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, Hurricane Milton, Salt Water Lithium Batteries, Anderson Cooper, CPI Reporting, Inflation Data, Assistant Professor Hiring, Internet Archive Wayback Machine, MSNBC Mike Barnicle, Weather Modification, Climate Change, Weird Clouds, Pentagon UAP Whistleblower, Pentagon UAP Info, Michael Shellenberger, Blind Governor David Paterson, President Trump, Andrew Schulz, Top Right-Leaning Podcasts, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Spooning Your Robot, Kamala 60 Minutes Unedited Interview, Axios Harris Reporting, Director Wray Testimony, J6 Ghost Busses, Trump Putin Calls, Private Campaign Polling, Mike Benz, Disinformation-Spotting Teams, Harmeet Dhillon, AZ RNC, Israel Iran Conflict, Social Voting Live Podcast, 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
ever seen in your life. Stop it. That didn't work. There we go. Do do do do do do do do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time in your whole darn life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human shiny brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go. So, so good.
A lot of people ask me, Scott, what is the proper way to consume your podcast?
Well, there are a number of ways.
Number one, you could be exercising right now.
If you are, good for you.
Are you taking a run on the beach in the morning?
Are you lifting some weights?
Good. Good job.
Alternately, and just as good, you could have a cup of coffee, a blanket on your lap, and one to two cats.
Yeah, one to two cats.
That would be the ideal way to watch the show.
Alternately, if you have a dog, The dog can be sitting at your feet while you sip your coffee and watch the show.
So those are three ways to watch the show.
All of them recommended.
Well, there's a new study.
Psypost is reporting.
Part of the Baltazar cohort.
Oh, good. It's part of the Baltazar cohort.
I was worried that it might be data that was unrelated to the Baltasar cohort, but it looks like we're in good shape here on this one.
And the data says that caffeine might have a protective role against Alzheimer's.
Well, again, you could have asked Scott, because I would not have forgotten.
No. I drink so much coffee that not only does it cure my Alzheimer's, it cures yours, too.
It's true. Yeah, that's how much coffee I drink.
Reportedly, the X platform that has been paying people for the interaction in the comments.
So if you were a large enough account and you qualified, you would get money from Elon Musk's X platform if a lot of people interacted with your posts.
But apparently that caused people to game the system and create troll accounts that were making it look like they were getting interactions so they could get fake paid, but based on fakes.
So now it looks like they're going to change it, so the only interaction that you will get paid for is if premium users interact.
So all the trolls would have to either buy an account, which they won't do, or go away, or at least not be included in the calculation.
Well, there's another study, according to the Medical Express, they're reporting on it, that loneliness can increase your dementia odds by 31%.
So putting it all together, drink more coffee, And be less lonely.
And what will happen?
You have the best odds of keeping your brain healthy.
And what are you doing right now?
Well, many of you are drinking a little extra coffee because you're here with me, the simultaneous sip.
And you're also less lonely.
Because we get to hang out.
This is why, in the evening, for the people who are subscribers to the locals community, we hang out pretty much every night, sometime around dinnertime in the California time, and we just hang out.
And because it's interactive and there are comments going, you know, both ways, it kind of feels like a friend.
So I literally sort of drifted into a situation where I'm lots of people's virtual friend.
Now, I wrote a book some years ago in which I offered to be anybody's invisible friend.
So I said, if you need an invisible friend, Pick me.
I can be your invisible friend.
If anybody asks, hey, are you Bob's invisible friend?
I would say, yes.
Yes, I am. But are you also Alice's invisible friend?
Yes. I get around.
I'm invisible. Nothing slows me down.
But now I can be your virtual digital friend as well as your invisible friend.
So if you don't have enough friends, get an invisible one or get a digital one.
I'm here for you. And there's another study that says people with dyslexia and dyscalculia, which is like dyslexia but for numbers, show less bias.
According to the Medical Express, less bias.
This is why I have less bias.
It's my dyslexia.
I do have dyslexia, by the way.
It's never been diagnosed, but it's so obvious and extreme that it's hard to miss.
My first job at a college, Was a bank teller.
And in those pre-computer days, or pre-small computer days, when a customer would come in, you would have to write every transaction down on a little side note.
So you'd write down like the long string of numbers for their account number or whatever.
So you'd have a paper record of everything you did.
And how many times do you think I got those numbers reversed on my little paper record?
Yeah, I was a disaster as a bank teller.
Didn't work out. Almost got fired.
But instead of firing me, they decided to promote me.
That's a true story, by the way.
I was on the verge of being fired because I couldn't write down numbers in the same order in which they appeared.
Literally, I couldn't.
So I'd gotten a couple of warnings because my bank never balanced at the end of the night.
It was a big problem. But at the same time that I was just about ready to get fired, Another part of the bank was looking for management trainees, and I got a management trainee program, so I got promoted instead of fired.
That's a true story.
Anyway, according to Neuroscience News, people are confident even if they only know half of the story.
Huh. They needed to do a study on that.
Guess how they could have saved a little money?
They could have just asked me, or you really, or really whoever was around.
Instead of doing the study, you could have just said, hey, stranger, stranger, I got a question for you.
I was thinking of doing this whole study.
It's going to be expensive and time consuming, but I'm wondering if you could answer the question instead, stranger.
Do you find that people who are under-informed are still very confident about their opinions?
Yes? Yes?
Well, everybody I ask says the same thing.
Yes, every single person in the entire world knows that people are confident while being stupid and uninformed.
But apparently there was a study just to make sure.
Well, the good news is the study agrees with every one of you.
Every one of you were right.
Congratulations. Good job.
Every one of you got it right.
This was a study out of Ohio State University, and I think the key learning from this study is I wouldn't go to Ohio State University.
Apparently they need to study things that everybody else already knew.
So, I don't know what you're going to learn there, if it's the college or the university for things that everybody already knew.
Just kidding. I'm sure it's a fine establishment.
Now, of course, the big news is that Hurricane Milton is slapping the country's penis.
You call it Florida, but, you know, live with it.
And here are my comments on the hurricane.
Number one, I would hate to be in a disaster that was caused by a nerdy named hurricane.
What was it that destroyed your house?
Milton. Milton.
Come on. We need scarier names for these hurricanes if they're going to be dangerous.
Don't name it after the guy you lock in your school locker.
Milton. Hey, get in this locker, Milton.
All right. Well, Kamala Harris had some comments about the hurricane.
She was on one of the morning shows she called in and she said, I quote, the significance of the passage of wind unburdened by what has blown before.
No, I'm just making that up.
But it's so stupid she could have said it.
It's not more stupid than the thing she actually says.
Meanwhile, There's a report from the Florida Fire Marshal that if salt water gets in your batteries, your lithium-ion batteries, it could cause an either immediate or slow ticking time bomb.
So apparently salt water is very bad for lithium-ion battery situations.
So regular water, not so bad, but salt water will make your electric car explode.
I wasn't going to tell you this story because I own, I have some stock in Tesla.
Bye.
But I feel like, you know, I can't ignore this one.
This is why I tell you what my investments are in, or I try to.
I try to make sure you know what I've invested in.
Because it does bias you.
It absolutely biases you.
There was a moment when I looked at this story and I said to myself, huh, this story will be very bad for my investment.
But it is the truth.
So I don't know how much of a problem that is, but if you've got a Tesla, I would drive it out of the saltwater zone if I were you, if you can get it out of there.
I would think most people would have known that, wouldn't they?
If you had a Tesla and you knew the saltwater was going to be up to the car level, wouldn't you have made sure that the way you left was in that?
But I suppose it'll ruin all of everything else you have, too.
Meanwhile, there's a video of CNN's Anderson Cooper.
He likes to stand in the storms and report.
And there was a piece of debris that got blown at him and whacked him.
So he got hit with garbage.
I don't know why that's important, but apparently it went viral because A huge part of the public was quite delighted to see CNN's Anderson Cooper get slapped with garbage.
What is wrong with us?
Now, he didn't get hurt.
It didn't look like it was anything very heavy, you know, maybe something light, cardboard-ish, but he got slapped with garbage.
I don't know, there's something perfect about that.
I'm glad he didn't get hurt. There's the consumer price index numbers around.
And so I did what I always do.
I looked at the news and I wrote them down and I was going to tell you.
And then I saw that the news reported it in two opposite ways.
One was that it was down and one is that it was up.
Which one's true? Is it up or down?
I literally saw both this morning, but I was in a hurry, so I didn't get a chance to run it down.
But it's somewhere around what we thought.
So it's in that 2.3, 2.4 range.
But some specific things went up a lot, like jewelry and watches are up 5%.
Why are jewelry and watches up 5%?
Can anybody tell me why jewelry and watches went up in price?
Now, I don't care about that one.
Because you don't have to buy jewelry and watches.
You just don't have to.
So that one doesn't count. Eggs are up 8%.
Oh, that one's bad.
College textbooks right before college up 4%.
Motor vehicle insurance up 16%.
Food and shelter 75%.
Sporting event tickets up 11%.
But here's my question.
I certainly understand why individual things will move up and down because there are different forces for different industries.
But can somebody explain to me how our inflation level didn't change much even though our national debt changed a lot?
Is that possible?
Everybody smart says the same thing about inflation.
The thing that causes inflation is the government borrowing money and basically creating money out of nothing.
So the government created a whole bunch of extra money out of nothing, like over a trillion dollars just this year, and we're up to like 36 trillion we're approaching.
So if it's true that increasing the money supply increases inflation, How could it be true that the money supply was vastly increased and inflation did not go up?
What do we not know?
Am I saying something stupid?
Is there a time lag?
Because the time lag should be all adjusted by now.
You know, there shouldn't be a time lag at the moment because we've been adding a trillion dollars of debt every year.
So it's not like this is the first time we added a trillion dollars in debt.
So how can we add trillions of dollars in debt and our inflation rate stayed about the same?
Oh, wait a minute.
Is there an election coming up?
Has anybody heard?
Is there an election coming?
Is this fake?
Is the inflation data just completely fake?
Doesn't it have to be?
Unless there's something going on that would make Adding a trillion dollars in debt not have any effect on your inflation, which would be what?
I don't know. So I guess my bottom line is that all data that matters is fake.
There's a... here's another study.
So somebody did a study to find out.
They found out that That women who applied for assistant professor positions in North America were more likely to get job offers than men.
There was an actual study on this.
All right, let's see what you would have guessed.
Do you think they could have saved some time and some money just by asking us?
Who do you think is going to get the job for an assistant professorship in North America, the man or the woman?
Of course it's the woman.
Of course. Who in the world thinks there's any doubt about that?
Now, let me give you a hard one.
Okay, let's say it's an assistant professor job, and just hypothetically, we haven't studied this.
Somebody's going to need to study this.
But suppose it was a choice between a white man and a black man.
Equally qualified.
Same qualifications.
Let's do a study to find out which one will be preferred in 2024.
No, we don't have to.
No, we don't have to. But here's the funniest thing about the story, is the title for the article, right?
Here's the title for the article that found out that women are preferred for assistant professor jobs in North America, okay?
Here's the title. Women are better than men at science job interviews.
Oh! Oh!
Oh, come on!
Come on!
Now here's the funnier part.
The writer of the article has a male name, Gris, so I'm guessing male.
Do you think that there's a human male who believes that the story for why the women were preferred was because they interview better?
Do you think that the author who wrote this really believes that?
Or is he just fucking with us?
Is that a prank?
Because it looks like a prank.
It looks like somebody wrote that headline because they know it's funny.
Now, by the way, it might actually be true that women interview better than men.
That might be true. But you know what?
It doesn't matter. They're still going to get the job.
It doesn't matter who interviewed better.
It's 2024. The woman's going to get the job.
That's really the beginning and the end of the story.
No, it's because they interview better.
There's no evidence whatsoever that the interviewing better is any part of the decision making.
Like, that's not part of the study.
But that was part of the headline.
All right. You know that the Internet has this Internet Archive.
It's called the Internet Archive, or the Wayback Machine.
And it basically tries to store everything that had been on the Internet historically and now isn't.
Apparently, they had some catastrophic security breach.
That's their own word, catastrophic.
And at least this morning, the site was still down.
And according to The Verge, they've got a note there that says they were hacked.
Now, people, you know what I'm going to say.
You know what I'm going to say.
You know, I'm not a cybersecurity expert, but I don't think you have to be to know this.
Because all of you know this.
Why in the world would the Internet Archive be using some cheap crappy cybersecurity
when all they had to do is use the same cybersecurity that we use for all of our election systems?
So the next story is about the weather MSNBC's Mike Barnacle.
Yeah, his name is Barnacle.
That's his actual name, Barnacle.
He didn't like the fact that Marjorie Taylor Greene has a theory that the government might be manipulating the hurricanes and that the government might be behind the North Carolina Hurricane Helene, at least making it worse or directing it.
And Mike Barnacle says, you have people in this country who actually listen to her and find some credibility perhaps in something she says.
It's beyond belief, beyond description.
Wow, that's pretty bad.
It's beyond belief and beyond description.
So he's one mad Barnacle.
And here's my take on that.
So it looks like we have a standoff.
You've got MSNBC that believes the government can control the climate through climate change policy.
And they're going against the people who think you can't control the climate, but in some cases you can control the weather.
So it's the people who think that the government can control the weather But not the climate.
Versus the people who think the government can control the climate, but not the weather.
To which I say, well, I do not buy into the thought that the government is controlling the weather.
So I'm not on that page.
But I did happen to look at the sky yesterday where I live.
I'll let you take a look at it.
And take a look at this.
What the hell is this cloud formation?
How do you get those patterns?
I'm a little bit worried.
That's Northern California.
How do you get a circular cloud?
How does that happen? Have you ever seen clouds form a ring?
Three rings? What the hell is this cloud formation?
How do you get those patterns?
I'm a little bit worried.
All right, so here's what I know.
You may not be aware that the temperature where I live has been over 100 for several days in a row.
Over 100 degrees.
Probably starting to threaten our energy system because California is always sort of on the edge of having enough energy and when it's super hot that's the worst.
It's also bad for forest fires and you know you don't want too much heat especially this time of year.
At the same time The clouds just sort of suddenly changed one day.
So yesterday?
Yesterday the temperature was down 20 degrees, actually almost as much as 25 degrees from what it has been all week.
At the same time, these weird wispy clouds came in that are not the kind that I'm used to seeing all my life in California.
And then I see some patterns that don't even look like they're natural patterns.
They look like I don't know.
They don't look natural, whatever they are.
And I say to myself, is the government controlling the weather in my neighborhood right now?
Because it looks like it.
I mean, it looks like it in every way because the cloud pattern doesn't...
The rest of the sky also doesn't look like it normally looks in California.
Now, is that just my imagination?
I don't know. It might be.
Could be my imagination.
Confirmation bias. Something like that.
I don't rule that out. Round clouds or cloud seeding.
So I'm hearing that cloud seeding does in fact leave that pattern.
So in the comments, I just saw a little article.
Somebody went by. I don't know if it's credible.
But a little article that says the circular patterns are a sign of cloud seeding.
Now, could it be that the Bay Area just said, well, we'll just see some clouds and take the temperature down a little bit and everybody will be better off?
I don't know. I don't know.
But I'll tell you one thing.
When Marjorie Taylor Greene says the government is controlling the weather, there are two things I know.
One, you can, of course, control the weather.
Who thinks you can't control the weather?
I thought we'd been doing cloud seeding for, like, forever.
Am I wrong? Is cloud seeding my imagination?
Or have we not been actually literally doing it?
I thought we were.
And I thought that they've even prototyped some climate change, you know, reflective stuff.
They've at least tested it.
So to me, it looks like there's 100% confirmation that we can control the weather.
And then, of course, the government could if they wanted to.
Now, if you can make it rain more, Does that change, for example, the high pressure or the low pressure?
If you could make it rain, does that change the pressure?
I don't know the answer to that.
If it did, then you could steer a hurricane, couldn't you?
A little bit? No?
Now, in my opinion, it's very, very unlikely that somebody in the government unleashed a weapon of mass destruction on the domestic population.
So my brain will not allow me to think that there's anybody evil enough in our government who would do something that they'd obviously eventually be caught at, that would kill tens of thousands of people, potentially.
So I don't believe that.
But if MSNBC is trying to tell their audience that it's not a possibility, I think you should look at a speech that John Brandon gave where he did suggest it's very much a possibility.
I just don't think it's being done.
So that's where we disagree.
But I would give it not a 0% chance.
We live in a world where there are false flags and terrible behavior, and I can't take that odds to zero.
I wish I could, but I'll take it to 5%.
So MSNBC, I'll slightly agree with Mr.
Barnacle that it's unlikely that MTG is correct, that the government did it.
It's not wildly crazy, though.
I'll go that far.
It's not wildly crazy.
Let's see, what else is going on?
We got all kinds of news today.
Michael Schellenberger has something like a scoop, I think.
There's a new whistleblower that came forward and says the Pentagon is withholding information from Congress about the secret UAP program.
You could call it UFOs, but we'll call them Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.
I guess UAP. And there's even a name for this secret program with these secret hidden UAPs.
It's called Immaculate Constellation.
And Schellenberger checked the credentials of the whistleblower and says that they're, quote, verified.
So he says he's verified the credentials of the whistleblower.
And he's reached out to the Pentagon for a number of days and they have not responded.
So now you've got your Probably one of, if not the most, credible journalist working today who has verified that the whistleblower has credentials and that the whistleblower is saying that, oh yes, there's definitely hidden UFOs or something like that.
Now, what do you make of that story?
Does that tell you that we really do have UFOs?
Well, again, I'm not going to rule it out.
I would say it's at least 95% chance we don't.
But There is a whistleblower.
There are multiple whistleblowers.
And Schellenberger is, in my opinion, our most credible journalist, partly by being independent and partly by being right about everything for years.
So he basically is one of the few people in the business who has no stains on his record.
So, you've got an argument in both directions.
One is, it seems like on its surface, it seems like a hugely unlikely thing that we have some hidden UFOs.
And by the way, when I say UFO, I would include a hidden civilization under the ocean or whatever.
It doesn't mean it came from another planet.
Could be anything, but it might be secret and futuristic and high technology.
But I'm going to say less than 5% chance this is real.
Here's the thing I'm worried about.
Do you remember the Kraken?
Do you remember when Sidney Powell in 2020 was saying, not only is the election rigged, but we've got a whistleblower.
And the Kraken is coming.
Now, the Kraken was an imaginary monster, which was just her way of saying that there was going to be a really big and true story about election cheating.
Now, as it turned out, the Kraken, the idea that there was a Venezuelan software machines that were somehow rigged, did not pan out, did not pan out.
And so we're left with the question, where did that information come from?
Who gave her the information who was so credible, credible, that she would believe it?
Now remember, Sidney Powell is not, you know, somebody's fool.
She's somebody who's worked in Washington forever at the highest levels, seen behind every curtain.
Somebody who would be that naturally skeptical and cynical about the world, you know, somebody who really knows what the real world operates like, found this story about the Kraken to be credible.
And what did that do to all the claims about election security?
It just destroyed them.
Because it took the strongest player off the field.
If you were watching the story developing, you said to yourself, oh, Sidney Powell's got the goods.
She's credible. She's very credible.
And she's got the goods.
And then they took her off the field by proving that it was a fake story.
Or one she couldn't prove.
And I said to myself, you know what?
That sounds exactly like an intelligence op.
That somebody would pick somebody credible.
And have the credible person work an op to tell the strongest player on the field something that will later be debunked and ruin their credibility for the rest of time.
So to me, it looks like the Kraken was an op.
Now, interestingly, I've never heard anybody ask or seen Sidney Powell describe where she got that information.
Because I think you would find that whoever it came from might have some passing connection to the security state, if you know what I mean.
Just a guess.
Maybe in another country, but also connected with our State Department or CIA or something.
So I worry that that's an existing play, that is one you would see more than once.
It's the sort of thing where a person like me who has a voice might get cancelled, for example.
And you'd say to yourself, oh, that was just a naturally occurring thing.
Was it? I don't think so.
Maybe. But was it?
Or was it conveniently taking a strong voice out of the market?
Or attempting to.
So then I look at this latest whistleblower, and we've got an election coming up, and we've got Schellenberger being...
I won't say he's right-leaning, because he grew up as a Democrat, and he's seen both sides.
So he's unusually good at seeing the whole field, unusually good at communicating, unusually good at getting attention, and unusually good at getting scoops.
How badly do they want to take him off the field?
Really badly. I would imagine he would be right at the top of the list of people they'd want to discredit if they could find a way.
What would be a good way to do it?
Well, one way would be to send them a fake whistleblower so he's out there saying that they're real UFOs and we're distracted.
And then someday if it falls apart, they'll say, well, why do you ever listen to that Schellenberger guy?
He got that UFO thing wrong.
So, I'm worried for Michael that there might be an op going on here.
Just a suspicion.
So, Michael Schellenberger, I would advise you to maybe couch this in less definitive terms, as in to say there is a whistleblower, but we cannot tell if it's credible.
That would be cleaner.
I don't think to say the whistleblower has now convinced me that this is real is the way to go.
I think he needs to just protect the credibility a little bit more.
And by the way, I don't think he's definitively saying it's true.
I think he's reporting the facts.
But I would be really careful to make sure you put a little distance between yourself and those facts.
Just be careful. Well, as you know, we keep hearing from Democrats that crime is down, but our lived experience is the opposite.
Crime is up where I live, and I live in a safe place.
So if it's up here, I don't know what it's doing in other places.
But in New York City, apparently the former governor, David Patterson, Who was not only the first black governor in New York, but he was the second blind governor in American history.
So he was walking his dog with his stepson, and he was attacked by a group of adults and teens who knocked him down and kicked them.
Now, I saw the video, and of course it's terrible that they knocked a blind guy down and kicked him.
All right, that's pretty bad.
But there are some positives to it.
Apparently it was a group of Hispanic and Black kids, and I thought, oh, well, Two groups getting along.
So, you know, at least you've got that.
And then the second thing was, if you saw the kicking, there were very bad kickers.
They were kicking him while he was down, but it looked like they were just sort of tapping them with their shoe.
I've never seen weaker kicking.
So it looks like maybe the criminals are just getting weaker.
Like, ah, we're going to need like 20 of us, and we're lightly kicking you.
I touched you with my shoe.
So I'm not saying I would have been happy if they kicked him harder.
Of course not. I'm just saying that the criminals seem to be getting weaker.
The kicking was totally under.
Well, you have to see it.
Meanwhile, Trump went on a podcast with comedian Andrew Schultz, who, by the way, for the record, is an asshole.
He's an asshole, Andrew Schultz.
I say that because he threw me under the bus when I got canceled.
He's not very bright.
And he's got a porn mustache.
He's sort of low IQ. He has sort of the low IQ, uninformed podcast.
But because they're guys and they're, you know, funny and irreverent, it was sort of a perfect place for Trump to go.
I've never seen him so comfortable.
Trump is so comfortable in every situation.
Now, I've said too many times That the superpower Trump has is one on one, or in this case, one on several, but same thing.
His ability to work a small group and work an individual, you know, at the retail level where it's, you know, you're right in front of them, is unequal.
And it's something that Kamala Harris can't do at all.
She doesn't have any social skills that don't look super awkward or staged.
And he's maybe the best we've ever seen.
It's hard to come up with any politician who could walk into every situation, from meeting with the heads of state to this podcast.
And act like he's been there all his life.
He's just so natural.
Anyway, he was hilarious.
And he made some good cracks about Biden.
Everybody laughed like crazy.
He said, Biden has an ability to fall asleep on camera.
He can be there and within minutes he's stone cold out.
They have cameras on him and he's asleep.
You'll never see me sleeping like that.
They talk about what he's packing under his bathing suit, Biden.
And then he does his favorite little thing about Biden at the beach.
He goes, Biden has one ability I don't have.
He sleeps. His only ability is he sleeps.
This guy goes to a beach.
He lays down in one of these six-ounce chairs.
He can't even lift them.
They're meant for children and old people to lift.
He can't lift them. Now, I've heard him say that a bunch of times, and it's never less good.
It's never less good.
Oh, and then he told a Don Jr.
story. That apparently Schultz had heard.
That Don Jr.
once, when he was young, threw a big party without permission in, you know, on the roof of a Trump building.
And Trump came back home early.
He was supposed to be gone.
And kicked everybody out.
And then Don Jr.
spent 36 hours cleaning everything up like it never happened.
And the story is that, according to Don Jr., Trump never talked to him about it.
So Trump came home, kicked down 200 people, Didn't tell Don Jr.
to do anything, but Don Jr.
spent 36 hours cleaning because there's nothing scarier than hearing nothing from him.
And the joke was that to this day, Trump has never said one word about it.
And Don Jr.
heard the story. And then on X, he confirmed that it's true.
And he said the worst punishment he ever could have gotten was that his dad never mentioned it.
He said it was like torture.
And then when Schultz asked him, like, you know, was he ready to, like, forgive him?
Trump said no.
He goes, no, some things you don't forget.
But it was funny. Anyway, so here's my question.
I've seen Kamala Harris was on that Call Me Daddy podcast, and it was kind of an uninformed, you know, podcast.
And she went on The View, and you know The View is like famously the dumbest people in TV. And Quite a few dumb people.
And the Schultz podcast, I've watched it enough to know it's basically dumb guys.
Funny, but they're dumb guys.
They don't know a lot about politics, but they still have opinions.
However, I saw that Chartable, which tracks podcasts, had a list of the biggest right-leaning podcasts.
Now, listen to the names on this podcast, the top right-leaning podcasts.
Now, I don't know what are the top left-leaning podcasts, because if they're about entertainment and stuff, it wouldn't be on this list.
But do you think they have the same qualifications?
So I'm just going to read you the names of the top...
Podcasters on the right, and you tell me if these sound like serious people, or are they like Andrew Schultz and Call Me Daddy in The View?
All right. Number one, Megyn Kelly.
Two, Tucker Carlson.
Three, Dan Bongino.
Four, Charlie Kirk. Five, Matt Walsh.
I'll just go down the rest. Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Knowles, Bill O'Reilly, Dave Rubin, Ellie Stuckey, Steve Deese, Jesse Kelly, and number 14, Scott Adams.
I guess I'm number 14 on the list.
Now, you know, you could maybe have some arguments with a few people on the list, but Those are really well-informed people.
Am I wrong? Everybody on this list is, at the very least, they're smart, they've been doing it a long time, and they're well-informed.
There's a big difference between what the right and the left are listening to.
Now, to be fair, Charitable might have a list of the political left that would be more serious than the entertainment left.
So maybe they have some names that I would respect on their list.
But it's kind of interesting that the people who get the most attention on the right are very serious people.
Now, I would like to boost myself by saying that of the 13 people who are above me on the list, most of them are connected with an organization.
So they have a big operation.
So of the people who do nothing but turn on their computer and talk to you, Not bad to be in the top 14.
My entire investment is I have a computer and a microphone, and I'm in the top 14 of right-leaning political podcasters.
That's the world you live in.
It's just wonderful that that's even possible.
Anyway, a Newsweek opinion writer, Bhatia Ungar Sargan, is reporting that Well, she had a good reframe.
She said that the Harris campaign is based on made-up problems, whereas the Trump campaign is based on real problems.
And I thought to myself, what?
Made-up problems?
What the hell is a made-up problem?
Well, here's an example.
Trump's going to steal your democracy.
Is that real or just a made-up problem?
That's a made-up problem.
He's definitely not going to steal your democracy.
How about climate change?
Well, you know, you could argue whether the way we're handling it is sort of out of whack with what it is, so it seems like it made a problem to some degree, not 100%.
How about all the division in the country?
So the Democrats create massive division in the country, and then they run on solving the massive division in the country that they created.
That's a fake. All they have to do is stop doing it.
They don't need to solve it.
Just stop creating it.
If you stop creating it, you won't have anything to solve.
So I would say those are fake problems.
And then, of course, they have some goals that they shouldn't have.
I'm adding this part.
It's one thing to have fake problems you're offering to solve, and it's another thing to have goals that you say you want to do that you shouldn't even have that goal, such as equity.
So equity is one of the things they want to solve, they want to achieve, and that would be a terrible idea.
If you were to succeed at getting equity, it would be the end of the United States, for sure.
I mean, no doubt about it.
So there's that. But then you look at the real problems.
You got the debt problem, the depopulation problem, the bad education problem.
And to be honest, I'm not sure Trump's doing enough on any of those, but at least they're real.
At least they're real. Trump does have something like a plan on the debt.
Growth will make a difference, growth in the economy.
But also, if Elon Musk goes in and starts cutting government expenses, that might be the only way you could ever get the debt under control.
I don't know that Trump's doing enough about depopulation, but he's not doing anything against it.
He's in favor of IVF, for example.
And I don't think Trump's doing enough on education.
He wants to get rid of the Department of Education and move it to the States.
I don't know if that helps.
It might make sense in some budgetary, constitutional way.
I don't know that that's going to solve any problems.
I don't know. And one in four millennials and Gen Zs say they won't have kids due to finances, according to CBS. If that's true, if one in four of the people in the reproductive ages Don't want to have kids because they can't afford it.
That's sort of the end of the country.
You realize that, right?
Under normal times, that would guarantee that your country's dead.
You know, you'd have one, two generations left, and then you'd just be in trouble.
Because you wouldn't be able to support the old people.
There's not enough young people.
I mean, it'd just all fall apart.
However, coincidentally, We reach this point where people don't want to have children at exactly the time that you can buy a robot-ish, right?
We might be a year away from actually buying a robot for your house.
So, no joke, I do think robots are going to replace children.
Not a one-for-one replacement, but people working on loneliness and meaning and just wanting to have a connection.
If the AI gets a little bit better, I can't do it yet, but if it gets a little bit better, I wonder if it can actually make people feel less lonely.
Could you ever get to the point where your robot Was a source of oxytocin.
Oh, this is interesting.
So oxytocin is that chemical in your body that's produced when you have good human relationships, especially if you're touching somebody you like.
And generally speaking, you can't get that from a robot.
Because you don't have any sense of touch.
But is that unsolvable?
You remember those studies where there were little baby monkeys that were orphaned and they would give some of them a warm water bottle and the little monkeys would hug the warm water bottle and they'd have a much better outcome because the warm water bottle was something like hugging a mother.
I wonder if you could make a robot that had some kind of a surface-y area that could be warm enough that if you spooned your robot, you would get oxytocin.
So imagine your robot spooning you.
It's warm like a nice warm blanket, and it's soft, so it'd have to be softer than a metal robot.
And it's saying good things to you, like you're all curled up at the end of the day, and say, how was your day today?
Oh, it's not bad.
You know, have you done your exercise yet?
Yeah, I just got done. I'll bet that feels good.
Could you actually get oxytocin from a robot if the robot was designed specifically to produce it?
You know, an ordinary robot, no way.
But if it were designed for it?
I don't know.
My instinct says yes.
And if you can get oxytocin from a robot, Then the population is really in trouble.
Or not. You know, maybe the robots are better than the kids.
Anyway, CBS has been asked for the unedited video of the Harris interview.
Catherine Herridge is pointing out that there's some precedent for asking for full unedited videos of interviews.
How bad do you think the unedited video is that CBS doesn't immediately give it to you?
How bad is it?
Let me make a working assumption.
My working assumption is this.
You will not see the unedited video before the election.
Do you know why you will not see the unedited video before the election?
If they're holding onto it and they had to edit it that badly just to make it look like a moron, Just imagine how bad that is.
Just imagine how bad that is.
Because you know, the CBS had to know when they made those major illegal or inappropriate edits, they had to know there was a high chance of getting caught.
So how bad was it that 60 Minutes, this highly respected entity for decades and decades, my whole life, They threw away their credibility to help Harris.
How bad was it that they had to throw away their entire history to protect her?
It had to be really, really, really bad, as in so bad it would change the results of the election.
I think it's so bad that it would be the end.
Because otherwise they would have said, oh, you're right.
We'll show you.
You know, mea culpa.
We're sorry. It was a staff member who did it.
It wasn't senior management.
We've already fired the person who did it.
Right? But they don't do that.
And it's been days.
And it's a major scandal.
And they're not even replying.
I think they're just going to sit on it.
Because nobody can really make them show it.
So they'll just try to ride it out, I think.
So I think you'll find that to be on the list of things we're not allowed to see.
So we're not allowed to see the full transcript of the 60-minute interview of Kamala Harris.
We're not allowed to see the Epstein client list, the ditty tapes, the FBI attendees at January 6th.
We don't know what's up with that.
We don't know who earned the coke at the White House.
They're not going to tell us. They're not going to look into it.
We don't know about the UFO stuff.
Is it real or not? We don't have the JFK assassination files yet.
We don't know about the attempted assassin Crooks' phone and his encrypted apps.
That seems to be something we'll never find out.
And we won't know why the other attempted killer, Ruth, had several phones and what was that all about.
So it turns out that the thing we used to call the news is part of the thing that keeps information from you.
They don't seem to be in the news business, do they?
They seem to be very much in the preventing news business.
Because if they were in the news business, they would say every day, hey, why don't we have this stuff?
Because it's what people really, really want to know.
But instead, they cover the wind.
So yeah, I think the news is in the cover-up business at the moment.
One of the things that I'm looking for and predicting is that if the polls turn massively bad for Harris, you're going to see the media that supports her slowly turn as well.
So in other words, the media, the left-leaning media won't throw her under the bus.
But if she's already under the bus and there's no way she's getting out, The media is going to want to act like they were always a little on both sides.
So what you should see is that as the polls turn so negative that Harris can't possibly win, you should see the entities that supported her maybe work in a little criticism, just a little bit of criticism.
So Axios, who I would consider left-leaning, Is she hitting on Harris today?
And I said to myself, huh, would that happen if she were ahead in the polls?
Do you think Axios would crap on Harris if she were looking like she were going to win?
Maybe. Maybe.
But I think it's far more likely, if they've decided she can't possibly win, that they're going to make sure they've got a few negative things in there to remain looking credible.
So here's what they said today.
So you've heard this story, but just the fact that it's mentioned again in Axios, that of the 47 Harris staffers that were listed in 2021, only five still work for her.
How bad is it to work for somebody if only 5 out of 47, basically 10%, have lasted three years?
And that's not been the same with other people.
And then there's a report in the same article in Axios that Biden hesitated to drop his re-election campaign because he didn't think he and his senior advisors, not just Biden, but also his senior advisors, thought that Harris couldn't win.
And Axios also notes that it took a while for Obama and Pelosi to back Harris, which suggests that they weren't so sure she was the right choice.
So now that would mean that Biden, Obama, and Pelosi didn't think that Harris had the right stuff to win.
Who on the left knows more about Harris and her capability than Biden, Obama, and Pelosi?
Now, based on what we've seen in public of Harris, how bad is she privately?
Behind closed doors, she must be a total train wreck.
Do you know the stories about Trump when people say, oh, Trump's just a wild mess behind closed doors?
And then what would you hear immediately?
You would immediately hear people who actually spend time with him saying, I actually spend time with him, and that's not the case.
He's actually very engaged, asks the right questions, shows interest, talks to a lot of people, gets a lot of opinions.
So when Trump gets that treatment, that he's a crazy man when you're not watching, there's always somebody who was really there, and lots of them, who say, that's not true.
But are we getting that from the Harris campaign?
Is there anybody in the Harris campaign who's saying, you know, honestly, she's great to work for.
She's getting a bad rap.
And sure, there's turnover, but it's because she hired such good people that they immediately got job offers that were even better.
So really, they just got promoted.
They didn't leave because she was bad.
Right? Wouldn't you hear something like that?
You'd expect the insiders would be saying, what are you talking about?
She's great to work for.
We all love working for her.
Nope. I haven't heard any.
Have you? Have you heard any reports where people are debunking the fact that she's a moron in private?
Nope. Yeah, I have heard a few people who are obviously on the campaign say it.
But in the Trump case, it's not campaign staff who say it, it's just anybody who's worked with them.
Well, I say it, right?
I spent, you know, 20 minutes, half an hour chatting with them once.
And he's really engaged.
He genuinely asked me questions and showed complete interest in the answers and the opinions, even when he didn't agree with me.
So he didn't agree with everything.
Anyway, so watch for the media.
CNN is being a little tougher on Harris as well.
So those are the leading indicators.
MSNBC won't, because they're not real news.
MSNBC is more like a pretend news network.
They're basically a full-time propaganda network for the Democrats.
So don't count them as part of the news atmosphere, because they're really not.
So just an update on the January 6th Fed involvement.
As you know, Director Wray would not say if there were any FBI informants or anything involved in it.
But he did say, if you're asking if the violence was organized by FBI sources or agents, the answer is no.
What he didn't say is how many were there.
And if he's not willing to say how many were there, then I'm not sure I'm going to totally believe that none of them were involved in making it worse.
And there's some question about the ghost buses.
I don't fully believe the ghost buses story, but the idea is there were some buses painted white, which means all the identifying markers were removed.
Have you ever seen a bus that was completely white?
I've never seen one.
But there were two of them on January 6th that allegedly may have carried two buses full of FBI undercover people.
Now, if there were two buses full, so it was more than one bus full, how many people fit on a bus?
50? 50 or 60?
How many rows on a bus?
Probably 15 rows, two on each side.
Yeah. So we're somewhere north of 100 people, probably.
So whoever was on those buses, maybe 100, maybe 60 to 100 people, something like that.
If you had 60 to 100 FBI informants and agents in the crowd, Could Christopher Wray be sure that all of them were doing just what they should have been doing?
Because Christopher Wray's answer may have suggested that he was talking for the FBI organization and not necessarily answering to what any individual who may or may not have been there did.
So there's a possibility That there were no orders to do anything to make it worse, but that there were some members who may have, and maybe we're not privy to that.
So I don't know what to believe about this, but it seems like if those ghost buses were for somebody else, by now wouldn't somebody else say it?
If you knew it was a national story that your two white painted buses were still a mystery, you don't think that the people who were on the bus or the bus drivers or anybody else who knew they were innocent buses, you don't think that somebody would say, oh, wait a minute, that was my bus.
No, no, it's not a ghost bus.
It's just a bus we rented to bring people here for whatever reason.
So the fact that you haven't heard about the bus, I feel like somebody would have said that was my boss, right?
So because it's the government, I'm going to assume the worst.
They are not transparent.
So when the government is very intentionally non-transparent, you should assume the worst.
It doesn't mean you're right, but you have a right to assume the worst under those circumstances.
Well, you know, there's a story that Trump had several phone calls with Putin since he's been out of office, which some people say, Susan Rice said this, that he might have violated the Logan Act.
Now, the Logan Act says that if you're not the elected representatives of the country, you should not be doing any negotiating with other countries.
But in the entire history of the world, the Logan Act has only rarely been enforced.
Only two people have ever been charged.
One was 1803, and the other was 1852, and neither were prosecuted.
So there's been zero prosecutions in the history of the Republic for the Logan Act, but we like to trot it out to make the other side feel uncomfortable.
Now, I think Trump had said that Biden had violated the Logan Act or Or John Kerry did.
Oh, John Kerry. Because Kerry was talking to the Iranians.
I can see why the Logan Act exists, but I don't think anybody cares.
I suppose it were true that Trump was talking to Putin in a way that somebody could construe as negotiating.
Well, you know he didn't negotiate anything specific.
I can say that for sure.
There's no way in hell that they negotiated anything specific.
But if Trump says in public every single day, you know, I think we're just going to have to end this war and work it out with something like the way the border looks now.
If he said that to Putin, and there's no evidence he did, if he said that to Putin, would that sound like negotiating?
Or would he just be saying to Putin what he says in public and what everybody else says?
So I'm not exactly sure where that line is.
Where are you negotiating?
And where are you just saying your opinion like everybody says their opinion and he does it in public all the time?
I don't know. But I can't imagine this would be prosecutable.
Well, let's do an update on the polls, which are all squirrely.
CNN says people close to the Harris camp, saying they're worried about a 2016 event where the polls are undercounting Trump supporters and he wins in the end.
So CNN's starting to hint That maybe the polls are not really telling a story that's good for Harris.
At the same time, and they're talking about nothing she's doing is moving the needle.
Political analyst Mark Halperin said this week that both his Democrat and Republican contacts believe Trump's chances of winning are looking strong and getting stronger because he's seen private polling.
So the people who have seen private polling, that's stuff that usually candidates have done so that they can have secret information that the other side doesn't have.
But the private polling apparently suggests that Trump's in a commanding position.
And then the Quinnipiac polling came out today showing that Trump is ad in Wisconsin and Michigan.
That's reported by just the news.
And if that's true, and there are other reports that he's dominating the swing states, etc.
So what's the date today?
It's the 10th, October 10th.
What did I tell you was going to happen in the middle of this month, which would be five days from now?
I think I told you that the polls would have to start truing up.
Why would it be the middle of October?
Because the beginning of October is too soon, the end of October is too late, and the middle of October is sort of a...
It's like picking an even number, right?
If you're going to say something's going to happen in any given month, you're usually talking, you know, beginning, middle, or end.
So if you've ruled out the beginning and the end, And you thought things were going to happen, people would probably shoot for the middle because we're just biased toward those points, right?
Not a reason. There's not a reason.
We're just biased toward, you know, clean start points, beginning, middle, end.
So my prediction has been that October 15th, five days from now, the polls will collapse.
You might see it a little bit early in a few polls, but by the 15th, I'm expecting a total collapse in the Harris numbers.
It's going to happen fast, and then people are going to look for some reason.
And they might say, well, I guess it was that 60 minutes report.
Or they're going to say, she didn't take our advice To do more rallies.
You know, she was doing podcasts.
We told her not to do that.
So five days until total collapse of all the polling for Harris.
By October 16th, there will be nobody in the news who thinks she is likely to win.
She could still win.
I'm not saying she's going to lose.
Because there's lots of shenanigans that are part of the story.
So the shenanigans are hard to rule in or rule out.
We don't know what that's going to look like.
But there will be shenanigans.
Maybe totally legal.
Maybe. Maybe something under the color of law.
Or something not.
But there will be shenanigans.
We're not going to have a shenanigan-free election, that's for sure.
But I do think that by the 16th, Trump will be generally considered the dominant player.
If you've been listening to Mike Benz, and you should...
By the way, if you're not listening to Mike Benz, you really don't know what's happening.
You just have to follow him.
If I could tell you there's one you just have to follow, it's Mike Benz.
You have to follow him.
You just won't understand anything you're seeing in the news until you do.
And one of the things he teaches us is that the First Amendment has disappeared.
So we don't actually have a First Amendment in any practical sense.
We have it on paper, but not in a practical sense.
Because the government found that it could suppress free speech by Calling it disinformation.
Oh no, we're not suppressing your free speech.
We're just trying to reduce the disinformation that's oh so dangerous.
And the way they do it, as Mike Benz will explain in infinite detail if you want to listen, and it's all interesting, by the way.
So the US government, Democrats mostly, Have sent tremendous amounts of monies to universities to put together programs to spot disinformation.
What do you think disinformation is?
Well, disinformation is anything that disagrees with Democrats.
Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, but mostly it's about what disagrees with Democrats.
So that's disinformation.
Now, disinformation is not illegal.
So what's the difference if you spotted it?
Well, then the people who have spotted the disinformation, in their opinion, the people who took the money from Democrats and are also Democrats, they've decided that, oh, there's some disinformation coming from that Scott Adams account on X. So then the government says, oh, we've got an official report of that Adams guy with some disinformation.
So we're going to go to the X platform and say, hey, Can you do us a favor?
We're finding all this dangerous disinformation from this Adams guy.
Can you kick him off the platform?
Or can you maybe suppress him somehow?
Now, on the X platform, as far as we know, since Elon Musk has been in charge, that would be a no.
And no, we're not because our platform doesn't do that.
But if they ask Facebook or they asked Twitter in the past or they asked Instagram or they asked anybody else, would they likely Agree with going along with the, oh, we have to suppress these voices because they're disinformation.
So as long as you have disinformation as your substitute for free speech, you can make all forms of free speech go away for your people that you want it to go away for simply by having your paid puppets label it disinformation.
So they've actually built an entire elaborate many, many millions of dollars across, I don't know, dozens or hundreds of organizations, maybe hundreds, that are all in on this large suppression of disinformation stuff.
So here's what we've got.
So then in that context, Biden comes out and he's blaming Trump for spreading Trump What?
Disinformation. So suddenly, Biden says that Trump is lying about FEMA. He's spreading disinformation.
So what he's saying is, everybody who's on the team that doesn't like disinformation, you should start suppressing anybody who's spreading it.
So this is sort of a message to anybody who's sort of on that suppression team, that if Trump says that the FEMA funding is insufficient because money went to help migrants, then Biden and the Democrats will simply say, that's not free speech.
Even though what he's saying holds together.
They could argue that it's technically untrue because budgets are in different bags, but in the real world, any budget can be made available to anything as long as everybody involved agrees.
That's just the way everything works.
If everybody agrees, or the people in charge agree, you can move money from one place to another.
So yes, if you're out of money in one bucket, But still spending it in another bucket, it is perfectly reasonable to say that your money is going to somebody else.
Now, is it technically true?
It doesn't matter. It's true in the real world.
Yeah, money is fungible.
Exactly. If you don't know what the word fungible means, you should look it up.
Yeah. There's some things that, you know, they can move everywhere and they're the same.
Money is like that. You know, the money in my pocket is the same as money in your pocket.
It's not like better money if it's the same amount.
So it's fungible. You can move money from one place to another.
All right. And apparently CBS has refused to air a Trump political ad that's about Kamala Harris being in favor of gender-affirming care for minors.
Now, Jeff Charles from Red State is reporting on this.
And do you think that CBS should be allowed to turn down a political ad?
Oh, wow, I'm seeing a new rumor.
There's a new rumor that says that Tim Walsh has been diagnosed as clinically bipolar.
All right, I'm just seeing that on some random account on X, so I would give that zero credibility.
Yeah, I shouldn't have read that.
I should have checked on that before I said it out loud.
So, does anybody have a source for that?
I'm going to give that zero credibility unless there's some source.
Yeah, don't ignore that.
Take it back. I apologize for even saying it.
I shouldn't have said that. I should not have read it just because I saw it in a comment.
That's not fair. All right, so I'm chastising myself.
I'd like you to erase your memories of the last 30 seconds.
Here's some good news.
You know, I may have told you or posted on X that Arizona seemed a little underserved by the RNC. The Republicans didn't seem to have enough lawyers and or observers for the election.
And Carrie Lake was sounding the alarm that they were being a little underserved by the Republican Party.
And guess what? They just appointed Harmeet Dillon to be the lead in the Arizona program there to make sure that the elections are fair.
Now, if you don't know the name, Harmeet Dillon, I think you can watch in the comments.
People will tell you, oh my god, that's perfect.
So, could you tell the people who don't know who she is in the comments?
You would all agree, right?
So, we've been watching her for a long time on X, and we watched what she's done on behalf of the Republican Party.
She ran to be the head of the RNC, right?
So she was sufficiently appreciated for everything she's done and her capabilities that she was one of the frontrunners to be the head of the Republican National Committee.
But to see a powerhouse like her moving into Arizona, that changes the look of it.
This is not trivial.
That this means that the cheaters, if there are any, hypothetically, in Arizona, are really, really at risk of going to jail.
Because now you've got the right brains and the right eyes and the right number of legs and bodies, I think, soon, that Arizona's going to be carefully watched.
So this is going to get really, really interesting.
I believe Harmeet lost her husband this year.
And so, you know, I wish her the best because that wasn't that long ago.
And it's long enough that I think it makes sense for her to, you know, get involved and get her mind on something else.
But we wish her the best.
Here's another one you should have just asked me.
The Gateway Pundits reporting that O'Keefe Media, they did a hidden camera deal and they found out that the Mexican army is assisting the illegal migrants getting across the border.
Huh. Let's see.
Was there anybody who didn't think that the military of Mexico is working with the cartels?
Is there anybody who didn't know that?
I mean, I think it's a great service from O'Keefe Media Group, OMG. I think it's a great service that they can get that on video.
So now they have, you know, apparently, I haven't seen it, but apparently there's evidence that it's pretty obvious.
Some members of the military, some members, are helping people get across, which seems to me more compatible with the cartel, because we hear that the cartel controls the border.
And I can't imagine the military would be doing things on the border unless the cartel was aware of it and was okay with it.
So this is a case of, it's nice to have confirmation, but I think we all knew that.
I think we all knew.
Well, has anything happened since I started the show between Israel and Iran?
Did anything happen? Has Israel attacked Iran in the last 60 minutes?
All right. So if they haven't, at least in a major way, here's my take on that.
So you know that Israel has to respond to Iran because Iran sent the 200 missiles and tried to take out some Israeli military stuff, mostly, some airports and stuff.
And although there wasn't that much damage and destruction from the missiles, Israel does have to respond.
Now, here's my suspicions, guesses, slash speculation, because I don't have any secret knowledge, right?
So I'm not operating from any inside knowledge.
But The longer Israel takes to do whatever it is that's going to be the response, the bigger it's going to be.
Now, I can't say that's 100% predictive, but it seems to me that if they just wanted to say, hey, you slap me, I'm going to slap you back, they would already know where they're going to attack, and they would have already done it, because the immediacy of the response is part of the response.
Right? Responding next year isn't going to feel like you responded to anything.
It's just going to feel like you did something.
So the longer they wait, the less effective the response is.
And they would know that, you know, because it's not tied to the original offense.
But the only reason you would wait is if it takes a while to put together something bigger.
Now, what would be bigger?
I don't know. But I'll tell you what I wouldn't rule out a decapitation strike.
I wouldn't rule out that Israel will just take out the leadership and just walk away.
Just walk away and say, now we're even.
Because here's the thing.
The leadership of Iran funded Hamas.
Hamas went into Israel and just slaughtered people.
They have a right to kill the leadership.
They have absolutely a right to kill the leadership.
Now, of course, Hamas and a lot of Palestinians would say that they have a right to kill Israel's leadership for, you know, XYZ. And I won't argue that point.
Everybody thinks they have a right to kill the leader of whoever's on the other team.
But I've never seen as much evidence that taking out the leadership makes sense as it does right now.
Because now we've seen that Trump took out Soleimani, and although they may have tried to kill him in return, they didn't.
And we've seen that Israel took out the heads of Hezbollah twice.
Got away with it so far.
You know that they're going to get rid of the head of Hamas one way or another, no matter how long it takes.
So they're certainly in a mode of thinking that taking out leadership works and that taking out leadership will not have a giant reverberation later.
Now, Iran would be a whole different level, but the thing is that there's one thing that I feel very confident about.
There's no American Or really anybody who wants a war with Iran.
I'm also confident that there's no citizen of Iran and probably nobody in the government who wants a war with Israel and a war with the United States.
So I think that we're in this weird situation where all the countries involved really, really, really don't want a war.
Like seriously, seriously don't want a war.
Like have never not wanted a war more than they don't want this war.
You know what that means? You got a free pass to take out their leaders.
If the citizens of Iran were screaming for war, I wouldn't take out the leader because then they just get another leader who's another badass and he's got a mandate from the public.
But I'm not even so sure that the Iranian public would rise up.
Typically, if your country gets attacked, you're going to say, I don't like my leaders, but today I do.
I don't know. It could be that especially the young people in Iran are saying, I wouldn't have done it that way.
I hate that my country got attacked.
Civilians got killed too.
It's a tragedy. But on the other hand, on the other hand, Might make something better in the long run.
So, I'm not going to predict that Israel will take out the leadership, because I'm not sure they have a clean shot.
They might. But I think it's at least 50% likely.
I'm going to go 50%.
The other 50% would just be, they're just negotiating what they attack, and there's some conversation, and some people want to attack the nuclear assets, and some don't.
So it could be that.
But I've just got a feeling that the longer they wait, it's because it's something bigger.
And it could be just bigger in terms of the impact it has, not bigger in terms of the exploity ability.
Anyway, we'll see what happens there.
So we wish the best to the residents of North Carolina and all the affected places in Florida today.
Hope all of you find a way to get out.
We may have, I'm not sure, but one of the local members got flooded and one of the other local members who's in a part of Florida that did not get flooded has already offered to make some room.
So if you have the ability to help somebody out in Florida, please do that.
I received my California voting ballot yesterday in the mail.
So I'm ready to vote.
And I would like to make the following suggestion.
Help me with the timing.
I want to vote on live stream.
So I want to vote on live stream so that you can vote at the same time.
So I'd like the people watching to literally get out their ballots and then I will fill out mine.
You know, it's different than yours, different state.
But we'll just fill them out at the same time and just mail them at the same time.
I would love if all these many right-leaning podcasters that I mentioned earlier would do it at the same time.
So wouldn't you love that all of your favorite podcasters went live at the same time and every one of them was filling out a ballot?
While you fill down your ballot, you do it at the same time.
And we make it special.
You know, we make it something everybody's in on.
Now, I don't know if that would make, you know, a greater number of people vote.
Maybe. But I think making it social could be a real smart play.
Voting by its nature is an individual act.
And not everybody is motivated by their individual need to vote.
But people are very motivated by any social situation.
We're just wired that way.
So if you made voting from an individual act to a social act, even if the social part is everybody's online doing it at the same time, I feel like that would increase your number of votes.
Maybe not a lot.
Maybe 1%.
But we're in a 1% race.
So I want to pick a day.
I'm trying to figure out the best day.
Would the best day be exactly two weeks before the election?
Because you want to make sure that the post office delivers, right?
One week feels like it's dicey.
I mean, it would be legal.
You could vote one week before.
But, you know, if there's a hurricane or something, the mail is late.
So how about two weeks before election day?
So that would be a Tuesday.
I don't know what date it was. But I'm just going to float that idea for a day.
I want to see if there's any interest.
So if any other podcasters have an interest, just drop a post on X. Tag me on it so I know you're interested.
And so the target date, unless I get talked out of it, the target date would be two weeks before Election Day.
It would be a Tuesday. And we'll just all go live at the same time.
And let's pick a time.
Let's say 9 p.m.
Eastern Time. So you can get to 6 p.m.
on the West Coast. And we'll just sit down.
We'll fill out our ballots.
And we'll drop them in the mail.
So that's my plan.
All right. So, locals, I'm going to stay with you.
The rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow.
Thanks for joining. And we're going to locals privately if you're on X or Rumble or YouTube.
