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, 3D Acoustic Printing, PM Georgia Meloni, Deep Fakes, ISIS Election Day Terror Plot, TikTok, Roblox Addiction, Doug Emhoff, Election Integrity, Election Propaganda, Move The Needle Project, Persuasion Training, Spotting Propaganda, Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Modification Whistleblower, 60 Minutes Propaganda, Shelby Busch, Kamala Drinking Allegations, President Trump's Salesmanship, Anti-Obama Bob Woodward, Kamala's Friendly Media Blitz, J6 Confidential Informants, 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
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 in your whole darn life.
But if you'd like to take it up to a level that nobody's ever seen with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a tiny canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the Unparallel pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. The technology is working.
Thank you, Paul. Well, if you're not subscribed to Dilbert Reborn, which you can only see if you're a member of Locals at scottadams.locals.com, or you could be subscribing on the X platform.
If you only want the comic.
Over at Locals, we do political stuff, too.
But if you're reading the Dilbert Reborn, you would know that Dilbert's company is taking a lesson from P. Diddy.
I can say no more.
Say no more. Let's just say that B. Diddy did really well in business and the pointy air boss has noticed and so he's gonna try to see what he can learn.
See if he can pick up any business tips from B. Diddy.
And I can't tell you how this works out, but just I'll give you one hint.
Ashok, the intern, doesn't go well for him.
That's all you need to know.
All right, next story. According to Oxford University Health, caffeine is linked to better vascular health.
Oh, yeah. If you're feeling stronger.
It's because of me.
You had an extra sip because you're watching this.
You're a little bit heart-healthier than you were a moment ago.
That's called science.
Meanwhile, scientists, something called IFL Science is reporting that they gave rats some psilocybin, you know, magic mushrooms, and the rats became more optimistic.
Became more optimistic.
Now, you might ask yourself, Why do I want to make my rats more optimistic?
And I think the obvious answer is, do you want sad rats?
I mean, it's bad enough if you have a rat, but do you want a sad one?
No, you want happy ones.
So they give them mushrooms and make them happy.
I think they're thinking there might be some connection to making humans happy, but I don't know.
I think take the win.
If you made some rats happy, that's not nothing.
I like happy rats.
There's a new kind of 3D printing, according to Concordia University, that I don't understand exactly, but they call it holographic 3D printing and it involves sound using acoustic holograms.
So in other words, somehow they can concentrate sound waves and then the sound waves will be the force that puts the materials into its shape.
But you know what's cool about it?
Because it's sound waves, you could actually create something on the other side of a barrier.
So you could actually 3D create something inside somebody's body Without opening them up.
Now, I guess you'd have to have some material that you've got inside the body one way or the other.
So maybe you have to open them up to put some 3D printing material in their body.
But once it's in there, Then they can put in the sound waves and actually turn it into something like a heart valve or some damn thing once it's already in your body.
Now, I don't know if there will ever be an application for that, but there is some thinking that this will completely change 3D printing.
That'd be cool. That's getting a lot closer to the replicator in Star Trek.
Because it'd be one thing to see, you know, the replicator do that printing one layer at a time.
You wait forever.
But imagine if they could just use some sound waves at something and you just see it form, like forming as a solid.
That would be completely different.
Anyway, that's on the way. So the...
Is she the president?
I guess that would be the title of Italy.
Georgia Milani.
She's in court because she's trying to get deepfakes that are pornographic of her banned.
So she doesn't want people to make deepfake porn of her.
Apparently they exist.
And she says it's a form of violence.
Now, this opens up many deep and interesting questions.
Number one, I can certainly see your point.
If you made a porn of a public figure and you put it online, you could see how, if you were a woman especially, it would seem like effectively violence, right?
It would be sort of a psychological violence, but violence.
And I can see the point.
I completely understand that.
Now, I don't know if it'd be the same for men, but I'm willing to find out.
So if anybody wants to make an X-rated porno involving me, go ahead.
I promise I won't accuse you of violence.
Just be generous.
That's all I'm asking.
Just be generous.
Now, it's no laughing matter if this is done to a woman or somebody who's underage.
Obviously, this is the sort of crime that's not going to hit every victim the same.
In my case, it would just be funny, but you could certainly see how, if you were a woman, or especially if you were a minor, it would be devastating.
So, we're not going to make fun of it, unless it's about me, and then you can make fun of it.
But this raises a question.
So you've all seen that AI can take some real person and then put them in a scene.
We've seen that it can take real people, like a photograph of a person, and turn it into a talking kind of an icon.
Is there yet an app where you can take a picture of the woman who turned you down and then turn her into your permanent digital girlfriend?
Does that exist? Because it feels like only the parts exist.
Like there's one app that can make somebody talk.
There's another app that can make it look like the picture that you gave it.
And probably there's a third thing that doesn't do either of those two things.
They can turn it into like a conversational app.
I don't think we're yet at the point where you could just take the photograph from Facebook of the girl that rejected you in high school and just turn her into your digital girlfriend.
Now, here's my question. Obviously, that will exist.
Would you agree? There's no way around that.
People will absolutely Be taking real-life photographs of people, sometimes they don't even know, just somebody they like, and turning it into their digital servant.
Now, is that a crime?
Suppose you're just doing it for personal use.
Suppose you took a real-life person, took a photo, even added their, let's say there's some audio of them, so you add even their voice.
If you create a whole digital sex slave that's based very closely on a real person, does the real person have any claim against you?
Or should they?
This is such new territory that it's hard to imagine even how you'd respond to it.
But here's the part that you can know for sure.
100% sure People will be taking pictures of real people and turning them into digital sex slaves and companions.
Why wouldn't they? If you had the technology and it was just an app and all you had to do is feed it a picture or a video, why wouldn't you?
I don't even know the argument for not doing it.
Of course you would. If you were lonely and you wanted something to keep you company, you might as well make it something you like a little extra.
Why wouldn't you? Well, anyway, CNN is reporting that it's not true that the Afghan refugees that have been coming into the country since the Afghan war wound down with the United States, it's not true that the Afghan refugees have not been adequately vetted.
So all you people are saying, oh, they're letting in a bunch of Afghans and some of them might be terrorists.
CNN is here to tell you in a big headline, it is not true, not true that the Afghans have not been effectively vetted.
Also, CNN would like you to know that an Afghan national refugee has been charged with planning a mass murder on Election Day.
So I suppose you can pick either one of those headlines.
One of them is true.
Either they were carefully vetted, or there's an Afghan refugee who just got caught plotting a mass murder on Election Day.
One of those is definitely true.
So, 50-50. Not bad.
The question I have is, how many disasters will we have around Election Day?
Probably hurricanes.
We got the monkeypox, the ISIS terrorist attack that was thwarted, but maybe there's some more.
Maybe something with drones, maybe World War III, maybe something nuclear, earthquake, rods from God, space lasers, UFO contact.
I don't think we have any idea how wild things are going to get.
But I'll tell you one thing, no matter what happens on its own, like just naturally it was a coincidence, we're going to blame on somebody.
If there's an earthquake, you know we're going to be talking about the CIA's technology for triggering earthquakes.
You know we are, right?
So if there's a solar flare, somebody's going to say that there's CIA technology that can create a solar flare.
And that's no accident it happened on Election Day, if it does.
Meanwhile, TikTok's getting more lawsuits.
I guess 14 states, and it's bipartisan, so this is not just Democrats and not just Republicans, it's both, getting together because they think TikTok's dangerous for young people.
Why is TikTok even available for young people, minors?
Why? I feel like there's almost universal agreement that it's bad for young people.
Below, you know, maybe you could pick 16 as your starting age.
But is there anybody who disagrees with that?
Now, I guess there's a free speech element to it, but does that apply to children?
Do children have free speech?
I'm pretty sure they can't stand up in class and start cursing.
You know, there's limits on what kids can do.
So it's weird that this is even a question, but I have a feeling that whoever wants to keep TikTok alive has a lot of power.
Maybe it's our intelligence people.
Maybe they want to keep it alive so they can eventually control it.
I don't know. Meanwhile, have you heard of the app called Roblox?
If you haven't been around young kids for a while, you've maybe never even heard of it.
But wow, Roblox is sort of a, what do you call it?
A sort of a social media game, mass game app where you can acquire building parts and build yourself a little home and get some furniture and interact with the other people.
Now, if you've ever seen a child who was playing Roblox, There's something completely hypnotizing about it.
You should see the eyes of anybody who just played.
The eyes are just completely hypnotized.
I don't know what it is about it.
I haven't spent even a minute looking at it.
But wow, if you've seen any kid stand up and walk away from Roblox, just look at their eyes.
There is something going on with that thing.
I watched that effect, one person in particular, and I thought, I don't even believe what I'm seeing.
The level of addiction was beyond anything I've ever seen on social media.
It's a video game.
I guess you'd say it's a video game level addiction.
It's pretty strong. But the latest news is something called the Hindenburg Report says that the app is a A pedophile hellscape.
So I guess if you build a platform where it's mostly kids interacting, you're going to get a lot of people who are not kids.
So not a big surprise.
This is the post-millennial.
The post-millennial is reporting on this.
So their stock plunged and they've got some financial problems anyway.
Well, I'm wondering if the reports or the allegations about Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris's husband, I'm wondering if those reports are getting to anybody on the left.
Because if they had concerns about Donald Trump's interactions with women, They would really have a problem with the Doug Emhoff stories, if they're true.
Now keep in mind, there's going to be a theme to today's show, which is that none of the first person reports a month before an election are true.
Or at least you shouldn't give them credibility.
I'm going to talk about a number of stories in the news that are all, well, somebody said there is a report from an anonymous person.
To be fair, I think we have to give the same treatment to Emhoff, which is, I'll tell you what the allegations are, because it's political, so therefore it's important to know what the allegations are.
Are they true? Well, they would be within the lowest credibility domain.
They might be true. Also, some of the other stories I'm going to tell you about that I don't think are true.
Might be. They might be.
It's just you shouldn't believe them.
If the only evidence you have is that it's a month before an election and somebody who doesn't give their name is making a claim about somebody, I'm sorry.
That is the lowest level of credibility.
But the reports coming in is that he worked at a law firm.
And the attorneys who worked with him said he was a misogynist and had men-only cocktail hours and he would flirt with all the women and he would revoke work perks for anybody who didn't flirt back.
And he hired attractive assistants because they were attractive.
If I could summarize that, all that behavior, I'm going to summarize it all for you.
And the summary is, Doug Emhoff once worked at a law firm, which actually captures all of the other behavior.
Does anybody work at a law firm?
Do any of you work for a law firm?
I want to see if you agree with my summary.
Summary, you work for a law firm.
No? I don't think it's too far off.
It's not too far off.
I've got to feel your law firms are not exactly the most polite places to work.
All right. Well, here's another thing that I'm trying to fight off the persuasive effects.
I'm completely aware that the average citizen of the United States has never seen any news report about anything in our elections that looked like it was fraudulent.
Probably the vast majority of citizens have never even seen one story of anything current where an election was a little bit questionable.
But if you live in the right-leaning silo, as I do, You see them all day long.
So I think I saw four of them today.
Four different stories of either the election rolls had to be corrected or somebody's suing to make a change that they know needs to be changed, but somebody's resisting.
There's a door that needs to be unlocked because there might be some bad ballots back there, but they won't unlock the door.
There's a new lawsuit that got turned down for reasons that sound technical, but maybe the The allegation was true.
And all day long I'm hearing this.
Now, and they're different states.
It's not like it's one situation.
It's all different states, and they're usually the swing states, etc.
And, you know, here's another one.
Let's see. Oregon, according to Fox News, mistakenly registered hundreds more voters, and in the last minute they cleaned it up.
They've cleaned up over about 1,600 mistaken registrations.
Now, that's just the stuff they caught.
If all day long I'm hearing stories about, well, we caught 1,000 in this state, but we fixed it.
And then the next day, well, there are 20,000, we're a little questionable, but we couldn't fix it.
And if you hear that all day long, you couldn't possibly think that our elections are secure and accurate.
But if you'd never heard any of these stories, you'd say, well, I would have heard if there was a problem.
Somebody would have told me.
I'm sure it would have been in the news.
It is in the news, but not your news.
So I don't have any opinion about this specific report.
It's just that there are a lot of them.
But on the positive side, on the positive end, I'm going to give you this recommendation again, just because I like boosting the independent news.
But if you're not following the account on X called George, just one word, George, his handle is B-H-I-Z-Y Tweets.
Anyway, he does some of the best reporting every day.
I don't know exactly how he's doing it or if somebody's backing him or what, but almost every day I tell you some story that I only heard from him.
So here's one of them.
There's a project called Move the Needle, and it's in Milwaukee.
People are going door to door, in black neighborhoods specifically, trying to, quote, I don't like this word, but educate black voters on why they must vote for Trump.
I would have used a different word than educate, maybe persuade or something.
But here's my take on that.
I feel as if people are wising up to the fact that 100% of election or political stuff they see on their glowing screens is absolute bullshit.
Would you agree? So even the things that agree with me, you know, especially this month, even if it's like something to be positive for Trump, I look at it and go, yeah, yeah, but, you know, out of context.
Right? So it's not like the stuff that agrees with you is true and the other side got everything wrong.
We don't live in that world.
We live in a world where most of what you see is out of context or bullshit, if it has any political element to it.
And certainly anything involving a war You know, completely nonsense reporting.
But here's my take.
If people do give up on the glowing screens and the internet and the news being the persuasive things, in-person is stronger.
So if you can get a human being to stand in front of you and you allow them to talk for a little while and maybe you're undecided or you have some confusion about what's true and what's not, it could be super persuasive if the people doing it are trained to be persuasive.
So I have two comments on this.
Number one, it's an excellent experiment to find out if it worked.
Because if it does work, you could easily imagine that the election process is just armies of people trying to persuade other people.
Now, there's always some of that, but we seem to leave it to the news to inform.
I think we're going to lose that model.
I think the foreshadowing that you can see already is that people are going to say, I just need to talk to another person who's done the work, and then I can ask some questions of the person.
And that probably works.
So I'd love to know if it is successful, but if they're well-trained, it probably is.
And I would like to add this point.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Compared to, let's say, 2015, Republicans have grown an army of trained persuaders.
True or false?
The number of Republicans, specifically Republicans, who have learned persuasion well enough to apply it in the political context successfully is way different because people like me are literally training people.
I've probably personally trained 100,000 Republicans in how to be more persuasive, but also how to recognize propaganda, how to identify lies, But mostly how to persuade somebody.
So what happens if I train 100,000 persuaders and they go out and just have conversations with 100,000 people?
It probably makes a difference.
Probably makes a difference. I remember in the first Trump election, after the election, I asked, how many of you changed your vote to Trump because of something I said?
And even though this was a highly unscientific, it was just a poll on what was Twitter, I think 1,500 people responded and said, I changed their vote.
Now, keep in mind, That if 1500 people said yes, that wasn't an opinion.
They weren't giving an opinion.
They were saying, yes, I was going to vote the other way.
You changed my mind.
1500. And that's only the ones who saw the poll and responded.
Now, what's the real number?
Well, I don't know, but it's probably in the tens of thousands.
I wouldn't be surprised if I moved a six-digit number of people over 100,000.
Maybe. No way to know.
But, yeah, the Republicans have a major advantage in that there are people like me who are literally training them how to be good persuaders.
That's not happening on the other side.
And it might not be able to be possible on the other side, because if Democrats were trained on propaganda and persuasion, they would recognize that it's happening to them.
But the Democrat persuasion is sort of standard political stuff.
So even if you see it, you just say, oh, I get it.
Trump is exaggerating again.
It doesn't mean anything. But if you were a Democrat, you'd be finding out that the Democrats made up entire stories and got all the press to sell them, like the fine people hoax.
So if Democrats find out how the game is played, they're going to abandon Democrats.
If Republicans find out how the game is played, they're gonna say, oh, my side tells some tales too, but I'm just gonna, you know, that's just sort of normal business.
But the other side just got the intelligence community to sign something that was a lie.
That's a whole different level.
These are not the same.
That's not the same.
Trump says his crowd size is bigger than you think it is.
And compared to the Russia collusion hoax that lasted years and tried to remove a president, these are not the same.
51 intel people signing the hoax letter about Hunter's laptop.
No, no Republican's ever done that.
There's nothing, at least I've seen, nothing since 2015 at least, in which anybody Republican has done anything like that.
The whole fine people hoax, there's nothing like that on the other side.
There are some bullshit stories on the right that are generally believed, but they're not made up as a hoax.
It's just people come to believe things that they come to believe.
Anyway, there's a report on MSNBC that Trump tried to weaponize the IRS against Comey and McCabe back when he was in office.
Now, this comes because of General Kelly, who said that Trump said behind closed doors to use the IRS to go after them.
Now, here's the test to see if I've successfully trained you for spotting propaganda and bullshit.
Remember, you have to know who the players are.
Remember? Rule number one, the story is not the story.
It's never the story. And indeed, even people who want you to hear the wrong story might be accurately giving you the details of the story.
But the story is never the story.
It's the people involved that's the story, right?
Because depending who's involved, it gives you a completely different image, all right?
Let's say that the story that Trump wanted to use the IRS to go after his political enemies Let's say that came from Don Jr., and he said it out loud in public many times.
Well, if that happened, which did not happen, I would have said, oh, well, because of the source, that looks pretty reliable.
Like, I don't know why you'd be saying that, but it must be true, right?
Because the source would tell you everything.
Now know that it's General Kelly.
Now, do you believe it? Do you believe it's correct and in the proper context?
Well, you shouldn't.
You shouldn't, because he would not be within the context of this story.
He's not a reliable source.
Now, it doesn't matter that this one is bad for Trump.
If you reverse this and it was something on the other side, but you knew that the character it came from couldn't be trusted, Or add an axe to grind with the person they were talking about.
You shouldn't believe it at all.
Yeah. So I would say it's coming from MSNBC. They're a propaganda platform pretending to be news.
And by the way, when I say that, that's not an exaggeration.
MSNBC is a propaganda platform by design.
By design. They didn't accidentally drift into it.
And they're pretending to be news.
That's what makes the propaganda work.
And then the person that they're using, you know, it's somebody said something behind closed doors and I can't prove it.
Yeah, no, you should give this zero credibility.
Now, I don't know if it's true, And I can't know.
There's probably no way to know if it's true.
But I would treat it like it's not, because it's coming from the lowest credibility kind of a source.
All right. What else we got going on?
Apparently, there was no wrongdoing found by some inspector general.
So you've got the report of this badness, but then some people looked into it and said, nah, we didn't see anything.
So it's kind of a, it's the weakest of the weakest reports, and it's exactly the kind of thing you could have predicted, because I did.
I did predict that you would see all these anonymous or sketchy reports of something that somebody heard behind a closed door.
You're going to get more of those probably.
All right, let's talk about the hurricanes.
You know, Hurricane Milton's coming toward Florida, and Helene messed up the center of the country there, North Carolina.
And Milton's so bad that it's got like almost a mini hurricane in front of the real hurricane.
There's like a storm in front of the storm.
And it's been as high as a Category 5.
I think it's down to 4, but it's still super dangerous.
It's going to bring gigantic flooding.
And the real question that everybody keeps asking me is, Scott, do you think that bad people made these hurricanes worse or aimed them using their secret hurricane technology?
And sure enough, just like the UFO stories, there's a credible sounding person who's willing to talk to Congress to say that he's a whistleblower and he knows for sure that the United States can manipulate the weather and there's no doubt about it that Helene was manipulated and aimed and intensified so it would go tear up North Carolina.
So, what do you think?
And the story is that we have, we, I guess the CIA or somebody, Defense Department, somebody has some secret technology for rapidly intensifying hurricanes.
And we've seen them rapidly intensify in ways that we haven't seen before.
So clearly, it's that.
Now, I don't know if this is just the story that's trying to counter the fact that it might be climate change.
If it was done by people, then we don't have to accept that, hey, is this climate change doing anything?
By the way, I don't think there's evidence that climate change is a problem.
Allow me to tell you what the news told you about climate change and the hurricane.
You ready? Here are things the news told you.
It looks like climate change made it worse because it's one of the top five hurricanes in the last, I don't know, 50 years.
Do you see any problem with that?
Climate change made it worse.
And so much worse is one of the top five hurricanes.
Do you see the problem?
If it's in the top five, it means that they happen on their own.
How did the other top five get in there?
Were they all caused by climate change?
No. If it's only in the top five, it's not even the top one, then the obvious conclusion is that this kind of hurricane happens on its own.
Now, if it has like a special character that no hurricane has ever had before, Well, now you have my attention.
Now you have my attention.
So we could talk about, you know, any specific oddity of it.
That's fair game. I'll listen to that argument.
But just the fact that it's one of the worst?
No! It's not unusual to get something that's in the top five.
That is not indication of anything.
But there might be some weird things about these.
I just don't know. So I've been asked, do I believe that these have been manipulated hurricanes?
I would say 5% chance.
So I'm not going to give it a zero, because it's sort of in the category of, well, anything's possible.
I doubt it.
Here are the things that I don't doubt.
I don't doubt that you can make it rain more than it was going to rain.
So if you see the clouds, that seems like acceptable stuff.
I don't doubt that there have been experiments, and maybe more than experiments, of trying to put something in the atmosphere that would dull the impact of the sun for climate change.
I think that's real, at least in the prototype phase.
And I think it's been tested somewhere.
But do you think they have technology using lasers or whatnot to steer a storm?
Here's what I think.
It's probably been studied.
And there might even be a theoretical way to do it.
But do I think that Americans to, let's say, change the outcome of an election used hurricane modification To create a mass murder in the United States to change the election outcomes.
I say no.
I'm going to go with 95% no.
And it's sort of the same 95% that I put on the UFOs not being real.
Because the nature of the people who are saying, I'm a whistleblower, I can tell you for sure it's real, it looks like the same people to me.
They're not the same, but they could be.
If you sat them down next to each other, you put the UFO whistleblower next to the hurricane modification whistleblower, you would think you're talking to the same fucking guy.
Now, I'm not going to ignore that, that the whistleblowers have this This kind of vibe to them, if you know what I mean, and their stories all sound the same, whether it's an earthquake or, I'm sorry, whether it's a hurricane or a UFO, they sound the same when they're telling their story.
I can't ignore that.
I know. So I'm going to say no.
Now I'm seeing the angry people saying, God, Scott, on some subjects you're so obtuse.
Well, here's the context you should look at.
Compare all the things that I've predicted publicly to all the things you've predicted publicly.
And maybe you should get a little bit more humble.
About how certain you are that you know that there's earthquake or hurricane modifications.
Now, I'm allowing you the 5% because I don't rule it out.
It could be. Could be.
I mean, there have been horrible things that have happened in history.
This just seems unlikely, right?
So I'm going to say unlikely.
I do believe that our government has looked into it.
I do believe they may have even tested something.
That's possible. I do believe they may have a theoretical weapon that would be really bad if they unleashed it on an enemy.
I don't believe they tested it on the United States.
I don't believe anybody ran a hurricane through the middle of the country for a strategic reason.
I don't believe that.
All right. But I will accept that many of you are spring-loaded to believe that.
60 Minutes had some propaganda on.
I assume 60 Minutes is primarily a propaganda platform.
That's just what it looks like.
It doesn't look like it's trying to be news, sort of an MSNBC situation.
It looks like it's purely for controlling the public opinion.
Here's an example. So they had somebody named Shelby Bush, and she believes that the 2020 election was rigged.
So how do you think 60 Minutes treated her, and why do you think they had her on before the election?
Do you think it was to take seriously her claims and really dig into them and see if they have substance?
Or is it to ask a question like, why do you believe in a conspiracy theory?
Oh, it's the latter.
Yeah. So the questioner basically has a total attitude and saying, you know, but why do you believe in the conspiracy theories?
Now, if somebody goes on TV and tells you something is a conspiracy theory, that is propaganda.
If it had not been propaganda, if it had not been the intention of it simply to make it look like nobody in their right mind could think the election was stolen, that's the point of it, right?
They're trying to make sure that we don't claim it in this coming election by demonizing people who claimed it in the last election.
It's not news.
It's not news. It's propaganda.
So they're setting the stage and they're priming you.
Do you want to be treated like Shelby was?
Because she said in public she thought the election wasn't real in 2020.
So, you know, you might be next one who stopped by 60 minutes to be told that you're a conspiracy theorist in front of the whole world so that they can ruin your life.
Yeah, to me it looks like it's just a shot across the bow to warn people not to complain about the election, which is another way of telling me that they plan to steal it.
Not confirmed, but the message I get from 60 Minutes is that they're part of a network of people who know that the election is going to be stolen and they want to put down some suppressive fire.
So that when you do challenge it, you know that you're going up against strong forces, and that you might be jailed like the J6ers, or you might be maligned and defamed like Shelby Bushes.
Here are the tells. The fact that the questioner labels her a conspiracy theorist is all you need to know.
The average person who watches any kind of news related show, if they hear that the questioner, who you trust, is calling it conspiracy theory, they're not really going to listen to the details of the claim.
They're going to be, oh, it's a story about how dumb Republican conspiracy theories are.
Got it. Got it.
Number two, the mocking way the question was asked.
It was more like, but you think the election was stolen?
Which is way different from, well, you've made some claims about the election, and others have said the election's fine, but we wanted to look into your claims and see what the basis is for them.
That's what a news report would do.
A news report doesn't mock you for your conspiracy theory if they can't tell if an election was stolen or not.
So the other thing they're trying to sell you, and they did try to sell this, is like, but you know the courts...
You fool, you piece of shit, you stupid asshole.
You know the courts didn't find anything wrong.
The courts found nothing wrong, you asshole, you stupid piece of shit.
Now, I'm exaggerating. They didn't say those words.
But did say that the court was the basis upon what is true.
Now, you all know that's propaganda, right?
The courts are not the determinant of whether an election was fair.
It is true that if you found something and you had standing and you brought it to him in time, There's a very narrow little window of things that maybe the courts could be useful for.
But mostly, they don't know what's true.
What, did the court audit the election?
No. Did the people bringing stuff to the court audit the election?
No. They didn't have an option.
Usually no. So the fact that 60 Minutes, who clearly knows better, is selling to their audience that the only way you can know if the election was stolen is if the court said so.
No, you fucking bullshit, brainwashing pieces of shit.
No, you don't need the court to tell you if an election was stolen.
Now, I don't know what it would take because we don't have access to really know because it's not an auditable process the way it is.
But certainly, anybody who tells you the courts are the determinant of whether the election was fair, they are fucking bad people.
They're either idiots And that's probably not what's happening.
Or they're just trying to brainwash you because they know they're stealing the election and they don't want you to ask questions.
Every time the court gets brought into it, you're into brainwashing propaganda.
It's not a conversation.
It's no longer a conversation.
It's not news. It's just propaganda.
As soon as the courts are brought into it.
So remember that rule.
So, there's a report by Bottle Raiders.
I don't know who the Bottle Raiders are, but they're talking about the purported drinking problem of Kamala Harris.
And they're talking about how Saturday Night Live was mocking her for, you know, portrayed her as having a glass of wine in her hands and suggesting that maybe she really liked her alcohol.
And here's how this was covered.
They talk about how Newsweek talked about How this started.
They said Newsweek reported that a Trump ally, James Blair, I think he has something to do with the campaign, may have originated the claim on X. So somebody named James Blair is being blamed for suggesting that Kamala Harris has a drinking problem.
And they think he suggested it or started it on August 17th.
So, let's do a little fact check here.
So, Newsweek, which as you know, is a news publication, allegedly.
August 17th.
So, that wasn't very long ago, right?
August 17th. Is August 17th the first time you heard somebody on the X platform suggest that Kamler has had a drinking problem?
Was it August 17th?
Does anybody remember anything?
Anything from anybody that happened maybe before August 17th?
A little bit earlier? Anybody?
Here's my question.
Was that me?
Did I do this? Because I don't remember anybody saying it before I did.
I don't have my dates right, but it was well before August, I'm sure.
Yeah. So remember I always tell you about Gelman amnesia?
So that's the phenomenon where if you know the truth of an event, when you look at the news, you know the news got it wrong because you knew what really happened.
In this case, do you see it?
So each of you watched in person.
You watched me talk about this hypothesis before anybody did.
You know that a lot of people see this.
And you know that in the past I've influenced events.
And Newsweek is blaming somebody who said it on August 17th.
Now, check the number of followers.
That James Blair has.
And then compare it to the number of followers I have.
In both cases, they're primarily probably political people following both of us.
Now, do you see the Gelman amnesia?
Every time you know the real story, you can tell that the news is wrong.
Every time. Here's one of those examples.
Yeah. This clearly wasn't him.
Let me tell you for sure, it wasn't him.
It didn't start there. He might have been a fast follower, but no, it didn't start there.
But you all see it, right?
You got to see the real event, and then you got to see the news get it wrong.
That's Gilman amnesia.
Once you realize that that's every time, then you move to the next level of awareness.
If you're still at the point of, wow, that's weird that you found that one example, Scott.
No, we're not talking about one example.
This is just the way it all works.
All the news is fake about anything important.
And by fake, I mean just some context that's left out usually.
Speaking of fake, Bob Woodward has a book coming out next week, and there's some hints about what's in it.
And one of them is...
So MSNBC and all the propaganda networks are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that, according to Woodward, that Trump had...
Made available to Putin during the pandemic some COVID tests because Russia was having trouble getting them, and Trump made them available to Putin personally, not for the country of Russia, but just for Putin's own use.
Now, the news is trying to make that look like a bad thing.
When I read that, I said, what?
Was that a bad thing?
Well, what am I missing? Here's what I understand.
Compare this to what you understand.
The job of a president is to manage relationships with all the dictators and allies and everybody else.
So how well you manage your relationship with the most important allies and even adversaries is the key to you doing a good job.
Now, you could call that a sales job.
It's a persuasion slash sales job.
You're trying to sell yourself and the country to a variety of different world leaders.
Have you ever heard of the salesman trick called reciprocity?
The most basic persuasion trick.
Hey, I'm going to give you something that you couldn't easily get yourself.
I'm not asking anything in return.
That's it. That's the trick.
That's what salespeople do.
When I worked for the phone company, I'm sorry, not the phone company.
When I worked for a big bank, it was my job to pick vendors, which vendor would be selected for big contracts.
They were multi-million dollar deals.
And so AT&T, which was always one of the vendors that was under consideration, would offer me tickets to sports events.
Why were they offering me tickets to sports events?
Was it because it was my birthday?
No. It's because they were creating reciprocity.
They were giving me something so that when I was deciding or helping the company decide which vendor to choose, that maybe, just maybe, I'd be a little bit more biased to the people who like to give me gifts.
Now, of course, I was a good employee, so I just reported it and didn't accept the gifts.
So my boss said, nope, you do not have the right...
No, you're not going to accept those tickets.
And I would say, really?
I can't accept those even if I promise not to be biased?
No, you're not going to accept those tickets.
So I didn't. Now, So you see Trump, the salesman-in-chief.
He tells you he's a salesman.
He says, I'm trying to sell the country.
And then you see him do the most common, most reliable salesman trick.
Hey, how would you like some COVID tests?
So that the next time they have to talk about something important, Putin is not going to have this giant, hard-on, bad feeling about Trump.
He's going to have a little bit of a, you know what?
When I got in trouble, you gave me a little hand there.
Now, it's not going to completely change the relationship between the two countries, but Persuasion 101 is to make the person you're persuading feel good about you.
That's rule number one.
If you start out with, you're a fuckface, I'm going to do everything I can to kill you.
All right, let's negotiate.
That's what the Democrats do.
We're going to try to put you in the business, kill you.
Let's negotiate. What?
No. You give him some COVID tests.
And then you negotiate.
That's how it's done.
That's how persuasion works.
It's what Trump understands.
And of course, the news can count on the public not knowing how anything works.
So they'll just say, well, he must be Putin's puppet because he's giving him stuff that he could have used in America, which is dumb.
So for the price of a few COVID tests, the smallest price you could ever pay Trump bought some goodwill that probably remains to this day, if this is true, by the way.
We don't know if it's true. All right, what else did Woodward have?
He says that...
Well, this is weird.
Apparently, according to Woodward, Joe Biden thinks that Obama is to blame for being too weak when Crimea was taken over.
And that the reason that Putin went into Ukraine is Obama's fault.
Now hold on, hold on.
So we're going to have to figure out what this means.
So Bob Woodward, you would expect, would be totally in the tank for a Democrat, right?
But yet his book seems to be negative about Obama, which wouldn't make sense if they're all part of the same deep state network, which you probably thought they were.
So why would Bob Woodward throw Obama under the bus on something this important?
This is not trivial. It's a war.
He's throwing Obama under the bus on a war.
Well, here's my take.
I think this is a better indication of who's really running things.
You know, we like to say that Obama is the real power behind the power, and that Obama's like puppet mastering the Democrat Party.
But then how would you explain this?
If Obama's the puppet master, how does Woodward, who's, you know, deeply connected to that whole part of the world, how does he print something that's so obviously anti-Obama?
Well, here's a possibility.
Here's a solid rule.
The people who are really in charge only care that we're tough on Russia.
This seems to be the only through thread.
The one thing that connects everything?
The one thing that connects everything is that we have to be, you know, hard on Russia.
So it could be that the deep state, you know, the military-industrial complex is not exactly on board with Obama, and maybe never has been.
So it could be that, in truth, Obama is manipulating the puppet strings of the Democrats, but that there's a power higher, and that the military-industrial complex is above Obama in their influence when it comes to war, at least. So it looks like The Woodward take is to make sure that anybody who allows Putin to do anything, including in the past, Crimea, anybody who does that is a bad person, and that pushing on Putin is the only thing that works.
So there are two Putin-related stories in Woodward's book, one to make Trump look bad for trying to work with Putin, and one making Obama looked bad for caving into him.
That tells me that whoever's really in charge, if you assume that Woodward is connected to any deep forces in the government, it would be that there's somebody who's a higher rank than Obama and Trump and Biden, at least when it comes to war.
And we do suspect that might be the case.
So I think the most accurate way to look at who's really in charge behind the curtain is more than one person.
And that they have areas of interest where, when it comes to the war stuff, it's maybe names we don't even know.
Anyway, I wouldn't trust anything that comes out in a Woodward book or any political book that involves what somebody said behind closed doors.
This is getting back to my earlier comment.
I don't think there's any credibility about a political book saying that something was said behind closed doors.
So this one also is low credibility.
All right. As you know, Kamala Harris is on her media blitz and she had been sort of doing the hiding from the press thing for most of the summer.
But now apparently the campaign has decided their better strategy is to send her out to the friendliest interviewers you could possibly send her to.
So avoiding the hard news by sending her to the friendliest people possible.
Now, Here's what that means.
Imagine being the Kamala Harris campaign, and you narrow down your two best strategies to these.
These are your two top strategies.
Number one, hide her so the public can ever hear her.
And that that strategy, hide her so that people can't know who they're voting for, was at least almost equal to the second choice strategy, which is actually the first choice because they did it.
And the first choice was to send her out to talk to people who would absolutely be in the bag for the Democrats and would try to make her look good.
Now, both of those choices are pathetic.
They're pathetic. Imagine that being your only two choices.
Imagine if Trump, the only choices he had were, well, he's gonna hide, he's gonna hide, or he's only gonna talk to Hannity, and nothing else.
Would you support that?
You wouldn't even support the Republican under those situations, would you?
Would you even support your own team if they said, I'm only going to let him talk to Hannity, but nothing else, just Hannity?
Of course not.
Of course not. The fact that their campaign, their two best choices We're to completely abandon political campaigning.
One hide and the other only talk to friendly people who are going to be on your side.
The only choices. The only ones.
That's as pathetic as you can get.
So what happens when one candidate has a track record of success as president, a number of policies that are far more popular with the public than the other one, and one of them is hiding and or only talking to people who won't make her look too embarrassed.
It's a tie. According to the pollsters, it's a tie.
How is that even possible?
Now, keep in mind that the people living in the other movie, where Trump is Hitler, if you're living in the other movie, you're saying the same thing, but in reverse.
How in the world is anybody voting For Trump.
I mean, I watched The Daily Show, I watched Bill Maher, and I watched Howard Stern, and I just don't understand how anybody could vote for that guy.
So that's the other movie.
But so far she has turned every single outing that wasn't scripted into a disaster.
So it's a whole week of total disasters.
And the Trump campaign is using her public appearances without editing as their campaign ads.
Ouch. Ouch.
Now, you might say, but that's what they do with Trump.
They show things in a context, except it's not in a context in this case.
With Trump, they actually have to change the context or clip something out so it looks worse than it is.
My digital device just weighed in.
So with Trump, you have to take him out of context and imagine that he's using words in a way that people don't use words to turn it into something bad.
With Harris, you just have to show the actual interview.
In fact, the Trump campaign is doing the opposite of clipping it.
The CBS interview, allegedly, edited Harris's answer so that it didn't look like word salad stupidity.
Apparently, we have access to at least the real one and then the fake one.
Now, somebody said that they switched their answer from one question into the other one, so it didn't look so stupid.
I'm not 100% sure that the claim they edited it is what the Republicans are saying, because I don't want to fall for a hoax, because this definitely could be a hoax.
So, since I haven't seen the original, I've only seen the claim that it was edited, I don't buy into it yet.
Totally possible. But if some of you have seen any confirmation from CBS that they edited it, let me know.
But if CBS doesn't confirm it and they don't give you the full video, I don't know what would convince me it really happened.
I'd have to see a little bit more.
But people on the right say it did happen.
And let's just go down the list here.
In my opinion, she's done the worst performance of any public figure doing interviews.
Now, I saw somebody in the news say some people are saying it's the worst of anybody ever.
I think that's important to say.
If you just say she didn't do a good job and were laughing at this answer, I think you're missing the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is nobody ever, ever, who ran for president was this bad.
I mean, that's completely different.
This is not like business as usual.
We have a moron.
Let me just say it.
She's clearly a moron when it comes to at least talking in public.
Maybe she can do a standardized test pretty well.
I don't know. But she's a moron in public.
There's just no other way to say it.
All right, so here's what she's been up to.
She went on Howard Stern.
I don't know about you, but when I see Howard Stern talking to anybody, I spend the entire time looking at his bad hairpiece.
I assume it's a hairpiece?
That couldn't possibly be his real hair, right, at his current age?
Does anybody have a confirmation?
He's wearing a hairpiece, right?
I mean, I hope I'm not making up a rumor, but isn't it obvious?
It's obvious, right?
So I can't get past it.
Because it's not that he has a hairpiece, or I think he does.
Again, I'm not 100% sure, but looks like it to me.
It's that, why would you have a hairpiece of the worst hair a person could have?
It would be like Einstein getting a hairpiece that looked like his regular hair.
Why would you do that?
So the whole time he's talking, I can't even listen to what he's saying, because I don't think he has any useful political ideas.
I think he's just clearly in the bag for one side, so nothing he says should have any importance.
It was cringy, and it's a weird choice for somebody who's running against Trump to have a friendly interview with a guy who has done way worse when it comes to race and misogyny.
Now, I will support Howard Stern.
In saying that all of those things were in the context of humor.
And when Trump says something that's not totally serious or in the context of humor, I give him the same pass.
It's like, it's a joke, people.
He's talking about McCain being, he liked people who don't get caught.
Don't take that seriously.
That's a joke. So I don't take Howard Stern seriously.
But it's really cringy that he would be the most misogynistic person in the public domain, and that Harris, who's got all these women supporters, would go to see him.
Now, my question is this.
Is that going to get her any votes, being on Howard Stern?
How would that get you any votes?
Because it's mostly men who watch it, right?
Do you think the men who are watching Howard Stern are going to be, oh, that was a good performance?
I don't know. I think that was probably a mistake.
Harris also went on The View, and they gave her the softball question of all softballs, like what would she do different from Biden?
And if she would do something different from Biden, why isn't she trying to do it now?
Now, I'm going to give you some uncharacteristic support for Harris in this case.
She's in a bad position because she's the vice president and she's running for office.
Has that ever happened before?
Yeah. Yeah, I guess that's happened before.
But Here's the problem.
We don't expect a vice president to disagree with a sitting president, nor would I want her to.
If she's being paid to be a vice president, I don't want her going in public and saying that my boss is getting this wrong.
Do you? Like, even if she believed it.
No, she's being paid to agree with her boss.
The country is paying her, and very specifically, we're paying you to agree with your boss.
So if you put her in public and ask her, hey, where would you disagree with your boss?
And then she gives you a word salad answer.
I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with it. Yeah, just change the subject, word salad me, give me some bullshit, lie to me.
No, your job is to agree with your boss.
And I don't want any foreign leaders to see Biden having two opinions coming out of his office.
I don't want that, even if I disagree with his opinion.
I don't want two opinions coming out of his office.
That makes us look like idiots.
No. She should say, the best answer she should give, and she's given terrible answers.
I mean, it's a tough question, but her answers have been terrible.
Here's what I would like to do.
I think she should say, you know, I'm sitting vice president.
I'm running for president, but as vice president, my job What you're paying me for is to be on board with the Biden policies, and I am.
There are some things where my focus might be a little different, and there are some things that have just changed over time, so we can see that maybe what we did before wasn't working well enough, it's time to pivot.
So mostly what I would do would be to look to upgrade things based on how it's gone so far.
And then there are a few programs that I like, such as, you know, then mention the $50,000 thing, the $6,000 thing, and say, you know, the time to recommend them is during a campaign.
So I'm recommending them during the campaign, but I hope you all understand that I'm being paid to Agree with my boss.
And that's what you're paying for me for.
So I'm not going to leave that domain too much.
But if you want to get a flavor for what I would do, these proposals are different.
And I probably have a, let's say, a greater interest in this or that.
So there's probably a way you could finesse it, but you'd have to be in the top 2% of good communicators.
She is not.
So as much as I have sympathy for the fact that the question is a little unfair, it's important and unfair at the same time.
It's the right question.
I would definitely ask the question, but it's unfair.
It's a little bit like, you know, do you still beat your spouse?
There's just no way to handle that question.
So watching her handle a question that can't be handled is interesting.
Could Trump have answered that question?
Just imagine that Trump were in the same position.
Of course he could.
He'd probably tell you exactly what you're thinking.
Oh, I'm vice president, so I've got to agree with that guy.
But when you set me free, I've got some interests that are a little bit different.
Let me tell you about him. He can do it.
So it's doable, but you'd have to be in the top 2% of communicators.
Anyway, then she went on Colbert and had a beer, which was the dumbest thing they could ever do because there are rumors of her having a drinking problem.
And she responded to him with a bunch of word salad that will probably turn into a campaign ad.
She did act like a blithering idiot.
She acted like a blithering idiot.
And let's see.
So I would say all of her campaign stops so far, the ones that are in the media, have been total disasters.
And they're disasters that I think are the kind that even Democrats can see, but I'm not sure.
You know, I'm sure that there are lots of interviews that Trump has given over the years where you could say, oh, that was bad for him, that was a disaster, but none like this.
Usually it's just Trump said something provocative that could be taken out of context so it looks bad for him.
But it's not full-out incompetence.
What you're seeing is somebody proving she doesn't have the goods to be president every day.
Usually you don't get that from a campaign.
Usually both candidates run a pretty good campaign.
Maybe one's a little better.
But when you're done, you say, oh, those are two people who ran, you know, full national campaigns.
That's not nothing. But no, she's not succeeding even a little bit.
The machine is pushing her, but she's not made...
She hasn't done anything worthy.
Not a single good day.
And the funniest part is when she tries to avoid questions by going into an inspirational speech.
Have you seen that yet?
Kamala Harris, I'd like to ask you this question.
You've proposed some new programs.
How do you think you'll pay for them?
Americans are ambitious and they have goals and they're looking forward and we're going forward.
And you just say, oh my God, what's wrong with you?
What is wrong with you?
So that's what makes me laugh the most, because she can't sell the serious stuff at all.
You could easily imagine a Trump and Obama Bill Clinton.
They can sell all that stuff about hope and change and moving forward and making America great.
They can sell that. You know, RFK Jr., he could sell it.
But wow, she can't sell that at all.
It just looks like she was trying to memorize a speech in sixth grade.
And then we'd move forward.
And then we'd come together.
Then the country would work together.
And then when she thinks she's got a good sentence, she'll look at you like she's so proud, like she nailed it.
It's like, and then we'll work together.
Like she's waiting for you to be all happy because she said something that everybody thinks is a good idea, working together.
Anyway, Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, was asked again by Congress if there were confidential informants on January 6th.
And he said, well, I have to be very careful about that, which means yes, without saying yes.
Because obviously if the answer was no, what would the answer be if the answer was no?
The answer would be no.
You wouldn't say I can't tell you.
There's no world in which I can't tell you is the right answer if the answer was no.
There were no informants.
Given that it's a normal thing to do.
Also, we can rule out that there are only a few.
I'm going to rule out the option that there were only a few.
Do you know why? Because if Ray had said, it's standard procedure to embed some resources in an event like this.
We had a few resources.
They were there to watch.
They did not participate in anything that would make it worse.
Now, if that were true, would it be a problem if he said so?
If I said there were a few, I don't want to give you the exact number, But we had a few, and they were just there to observe, and that's all they did.
Why wouldn't he say that?
Because if he said that, I would say to myself, oh, you mean the FBI was doing its job?
It wouldn't matter who the group was or why they're protesting.
I would think that if it's a political thing, especially around the Capitol, I would think the FBI should have some informants in the group.
And I think there should be several.
You know, one or two would be not enough.
I think there should be at least a handful.
So if he said, yeah, we had several.
I don't want to give you the number.
And they were just there to observe and collect information.
I would have said, oh, good job there, Christopher Wray.
Thanks for telling us.
And it sounds like you were on top of it.
It can't be that then.
If it would be so easy to say the truth if you did a good job and it was just a few informants and it's normal procedure, there's something they're hiding.
So what I see is that there were a lot of them and that they were more active than they should have been.
That's what I see. So to me, this looks like a confession of extreme guilt.
What would you say? Now, I'm biased, of course, but no matter what the topic is, if somebody's answering in this indirect way, when you know that an honest answer would be simple and clean and would be no risk whatsoever, what am I supposed to think?
The obvious conclusion is that there were a lot of them and they were up to no good, obviously.
Now, remember what I always tell you.
If you're talking about a citizen, citizens are innocent until proven guilty.
You, government, you better have the goods or don't go after a citizen.
But it's opposite when the government is involved, in this case, the FBI. If the government's being cagey, then you should assume guilt, which is what I do.
I assume guilt.
Not only do I assume that they had more than a few people there, but that they were explicitly involved in illegal or bad behavior.
I'm going to take that as a confession.
Likewise, when the folks in Fulton County, when they refuse to unlock the door that some people say have some fake ballots behind them that were used in 2020, I don't need them to open the door.
No. Their refusal to open the door is a confession that there's a room full of fake ballots or there used to be and they removed them and burned them.
But I definitely don't think that there's nothing behind the door.
If you refuse to open the door and you're a citizen, I'm going to say, well, that looks sketchy, but you're a citizen and you have the right of privacy.
So if we don't know there's a crime behind that door and you don't want to show us behind that door, Innocent until proven guilty.
But not the government.
If the government doesn't open it, you're fucking guilty.
And that is the working assumption that you should all have.
Government, you don't have the right to keep something like that from the people.
Now, the government does have a right to keep some secrets.
If it was some big military secret, yeah, sure.
Keep the military secret.
That's fine. But not this.
We need to know who won the election.
I think we have a right to that.
Anyway, Israel is apparently still prepping for some kind of an Iran response.
We know that America, the American government, or at least Biden, doesn't want them to go too hard and doesn't want them to go so hard on Iran that Iran will respond in some kind of an aggressive way.
And... Maybe that's going to start today.
I think it made sense that they didn't do something on October 7th.
They probably thought about it.
But it's better to keep October 7th remembered for what it was.
You don't want to muck it up with a gigantic response because then they can say, well, now it's our October 7th.
It's not your October 7th.
It's ours now. So it's probably good that they waited.
But they're not going to wait long.
And if you look at the options, the options would either be a decapitation strike, which would be pretty risky, a strike on their nuclear facilities, which I'm hearing the Biden campaign doesn't want them to do that.
I don't know why, so I'd like to hear the argument.
I suspect the Biden campaign or the Biden administration, I expect the administration knows more about the Iranian nuclear program.
Maybe they think that they're going to do a breakout in two weeks if you don't kill it all.
I don't know. Maybe they think there's another way to take it down so they don't want to waste some bombs.
So we don't know what's really going on in terms of the targeting.
We're just going to know what the outcome is.
If I had to guess, the US is trying to convince them to bomb some meaningless military targets, just to say they hit them back.
I don't think that Israel is going to take on the oil refineries because that would change the politics in the United States really quickly.
So if you're Israel and you want support from the American citizens, you don't want to increase the price of our gas.
So I'm pretty sure Netanyahu understands that lesson of persuasion.
If there's one thing you can't do, Do not increase the cost of our gas at the moment, especially.
There might have been a time when gas was cheap and everybody could pay their rent.
Maybe you could take a risk on that.
But today, if Israel bombs something and the news tells you that it made your gas go up 10 cents, you're going to be pissed.
And that would be a disaster for Israel.
So I think that the oil refineries are probably safe.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Has Israel gone after the Houthis yet?
Probably have. We just don't know about it.
But maybe Israel will just wipe out the Houthis instead of hitting Iran's homeland.
Something like that. I wouldn't rule that out.
It might be the Houthis are gonna have a bad week.
We'll see. We'll see.
And that would make us happier, I think, because the hoodies are making our costs go up with their putting a risk on the shipping.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.
Went way too long again.
And I'm going to talk to the locals people privately because they're awesome.
All right. And I'll see the rest of you next, well, tomorrow, I guess.
So if you're on X or YouTube, and by the way, a reminder, the Dilbert 2025 page a day calendar.
It now has comics on both sides, so the Dilbert Reborns are on the back.
It's available only, only at a link you can find at Dilbert.com.
It's not going to be on Amazon, and it's not going to be in bookstores.
