government power to make a decision about a man's body?
Oh, wow, zing.
Good one. Good one.
Because, you know, men are involved.
They shouldn't be, in my opinion.
But men are involved in making laws about women's bodies when it comes to, you know, IVF and abortion.
So that's a good question.
Are there any examples where the law or the government has power over the decisions about a man's body?
Huh. No, I can't think of a thing.
Can you? Well, Palmer Lucky can.
He posted, every American man is required by law to register for the draft.
Failure to do so is a crime punishable by a quarter million dollars in five years in prison and lifetime ineligibility for government benefits.
Counseling any man to not register has the same punishment.
So men's bodies can, at the threat of jail and other penalties, be forced into a foreign war and blown up on a battlefield, can be blown to bits.
Also, the justice system probably wouldn't even have jails if the only people who made crimes were women.
But we have an entire prison system that's mostly designed to control the bodies of men, right?
It's to control their bodies.
And then, of course, every law that says what you can and cannot do is also controlling their bodies.
Because if you said you can drive an electric car with your body, but you cannot drive a gas-powered car someday with your body, How about all those roads and bridges that are being repaired in North Carolina?
Did you notice that they were all men?
Did you notice that?
At least the ones who were doing the, you know, the big lifting?
Did those men have to do that?
Did the government require that they use their bodies in extensive labor and risk and danger to fix their situation?
No. Because the government didn't need to ask.
Sometimes men just do things and take a risk with their bodies because they're men.
So no, ladies.
This whole thing about controlling bodies is kind of a universal, and you wouldn't want to switch places.
Let me put it this way.
If we had a war with a draft, which could happen anytime, and you gave me a choice, would you rather be a drafted man or a woman who can't have an abortion?
Which would I pick?
Huh. Go to war.
Get PTSD for sure.
Probably be blown to smithereens.
Good chance. Or at least, you know, be mentally in anguish every day thinking about it.
Or, or, I could stay home and go on birth control.
Oh, oh no!
Stop controlling my body!
It's not even close.
The fact that women...
Think that they're the disadvantaged ones in the question of controlling bodies?
And what about the military when you have to get the mandatory vaccinations to be in the military?
Now, there are obviously both men and women in the military, but there's an imbalance.
Yeah. So...
Harris is genuinely one of the stupidest people ever in politics.
We've had some dumb ones.
I don't think Dan Quayle was a genius, but I think she tops him.
All right. Constantine Kissin, you know him from the Trigonometry podcast, and he's become one of the most interesting, I guess I would call him a public intellectual.
I'm not sure if he'd like that phrase, but he's one of the people who not only talks about what's happening in the world, But he tries to do what I do.
Well, he does what I do.
He tries to help you think about it.
So it's not just telling you what happened.
It's not just taking a biased stand.
It's really trying to dig in and, as he says, first principles.
So he applied his first principles and demonstrated his thinking process with a little video.
about his current view on Israel because he didn't have a fully formed view about Israel and its current situation.
But now he does. Now it's very much worth listening to because if you want to just hear a smart person working through a complicated situation and then being also so smart that he can summarize it in a way that makes it both useful and entertaining, I recommend it.
Bill Ackman was recommending it this morning, so give it a look.
However, I being me, and also like to be in the job of teaching you how to approach situations, not just trying to tell you what you should think about them, but how to think.
I've got a few comments about his thinking on it.
First of all, he appealed to first principles, meaning you go back to what do you really know and then reason from there.
That's the quick explanation.
But here's my problem with first principles.
I think it's subjective.
So when you say you're reasoning from first principles, I think everybody says that, except that if you're looking at different variables and weighting them differently and making different assumptions about them, it's not like the first principles fixes your thinking, because it's really just another source of subjectivity, in my opinion. But if you're doing the first principles thing and you're showing your work as he does, well, then it's a much better situation.
So at least you've seen the work and then you can disagree.
Well, I would have added something.
So it's very much a service to the public.
But he also uses some comparisons.
You could call them analogies.
So an analogy would be like, well, if this happened in this situation to Israel, let's say October 7th happened to them, what did some other country do if something happened to them?
What would the United States do in 9-11 if something happened to us?
To which I say, that's not first principles.
That would be the opposite.
I don't care what other countries do.
Why would that be relevant?
It doesn't seem relevant to me what other countries have done.
And the reason that I wouldn't make this comparison is there are no two situations alike.
Do you know what's like the Palestinian-Israeli situation?
Do you know what's like that?
Nothing. Nothing.
There's nothing like it.
So as soon as you say, well, let's look at this other historical situation to see what we can learn, the answer should have been nothing.
Don't look at other situations.
If you can't just look at this situation and figure out what you think about it, then you don't have the tools to analyze it.
But I definitely don't care what another country did in a situation that's not like this.
There's just nothing like it.
I can't think of another example Where not just the leaders of a group want death to somebody else, but it seems to be now brainwashed all the way down to the children.
They just want to kill the other side.
I don't even think Germany had that situation.
Nothing is the same. So I reject analogies as a form of reason.
I do accept analogies as a form of explaining a point.
If you're just explaining your point, they're good.
If you're saying that the analogy is my point, that's not thinking.
That's just something that reminded you of something.
It shouldn't be part of the process.
The other thing, this one bothered me a little bit more, Is that, and you've heard a number of people make this comparison, that on a per capita basis, if you look at the 1200 or so people who died on October 7th, you would say, oh my goodness. If you look at the smallish population of Israel, and you look at what 1200 people is to that population, it's a way bigger deal per capita than even 9-11 was.
And look what we did when 9-11 happened.
Is that a good argument?
Is it a good argument that Israel got it worse than 9-11?
So if we were going to have a massive response on 9-11, why would we be surprised that if Israel had a far bigger per capita hit, that they would also be quite militarily, let's say, poised to handle it with weapons?
Here's my problem with this.
Did anybody see the problem with that?
The per capita approach?
Here's the problem with it.
It says that Israelis are worth more than Americans.
What? You should be looking at the raw number.
It doesn't matter how many there were that didn't die.
It is completely irrational to look at per capita.
Here's why. One Israeli dies.
One American dies.
The Israeli dies on October 7th.
The American dies in 9-1-1.
Which one's a bigger tragedy?
Oh, we don't care so much about the one American because there are so many of us.
Fuck you. Fuck you very much.
That one American is worth every fucking, every other person, right?
They're not worth more than anybody else, but they're definitely not fucking worth less.
So, Constantine, I'd like you to review that assumption.
It's the number of people who got killed.
It's not the percentage.
One person dies, that is a full tragedy.
If 1,200 people died in 9-11, we would say 1,200 people died.
I'm not going to per capita that.
You killed 1,200 of my fellow citizens, I want you all dead.
You know, the bad guys, not the innocents.
So no, no, no, no, per capita.
That is pure...
Well, let me just say it.
I'm just going to say it out loud.
That's pure Israeli brainwashing.
All right? Now, I always appreciate our fine allies in Israel that they do a tremendous job on the public relations influence persuasion.
They're so good at it.
But sometimes they're too good at it.
The per capita thing is just straight out of Israel's propaganda.
We should not give a fucking shit about the percentage.
I get that it feels worse, but the percentage doesn't matter.
It just doesn't matter.
They're people. 1200 people is all you need to say.
They killed 1200 of your people.
I don't care what your population is.
You killed 1,200 Chinese citizens.
What do you think China's gonna do?
Are they gonna say, whoa, We were going to be worried about the 1,200 people you killed, but now we're not worried because we realize that we're such a big country.
No, fuck you.
They're all the same.
Every one Chinese person who dies is equal to every Israeli who dies, who's equal to every American who dies.
Per capita is a sucker's game.
You've been brainwashed with propaganda if you even go down that road.
That's how you know you've been brainwashed.
It's just so obviously fucking bullshit.
People are people. They all have the same value.
But just think about the fact that we're brainwashed to think that one Israeli citizen is worth more than one American.
That is so offensive to me.
Deeply offensive. Anyway, and then Konstantin was talking about the IDF and the Israelis have done allegedly a great job in killing the fewest number of civilians.
So if you believe the fog of war reporting, that the number of civilians is of course always tragic, but far less than wars that we've compared it to before.
Now again, you've got the comparison problem.
I'm not a big fan of comparing it to other situations.
But here's the other problem.
Why do you believe these numbers?
Why do you believe that the IDF is doing a great job of sparing civilians?
Who told you that?
Israel told you that, right?
Because we don't believe the Hamas numbers.
And what would be the other source of numbers?
So the group that wants you to think they're doing a good job of not killing civilians, and nobody else has the right answer, and it's a war zone where nobody tells the truth, traditionally, and your data on what a great job they're doing of keeping citizens alive and only going after the bad guys, as much as that's possible in the war, that came from one side.
Why would you believe that?
Now, I think it's likely to be true.
You know, if you put a gun to my head and said, all right, Scott, do you think they're doing better on this number, the percentage of, you know, civilians who are being killed?
I would say probably.
Probably they are, because they're making a big effort to do that and it matters.
But I wouldn't believe it because they said so.
That's not good enough.
I think you've got to put a giant asterisk next to that and say, we don't know what's going on.
We don't know what's happening on the ground.
Maybe the entire reason that the number of citizens killed is low is that the citizens were good at hiding.
Maybe they were good at getting out of the way.
Maybe they went in some of those tunnels or something.
I don't know. Just generally speaking, I'm inclined to think the IDF is doing a moral and ethical job of trying to spare the citizens.
I'm inclined to think that's true, but I wouldn't believe it because they said so.
That's not the standard you should use in a time of war.
Everybody's lying in wars.
Anyway, Hezbollah, the deputy leader, he's called the deputy leader, said he declined the offer to become the new leader.
He said, for now, Hezbollah will continue without a leader.
We will elect a leader in due course.
So apparently the leader doesn't want to say he's the leader because he blows up the minute he does.
That seems to be the pattern.
But I've planned to apply for the job, now that I know there's an opening.
And fingers crossed, if Hezbollah has a really robust DEI program, I think I can get in.
I think I could in.
Now, my requirement would be I want to work remotely.
I mean, it doesn't look like it's a good situation over there.
So I'd like to work remotely, but I will be the new head of Hezbollah if they'll have me.
And if they have a good DEI program, I think I got a shot.
There's a report in Slay News That Biden is offering Israel some kind of compensation if they don't strike Iranian targets, or at least specific ones.
Does that sound true?
Do you think the Biden administration is just bribing Israel?
Hey, we just got to get through this election.
Just let us get through the election.
Don't bomb Iran. Don't start a war until after the election.
I don't know. Could be true.
I'm going to give that one a maybe.
Let's see, what else?
Yeah, so apparently we're calling on Israel to refrain from attacking Iranian targets.
And the US would offer them some kind of diplomatic protection and sell them weapons and stuff like that.
Anyway. One of the questions that Bill Whitaker asked the 60 Minutes, asked Kamala Harris, is if Netanyahu is listening to the United States government.
Which is one of those questions that really, it's not about getting the answer to the question.
I suppose it's just about seeing how somebody handles it.
Because the answer to the question is obvious.
We're trying to influence them.
They're trying to influence us.
It's never a perfect thing.
So does he listen?
Well, he listens.
Of course Netanyahu listens.
But the question should have been, does he do everything you want?
Or does he do enough of the things you want?
Well, of course he listens.
Of course he does. But ultimately, they're going to do what makes sense for their security situation.
And they seem to have done a good job so far.
NPR, BBC, they hate Netanyahu, you're saying?
Well, he's quite a controversial character at the moment.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to the X and Rumble and YouTube people.
Thanks for joining. Sorry I went so long.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately now.
Remember, the Dilbert 2025 desktop calendar, available now only at the link you can find at Dilbert.com.
It's the only place you can get it, not on any other source, including Amazon.
But you can get it on Amazon, win bigly.
The resubmission of my, it's the second edition of my book about Trump's persuasion skills.
So written as a hypnotist, which is what I am.
So if you'd like to learn all of his magical persuasion tips, it's right there.
All right. I'm going to say bye to everybody except locals.
