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, Elon Musk, Tesla Event, Optimus Robots, Tesla Cybercab Robotaxi, Walz Woo Male Voters, Politico, Trust Doctors Hospitals, JD Vance Chair Response, Election Polls Shift, Adam Townsend, Overseas Ballots, Kamala Town Hall, The Atlantic, Charlie Warzel, Free Speech, LA Anti-Hate Art Exhibit, Barak Obama, Migrant Favorable Treatment, Jaime Raskin, Trump Energy Plan, Judge Chutkan Election Interference, Polymarket Election Expectations, Democrat Polling Finger-Pointing, Brainwashing's Power, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Religion-Based Terrorism, Palestinian Grievances, Israel Self-Defense Policy, 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
Experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, Sir Stein, 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.
It's a dope being at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go. The technology is working.
The coffee is delicious.
You're all streaming in for the best time of the day.
Well, I think things are going well.
Let's talk. Well, last night I stayed up and with my livestream audience at Locals, we waited for and then watched the big Tesla announcement.
And it was really impressive, I've got to say.
It was really impressive.
So the new things that we saw, not all new, new, but we saw the robots, we saw the cybercab and something he calls a roboven because he didn't want to call it a robovan.
So they're working on a little bus, an electric bus that looks futuristic.
But we won't see that for a few years.
The robots, I think, will be manufactured pretty soon next year.
And the cyber cabs that would be autonomous.
No driver, no driver.
It doesn't even have a steering wheel.
Those will be available in 26, I think.
So anyway, here's what you missed.
So they rented some kind of movie set that looked like a city.
I think it's one that the studios use.
And they used that as sort of a virtual city.
And then they had a whole bunch of autonomous Tesla cabs.
That we're going to give every single person who attended a ride.
So people lined up and then the cabs took them on rides around the fake city just as if it were a real city.
Now apparently the technology looks like it works.
So the only thing they have to do is actually build the things.
I don't know exactly what the legal Environment is.
They might need some kind of approvals before it goes live.
But the look of the vehicle is better than anything Tesla's ever made.
Way better design than any of the cars.
Way better design than the Cybertruck.
And the van also looked pretty impressive.
Pretty impressive. One of the things that's weird about the CyberCab is that I think it doesn't have a back window, but it doesn't matter because there's no humans involved in driving.
So I assume there's just a camera in the back and a camera on all sides, and it's a robot, so it doesn't need a window.
So that's weird. But the design is fantastic.
It's the best design I've seen so far in a Tesla.
All right. Here's what else we learned.
So, what is the most baller way you could introduce your new robot?
Let me tell you what I expected.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, at long last, we're going to give you a demonstration of the Tesla robot, and then there would be a robot on stage.
This is how I imagined it.
It's not how it happened.
This is how I imagined it.
And then the robot would do something that's difficult.
Like it would iron a shirt.
Or it would make you a sandwich.
You know, things that would be hard for a robot to do.
And then everybody would clap.
And then you would wonder if that robot could really do that.
But instead, several robots, I don't know how many, maybe 20 or something, the door opens and there's a big crowd listening to Elon present.
The door opens and a bunch of robots just sort of walk in.
They just walk in.
And Elon says that, you know, after he's done with his presentation, which was almost done, that the robots would just be mingling.
They would be mingling.
And that one of the robots would be making drinks.
Now, I saw that the robot making drinks had some kind of a human assist.
So I think there was maybe a human remotely who was making sure it could do what it needed to do.
So the bartender wasn't full robotic.
I imagine it could be soon, but it wasn't.
But just imagine that he's so confident in the robots That he lets them just wander in and work the crowd.
So you could just talk to one and just hang out with the robot.
I can't even imagine a more mind-blowing presentation than to not have the robot on the stage.
I mean, that was just killer.
Whoever came up with that idea, that was sort of next-level marketing.
We're not even going to show you the robot.
The robot's just going to be doing people things.
Yeah, the people will talk about it later, but the robots just give you wandering around, talking to people, doing people things.
That's our presentation.
So that was impressive as hell.
We'll see what people say when they actually talk to it.
Apparently, there's also a demonstration of one of the robot hands.
And I'm going to do an impression that you can't see if you're listening just on audio.
But the hands, you know how hands used to be sort of, you know, they were just like little claws.
They could go up and down. And then I had, I guess I got to 11 degrees of separation.
So the hand could do, you know, some things that look like a row by hand, but it had more flexibility.
Apparently they've got, I don't know, a whole bunch of degrees of separation now or of movement.
So the hand does everything my hand is doing.
So there's nothing my hand is doing that the robot couldn't do that would look exactly the same, exactly the same as my human hand doing anything that I wanted to do.
Now that's, I wasn't sure they were going to get there.
Now the question that you're all asking, and I asked on X is, are they ever going to make the palm a little bit softer?
Shut up! You were thinking it.
You were thinking it.
You were thinking it, you disgusting bastards.
Yeah, you were all thinking if that robot hand gets a little bit better, it just needs to be a little softer.
And that's the end of human reproduction forever.
So there's that.
So Robert Scoble was at the event and he said he met an Apple employee at the Tesla launch there.
And he said that the Apple employee told him that Apple killed its own plans for an autonomous car after it found out what Tesla was building.
So Apple just said, ah, we're out.
Now, why would Apple...
Being such a capable company, not think it could compete with Tesla.
Well, number one, Tesla has all these zillions of miles of cars that have collected all this video knowledge, so Tesla can train it because it has training experience from other cars, but nobody else has that.
The other thing that's way bigger than all of that is that Elon Musk seems to be the only person who knows how to manufacture.
Apple doesn't know how to manufacture anything in America.
And if you make your robots in China, you've got some explaining to do.
But if Tesla makes their robots and their auto cars and everything in America, people are going to be a lot more comfortable with it.
So I think that Apple is showing a weakness in that if they can't build it somewhere else in another country, I don't know if they can build anything.
But Tesla has shown it can build anything, anywhere.
I mean, that's not even the same business, practically.
I don't know how, in the long run, it seems like Apple's got a lot of challenges.
So, after all these amazing, amazing things that came out about Tesla, and at least two of the markets it introduced are trillion-dollar markets.
So the robots will probably be a trillion-dollar business, maybe multiple trillions, and the cybercabs could be another trillion dollars.
So what happens when a company that definitely can deliver says it's going to do things that would make the company worth 10 times as much as it is now?
Stock down 9%.
The stock's down.
Now, I assume some of this is because smart analysts are saying things like, oh, we thought it would come a year earlier, or we thought it would, I don't know, look different or something.
But I have no idea why the stock is down when they just introduced a really solid plan to be the biggest company of all time, changing the world.
We'll see. Also, speaking of Elon Musk, he said that Joe Rogan is definitely going to interview Trump before the election.
How big an audience is that going to be?
So, it's kind of funny it hasn't happened, but Joe Rogan and Trump make sense, and I guess we'll see it before the election.
Oh my God, that would be such a viewing experience.
I can't wait. Politico, It says that Tim Walsh is going to launch a media blitz to, and I quote Politico, woo male voters.
So Tim Walsh is going to woo male voters.
Can I give some advice?
I'd like to give some advice to the Democrats.
It's advice about male human beings.
You know what doesn't work for men?
Wooing. We're not really big on the wooing.
Sometimes we do some wooing, but we're not really big on getting wooed.
When somebody says to me, Scott, what's your love language?
You know what I never say?
Getting wooed. Oh man, if somebody woos me, male or female, I don't care who it is, if they woo me, Well, I just melt like ice cream on the sidewalk of something warm.
Yeah. No, Democrats, let me give you some advice.
The wooing is the wrong vibe.
If you want men, there is one absolutely guaranteed surefire way to get men to follow.
You have to be a leader.
Boom. Men follow leaders.
And do you know what happens if there's no leader?
We become one.
Men have two modes.
Follow and lead. Mostly.
I mean, there are some situations where we'll sort of partner equally.
But generally speaking, if you're a man, you want some kind of order.
And you'll take the order if someone else is in charge, if they're good at it.
They have to be good at it.
And if somebody is not good at being in charge, you will kill them and take their spot.
It's just biological.
You either lead me or I'm going to kill you.
I mean, I'm speaking a little bit hyperbolically, not necessarily kill, but replace.
So the only thing that the Democrats can do to increase the number of voters would be to be good leaders.
Apparently that's off the table.
They got to woo. A woo-woo.
Now, here's my second advice to Politico.
You know, you think Politico maybe is a little bit left-leaning.
I don't know. But the photo that somebody chose to go with the headline Waltz to do a media blitz to woo male voters is the gayest photo you've ever seen of Waltz.
Now, I'm not saying he's gay.
I'm saying that if you saw that photo, you'd think so.
So how can you take a heterosexual man and find the one photo that makes him look gay as hell and then I'll do the impression.
Here's what a straight man looks like when he's waving to the crowd, okay?
Straight man waving to the crowd.
That's straight man waves to the crowd.
Now, I'd like to do Tim Walz waving to the crowd.
Now, I can't quite pull off the full look.
But the body language is the least masculine thing you've ever seen in your life.
Not necessarily gay, but let's say the masculinity is not pouring out of his pores.
So that's pretty hilarious, and everybody who was commenting at it had photos of popcorn, because they think that nothing could be possibly more entertaining than watching Tim Walsh try to act like a heterosexual male.
Anyway, I don't know anything about his sexuality.
I just know that his body language is not compatible with his stated sexual preference, which is, there's no way you can ignore it.
I'm not going to ignore that, right?
So I'm not making any accusations.
And by the way, you know that I don't judge.
So I wouldn't care if he's gay.
If he were gay and said, I'm gay and I'm running for vice president, I'd never even bring it up.
I'd be like, okay, moving on.
So it has nothing to do with his sexual preference.
It has only to do with the difference between what he says he is and the way he presents.
That's the only thing that's worth noting.
Anyway, according to Rasmussen, Vance is ahead of Walsh in favorability.
So now that the debate has happened, people have seen both of them a little bit.
50% of likely voters think they have a favorable view of Vance, and only 42% view Walsh favorably.
Does that surprise you?
After you saw the debate, are you surprised that there's a substantial difference in preference?
Nope. No.
There should not be any surprise there at all.
Well, according to a study, trust in doctors and hospitals is way down because of the pandemic.
It's way down in every demographic group, and it's both doctors and hospitals.
The trust is way down. So it went from 72% having trust in their doctors and hospitals in 2020 all the way down to 40%.
It went from 72% to 40% trust in doctors and hospitals.
Now, let me ask you this.
How many of you have had this conversation with your doctor lately?
Because I have. Blah, blah, blah, this is what would be a good idea for you.
Me. I don't really trust the medical process anymore.
That's something I actually said to my doctor.
I said, nothing personal, but I don't trust anything about the medical process anymore.
Now, what I meant was that the doctor worked for Kaiser, you know, big healthcare HMO situation, and anybody who's been with any big organization knows that the doctor would be constrained by what the larger organization he works for allows him to say and also allows him to recommend.
And given that I'm not necessarily wanting to be limited ever by what he's allowed to say and by what he's allowed to recommend, I just wanted to put down a stake and say, I don't trust the system.
I trust probably you, but I don't trust that you can operate freely within the system.
So I'm not going to necessarily take medical recommendations on face value.
I'm going to do a whole bunch of research and I'm going to make my own decision.
So that's the speech I give to doctors now.
I just wonder if any of you are doing the same.
Because it just doesn't feel like just take what they recommend.
It just doesn't feel like that's the right thing to do anymore.
You got to get a lot of opinions before you feel like you know anything about anything.
Anyway, in related news, Science Daily says that there's a new extra-sensitive robot finger that is so sensitive it can take a patient's pulse and check for lumps.
So the finger can, like, I guess just put a finger on some part of your body and check your pulse, and it can check for lumps.
I, for one, cannot wait to get fingered by my robot doctor.
I don't know if you saw a video of JD Vance at an event and there was a very, very large woman that they placed on the stage behind him so you know how politicians always look like to have a diverse set of supporters who are behind them on the stage so that when you're looking you could see oh people of all color and types and genders they they like this candidate so they had one very large woman Of the diverse demographic.
And the diverse woman who weighed something like 400 pounds crushed her chair while JD was...
She crushed her chair.
She was just sitting there.
And all of a sudden, she crushed it.
So, JD, being quick on his feet, you know, he immediately stopped what he was doing because he thought somebody was in trouble, and so he leapt to his feet to see what he could do.
Now, the first thing you like about that is that something dangerous happened and you heard somebody, you know, scream out, and JD was immediately on his feet and facing the problem.
Like, that feels like military training.
Right? You could easily imagine that if there's a loud scream behind you in the context of people being, you know, attempted to be assassinated on his very team, that the first thing you do is hit the ground.
Or that you would, like, look to get away from it or something.
He turned immediately toward it.
And it was behind him.
So just seeing the first instinct of Trump, which was to get up and yell, fight, fight, fight, it's just so revealing.
And then you see the first instinct of Vance, when there was trouble, is to go toward it.
He went toward it. So I love that.
Who knows if it's, you know, really revealing his inner character or something, but this is somebody who joined the military, you know, the Marines.
That certainly suggests that he's a person who can run toward trouble.
But one thing I know is if RFK Jr.
doesn't get elected, there's going to be a lot more broken chairs, because our food supply is completely botched.
And I don't even blame the people who were way overweight, as this particular woman was, because I think our food system is so broken that some percentage of Americans just don't have a chance.
I mean, they don't have access to whole foods and maybe not the same knowledge of what the food is doing to them.
So yeah, our food is really dangerous to at least half of Americans who haven't figured out a way around it.
And the other half are probably in trouble too.
But Vance was smart and he cleverly blamed Kamala Harris for building the platform.
So instead of blaming the person who was too heavy for a regular chair, he blamed the platform, not the chair, and he blamed it on Harris, which in the context of a political campaign, Got a real good laugh, but it was smart that he put the attention on Harris instead of the individual.
Nicely done. By the way, just to be clear, I don't do fat shaming.
But the story is that an American ate American food until a chair broke.
So my focus here is on the food supply and the fact that we are not a healthy country.
That's where I'm looking.
You may have noticed that the polls seem to have dramatically shifted in Trump's favor.
Right on time. How many of you are convinced that in the middle of October, you have known for at least a year that no matter what the polls said until then, they would start to shift toward Trump toward the end?
Now, maybe not a shift toward him so that you'll see the as a commanding lead by Election Day, but he doesn't need one.
You know why? Do you know what it means if Trump is up by one or two nationally?
That's a landslide.
If a Republican is up by one or even tied in the national vote, that's a strong indication of a landslide in the Electoral College.
So in order for...
I think Trump beat Hillary when Hillary had a pretty solid lead in the overall vote.
So here's what is really jumping out at me.
You've noticed that Kamala Harris keeps saying that she has a problem with men and that the male vote is just really obviously different than the female vote.
Let me ask you this question.
If I said to you, I want you to choose the gender that is more likely to lie to a pollster when they call your house, who's it going to be?
The man or the woman?
The Republican man or the Republican woman?
Who's going to lie to the pollster?
It's the man. We do that.
It's who we are. If we think we can get a strategic advantage by lying to a pollster, oh, we'll definitely do it without any reservation whatsoever, right?
It won't even feel like lying.
It'll just feel like strategy.
And the Democrats have all figured out by now that the so-called shy Trump supporter is not hypothetical.
Do you remember in the first election, so before the election of 2016, I was very loudly and publicly saying that there was a shy Trump contingent and they were going to surprise at the end.
And there was, and they did.
And it took a while, but eventually the media agreed, yeah, there really were a lot of Trump supporters who were hidden.
Now in 2020, even though Trump lost, they found the same thing.
So in other words, even though he lost, the polls were way off in terms of his male support.
So, right now the polls show that Trump is slightly ahead in, I think, six of the seven swing states.
And slightly ahead in the national polls.
Do you know what that means when you add the shy Trump supporters?
If he's already ahead in all of the metrics that matter, he's never been there before.
Trump has never been leading in the polls, and on top of it, shy Trump supporters.
We've never been here before.
So You're looking at a total collapse of the Harris campaign.
The next week, you're going to see collapse.
The pollsters will start being a little more honest in the reporting.
Some of the ones who haven't weighed in will have to.
You will see that the older polls start dropping off the averages, right?
They'll focus on the newer ones.
And there will be a dominant position that Trump will have before the shy Trump voters.
If he's ahead on everything that matters, and he will be, and they haven't even counted the shy Trump supporters, he's got it in the bag.
But that doesn't mean he's going to win.
Doesn't mean that at all.
Let me tell you what Adam Townsend said.
So Adam Townsend, you should follow him on X if you're not.
He posted, there's a 100% chance the Democrats will use overseas ballots and other tactics to steal an election.
Do you agree with that?
Do you agree that the odds are 100% and we even know how they're going to do it?
The overseas ballots would be the biggest part, probably.
So do you agree with the estimate of 100% odds of cheating?
I do. How many things are 100%?
You know that I love to talk in percentages?
I don't use 100% very often.
Would you agree? If you've been watching me for years, how often do I say there's 100% something will happen?
Not often. Like even when I'm really, really sure, I try to keep it to 99 or 95.
Adam Townsend, one of the smartest guys you'll ever know, says 100% chance they're going to try to cheat with overseas ballots.
I agree. It's 100%.
I don't know how there could be any other possibility, really.
And he asks...
And then he points out further that they clearly plan to exhaust all Republican and public efforts to challenge them, run out the clock with favorable press, and call anybody dissenting a neo-Nazi, etc.
Again, 100%.
100% that's going to happen.
100%. And he asked, what's the RNC plan to counter it and mobilize mass street protests?
Of course, we're not going to. And he mocks the Republicans for being so proud that Scott Pressler is registering lots of Republicans, which he is.
He's doing an amazing job. But is that going to be enough if the cheat is on?
No. It won't be enough.
So, he says two words that are the most important two words you need to know about what's going to happen on Election Day and the few days after that.
Two words. Now what?
Now what? I don't know.
The wild card is whether there's anything that the Republicans are doing, Laura Trump and all of her attorneys and watchers, is there anything they're doing that could detect this at a scale where the courts would say, oh, okay, wow, this is so bad, we have to put a stop to this.
Maybe. But since we don't know exactly the nature of the cheating and all the places it could be caught, is it even possible?
If a million votes came in from overseas that were a million more than we expected, and they didn't have proper anything on them, would it matter?
Would the watchers be able to look at the overseas votes and say, oh, these don't look good to us?
And even if they didn't look good, don't they get counted anyway?
And if they get counted anyway, then you have an election result, and they would call Kamala Harris as the winner.
When have we ever had somebody called the winner and have it reversed?
In American history, that's never happened, right?
Nobody's ever been declared the winner on Election Day, and then, oh, we did a little more checking, we reversed it.
I don't think we have reversible elections.
I think whoever is called the winner on Election Day is simply going to take the job.
I think that's where we're at.
And it's because we don't have a system that can correct it within the short period of time and with the tools that are available to the courts.
We don't have any tools to correct it.
I don't think. Unless, again, unless the RNC with, you know, Watley and Trump have done such a good job that they can look behind, you know, they can look around corners and they can see in the darkness where nobody else can see.
I don't know how you do it.
I mean, I don't know how there's any practical way you could catch the cheating in time that anything useful could be done about it.
But we'll see.
So what now, I think, is the big question.
I don't think Republicans are going to take to the street, because January 6th was such a chilling thing, you could see that the Gestapo will round you up and put you in jail.
So, I don't know.
I really don't know what's going to happen.
I've told you the whole time that when I try to imagine the future after the election, I don't see anything.
And I've never had that before.
It's just like a black box.
Now, I have complete confidence that Trump will get the most natural votes.
That I have confidence in.
But who actually takes the job?
No idea. No idea.
Kamala Harris was talking to a Hispanic crowd at Univision.
And she says very clearly that she's trying real hard to get a pathway to citizenship for all the people in this country, which means voting.
So as others have said, you're saying it directly and out loud.
She doesn't say that this is the point of it, but you can sort of assume this, that the point of the migration was just to help Democrats win elections and hold power, and that none of what they said was true except that.
That's what it looked like.
She was asked about grocery prices.
And she said she was born in the middle class and she would never forget it and she wants an opportunity economy.
All right, let's be honest. She is a moron.
And we've never had a moron run for president, have we?
Like an actual moron.
She is a dumb person.
Like, Trump calls her out for a low IQ, and of course, you know, somebody's going to say it's sexist or racist.
But the fact is, you can just observe that she is not a high IQ individual.
She's dumb. She's dumb.
And it surprised me.
Because, you know, years ago when I would see her operate, you know, at these hearings and stuff, when she was a senator, I thought she was a pretty good operator.
But she's super dumb.
Like, actually just dumb.
Well, The Atlantic, that's a publication, sort of, Charlie Warzel writes that free speech was and is an unmitigated disaster and we need to really aggressively get some aggressive government regulations on the speech platforms because the free market doesn't work and it never will in terms of free speech.
So there is a Democratic message that they'd like to end free speech and they'd like to bring in illegal aliens to take your jobs and vote your money away.
And the Democrats are saying it pretty directly.
It's pretty direct. They want to take your free speech, they want to take your guns, and they want to make sure that your vote doesn't count because they'll bring in lots of illegals and it also gives them an ability to create their own illegal votes.
So they're saying it directly.
You can't say that they didn't warn you.
They did. They're warning you plenty.
They're saying exactly what they bled to do.
Anyway, according to Zero Hedge, there's what's called an anti-hate art exhibit in LA. So if you were going to do an anti-hate art exhibit, what would be some things that would be included?
Well, you probably have a long list of things you would include if you were doing an anti-hate art exhibit.
But this particular anti-hate art exhibit includes a A head of Donald Trump that is either rubber or something that you can kick around.
So they had a game that involved using Donald Trump's head as a soccer ball.
This is for the anti-hate art exhibit.
So the anti-hate people We're teaching people to hate white people, and Trump in particular, at the anti-hate art exhibit.
Now, have I ever mentioned that Tucker Carlson was completely right, even though I mocked him for years, when he said that the Democrats will accuse you of doing exactly what they're doing right in front of you while they're accusing you?
And I said to myself, that's stupid.
They're not going to be doing exactly the thing that they're accusing you of.
I mean, how stupid would that be?
You couldn't accuse people of hate while running a...
Oh.
Okay. Yeah, the art exhibit is accusing people of doing exactly what they're doing.
But thank God nobody else is doing that.
Thank God. Next story, Obama is blaming black men for being too sexist and not supporting Kamala Harris.
Oh, he talked to at some college and he said, quote, the brothers are not turning out for Kamala Harris like they did for him, and he thinks it might be because they're not comfortable with a woman as president.
Yeah, he actually decided to be a racist against black people.
What is it that the Democrats accuse the Republicans of?
Oh, yeah. It's being racist against black people.
So Obama tells some black men that they're bigots against women and that that's why they won't have nice things.
Oh, my God.
Tucker Carlson was so right.
So now they're turning on each other.
But they're keeping it racist and sexist.
So it's racist and sexist.
And, you know, Trump's never mentioned anything along those lines at all.
All right. And then Obama, of course, was taking credit for the economy.
Here's my take.
I think that immigration ruined the Democrats' narrative that our country was a competition between black and white people.
Now, a competition between white people and everybody else, too, but it felt like the major focus was that the world was black against white in the United States.
And then the border opened, and a bunch of people who were neither black nor white in the traditional way are coming across the border and getting lots of resources that black people say, hey, we can really use those resources.
And so the whole black versus white model just fell apart because it was never real.
It was never real.
And now it's just obvious because, you know, that money is involved, you know, huge transfers of money away from either white or black Americans and toward the migrant group.
And so what do people say when they have a common enemy?
Well, you're my friend now.
So there is a common enemy, and I don't mean the migrants.
I mean the system that would allow some favorable treatment to some group that's not already here.
So the problem is the system, not the people.
I like to make that distinction in all things.
It's the system, it's not the people.
All right. Jamie Raskin.
Who is one of the people who is really big on Trump being an insurrectionist and January 6th was terrible and who could ever challenge an election and who would ever interfere with an election and the will of the people.
And somebody finally asked him if he would certify a Trump win even if it didn't look like it was a fair election.
And you know what he said?
I'm paraphrasing, by the way.
Just paraphrasing. He said something to the effect of, you know, if it looked like a good election, then of course he would certify him.
Oh, rascal, you rascal.
You know what your next question is going to be?
What if it doesn't look like an historically typical election and Trump wins?
And notice my careful wording.
It doesn't look like the same patterns we've ever seen in the past.
And then Trump wins.
Would you certify his election, Jamie Raskin, if the voting pattern you saw did not match what you expected or what a normal election normally looks like?
What's he going to say?
Well, he's going to say No.
He's gonna say if the election doesn't look fair, we're gonna have to look into it before we certify it.
What does that sound like?
That's January 6th.
This is the kill shot.
And by the way, the fact that it took this fucking long to find that kill shot that I've been telling you about for I don't know how long is really, really disappointing me about the Republicans.
Get this fucking guy on camera And all the other fucking January 6th people.
And you ask this question.
If Trump wins and the election does not look like it was copacetic to you, will you certify him anyway?
You motherfuckers!
You motherfucking cunts!
Will you certify him if it doesn't look like a good election to you?
Because that's what 2020 looked like to a lot of people.
Didn't look fair. So you tell me, you fucking assholes.
You fucking assholes.
You tell me. You get it certified if it looks wrong to you?
Get on video.
Fucking assholes.
That's your kill shot.
That's your kill shot.
Meanwhile, Trump...
Giving a speech on energy.
He says he'll cut the energy costs and electricity in half within 12 months.
He'll expedite environmental approvals, double our electricity capacity, drive down inflation, make America and Michigan the best place on Earth to build a factory.
Well, that sounds a little hyperbolic.
But I don't mind at all.
I don't mind at all.
Do you think he's going to get energy prices cut in half in 12 months?
No. I don't think so.
Do you think he'll do everything that would be a smarter thing to do if you wanted to lower energy prices?
Yes. Uh-huh.
Yep. I think he'll do that.
Right. That's what I'm asking for.
Am I asking specifically to cut electricity and energy in half in 12 months?
No. It'd be great if he could do it, but I don't think he can do it.
I don't think anybody can do anything in 12 months.
But is he going to do everything that a leader should do and all the things that Harris is not doing?
Yes! Yes, he is.
And we know that because we know exactly what he likes to do and we know it works.
So yes, I don't mind one bit if he is exaggerating what he can do in 12 months.
That's the president I want.
You know what I don't want?
Oh, I think I could take it down 10% in four years if I work really hard.
No! No!
Tell me you can do better than that.
Tell me you can do 30%.
Nope, not good enough.
Tell me you can bring it down 50 fucking percent.
I don't believe it, but I love that you said it.
I love that you said it, even though I don't believe it.
That's fine. I want my leaders to think big.
I want them to reach as far as they can reach, fight as hard as they can fight, do everything they can do, and over-claim.
Go ahead, over-claim.
I'm good with that. Because maybe it'll help us, you know, perform a little better.
It's not unusual in leadership and motivation to over-claim.
Which one's a leader?
Trump. Trump.
I told you that men don't need to be wooed.
We need a leader.
You're going to do what? You're going to cut my electricity in half and you tell me how you're going to do it with expedited environmental approvals and basically lower regulations and...
Oh, OK. That's leadership.
I'm in. I'm in.
Yeah. And if you didn't do this, if you didn't do this, then I'm your leader because I'm not going to be leaderless.
Either be the leader or I'm going to be the leader.
And don't fucking woo me.
I don't need to be wooed.
I need a leader. It's either somebody else or me.
And every man is saying the same thing.
All right? I like a leader so I could just do my own life.
But if you can't give me a leader, I'm going to have to fucking do it because we're biologically built that way, that we won't be leaderless.
We just won't do it.
Trump's a leader. That's what it looks like.
That's perfect leadership.
Exactly what he's going to do.
Exactly the right priorities.
Will it be 50% in 12 months?
I doubt it. But I love that he says it.
I love that he says it.
Meanwhile, Judge Chuck Kahn is an Obama...
She is an Obama appointed judge.
And she's going to unseal Jack Smith's quote evidence against Trump Before the election.
Now, you might know that there's a very long history of the courts and the FBI and everybody wanting to not interfere with an election.
But it's not a law.
There's no law that says you can't do it.
It's just people who want what's best for the country Know that you don't want to ruin the electoral process by throwing some legal stuff in there or some FBI and stuff in there, and that that's just not good for the country.
However, Judge Chukin apparently doesn't give a fuck what's good for the country, only what's good for her team, and she's going to unseal that Evanston October surprise.
But here's the joke on them.
Nobody's going to believe the October surprise.
Nobody really cares about the details of this thing, and there's probably nothing in there that's especially damning anyway.
So I'm not sure it'll make any difference, but they can write anything in there, and there won't be time to legally dispute it.
So just the fact that people will have heard the accusations It's so slimy, so dirty, so obviously interfering with an election in a way that should be illegal.
And this is one of those weird cases where I'm absolutely positive that the judge should be in jail for this, and I'm absolutely positive that Trump should not be guilty of anything, based on what I've seen.
So how often have you seen a case where you're pretty sure the judge should be locked up immediately and that the defendant should be set free?
I've never seen one.
I've never even heard of that.
I mean, I've seen bad judges, but usually the defendant is guilty too.
I've never seen the case where the judge should obviously go to jail.
I mean, just obviously. There's no crime that I'm aware of, but the badness with which she's acting is on a level that you should think, oh, somebody acting that poorly and that antisocially, you wish they're in jail.
But there's no law against it as far as I know.
All right. The betting markets are out of whack with the polling at the moment, quite out of whack, because the polling says it'll be close, but the betting market says no way.
Trump's up 13 points on the betting markets, and that happened fairly recently.
So it's a little bit closer, and then bam, big difference.
Why do you think there's a big difference suddenly?
Go. In the comments, I want you to give me your opinion of why it has suddenly changed, and then I'll tell you the correct answer.
The correct answer is that people have different information.
When people had all the same information about the candidates and the polling, the betting markets and the polling weren't too far off.
But that's not the case now.
The people who have access to the internal polling who see that Trump has a dominant position.
The people who only have access to the public polling still think it's close.
So whenever you have this situation, which is an unusual one, it's unusual that there would be some subset of betters who would have way better information than the other subset of betters.
When you've got some bettors who know the real answer and some bettors don't, boop!
You're going to see that jump.
So what you're seeing is that the people who have access to the internal polling are betting strong on Trump because they know he's way ahead.
The people who have only access to the public polling are still saying, well, Democrats have a good ground game, so I think Kamala's going to pull it out.
So I think the entire thing is that the insiders now have special knowledge about the extent of the difference.
I believe the Harris campaign is now the beginning of what will be a complete collapse in the next week.
Within the next week, all the polls will true up because it's the middle of the month and it's too close to the election to let it go on any further.
So that's when complete collapse happens.
And you're going to see a level of finger pointing by the Democrats.
I think the Democrats will fairly quickly abandon the normal rhetoric And start pointing fingers at each other so that the important thing is they know who was responsible for the loss that's coming.
Now, at the same time that those Democrats are thinking, oh damn, we lost, I also think, I agree with Adam Townsend, that there's some other group of just criminals, just pure criminals, that are not working with the leadership.
It's like the, you know, the Democrat leadership Maybe one of them is.
But in general, they're not having conversations with anybody who's planning to throw the election.
So if you didn't have any direct contact with anybody on your team who was literally planning to throw the election, and the only polling you saw looked terrible for your candidate, you would start pointing fingers because you think, oh, shoot, we're going to lose this.
The only thing I can get out of this is try to not have my reputation go down.
So people are going to point at Kamala Harris' campaign.
They're going to point at Biden.
They're going to point at Obama.
Obama's going to point at black men.
Women are going to blame men.
Pollsters are going to be blamed.
So next week, oh, it's going to be fun.
Total collapse, followed by the finger pointing.
But we still don't know who's going to win, because Adam Townsend has the right take on this.
The votes, I don't think, are going to be the thing that determines who wins.
Anyway, do you know, there's a, I guess I have to say he's black, because that's just part of the story, Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I guess you'd call him an activist.
And he's saying some things about Israel and the Palestinians that are getting people all worked up.
So I said to myself, huh, I think I'll wade into this and cause some trouble.
No, I just thought some clarifications were in order.
Let me ask you this.
So he said something that got taken out of context, in my opinion, that he wouldn't be...
He said that he could imagine...
And I'm paraphrasing here.
He said that if he could imagine What it was like to be a Palestinian living under the conditions that the Gazans were living under, that he couldn't rule out the fact that he might have been persuaded to participate in something like an October 7th surprise as a Palestinian.
Now, most people, good people, the people who don't like terrorism and violence and the people who love Israel, Quite reasonably said, did you just say that if people were persuasive, you might become a terrorist?
Really? And how could he even say that?
How could you say that in public unless you were, you know, a little bit anti-Semitic?
Because who goes in public and says, under the right conditions, I would have been one of the Hamas terrorists?
Is that something you say in public?
Well, I'm going to surprise you and disappoint some of you.
I totally agree with them.
100%. But not because of anything about politics, not anything about Hamas or Israel or Jews or Palestinians.
My opinion has nothing to do with the people involved.
It's just that you can brainwash anybody to do anything.
Did you not know that?
You can brainwash anybody to do anything.
Always, everywhere, all through time.
That's never been different.
Do you think that the German citizens who got convinced to do horrible things, do you think that they were all born horrible people?
No. No, they had a certain set of influences.
Do you think that the Manson family, the members who were not Charles Manson, do you think every one of them was a murderous psychopath?
Not always.
Not always. They were put in a position of brainwashing and became that.
So when Ta-Nehisi Coates says that he can imagine that if he were in a certain set of circumstances, that he would have been one of the terrorists, I'm going to agree with him totally.
I could totally imagine that if I were in a certain set of circumstances where brainwashing was being deeply applied every day since I was born, absolutely.
Yeah, so I'm going to back Ta-Nehisi on this one opinion.
Again, it has nothing to do with Jews or Palestinians, has nothing to do with Israel, has nothing to do with the Palestinians, has nothing to do with Hamas.
Not even talking about that.
Just this one point.
Could any regular good human be turned into a murderous monster?
Yes. Yes.
All of us. Every one of us.
Yeah. Guaranteed.
Yeah. You just have to start from birth.
That's all it takes.
The Palestinians have been trained since birth.
So there's no mystery to it.
There's no secret technique.
There's no magic they use.
There's no like, oh, it's only because these three amazing coincidences happen.
No, this is the most ordinary thing in the world, that anybody can be turned into a psychopathic murderer.
If you don't know that, a lot of the world will be confusing to you.
So, let me be clear, I don't know what else Tom Ahisi Coates says about anything else.
I'm sure I don't agree with it all, so I'm not, you know, backing him and all of his opinions.
I'm just saying, anybody can be brainwashed to become a murderer if you have enough time and you put enough effort into it.
However, he did raise this question, and this will be something about the media landscape.
So, as carefully as I can say this, nothing that I say next will be justifying terrorism or murder.
But it might sound like that, because that's the way he got blamed on.
So I'm going to walk into the same trap he walked into, because here's why I'm doing it.
I'm doing it because I don't like the fact that he was treated the way he was for the ordinary part of his opinion.
He's got some opinions you're not going to like.
He's got some opinions I don't like.
But not this one.
And I've got to make a distinction there.
So here's another thing he said.
He described the difficulty and what would appear to be discrimination of the Palestinians compared to the Israeli citizens.
Now talking about both in Israel, but also in the West Bank.
So how many of you know the details of that?
How many of you, if I said to you, hey, can you describe what are the Palestinians even complaining about?
Like, what's going on that would make you want to behave badly?
Now, here's the important part.
I don't think that the bad treatment from, the allegedly bad treatment from Israel is why the attacks happened.
I think it supported them.
But it's not why they happened.
The why it happened had to do with the religious interpretations.
And Israel did not give the religious interpretations to the Palestinians.
They gave that to themselves.
So the reason for it is the religious interpretation.
But it is certainly supported by the population who says, yes, we have some real complaints.
How many of you, if you were asked, could describe the real complaints that the Palestinians have in their situation?
Now, again, I want to be careful.
They could be real complaints, but not necessarily Israel's fault.
And the way that would work is that Israel has a totally dangerous situation where there are too many terrorists that they can't identify within the normal public.
So they're acting in a way that you wouldn't want anybody to act unless they were trying to save their lives, which is exactly what they're trying to do.
They're trying to save their own lives, and that requires something a little less than, a lot less than, you know, full equal freedom and treating everybody the same.
But how many of you have even seen a news story in which somebody said, well, we certainly don't support any of the violence?
But it should be said that the conditions, partly, mostly it's the religious interpretation, but partly the way people are treated differently on the ground might be part of the story.
Could you do it?
I couldn't. So I went to chat GPT and I said, tell me what the Palestinian complaints are.
And it was a pretty long explanation.
It was stuff like...
Inability to travel with the same freedom as the Israelis.
Again, that's because it's dangerous.
It's not random discrimination.
The Israelis know that if you let Israelis travel wherever they want, the Israelis don't blow stuff up.
But if you let the Palestinians travel wherever they want, one of them is going to come in with a weapon.
And they don't want one person to come in with a weapon.
I don't. So that would require some differential treatment between the demographic groups, which is discriminatory.
And if it happened to you and you couldn't get where you wanted, you'd be really, really mad that the people were stopping you if you were not personally violent.
You'd be like, I didn't do anything.
You just discriminate.
What, I can't go on this road?
Are you telling me that only Israeli Jews can go on this road?
Or maybe Israeli citizens, I'm not sure.
So, it's complicated, but if you've never heard the story of what their actual legitimate citizen complaints are, then you wouldn't understand the full situation.
Now, let me go back to a point I've made in the past.
We all like to live in a world where there are rules, and people act ethically, and people act morally.
There's an exception to that.
Do you remember what the exception is?
Where you can act immorally and unethically and even illegally.
It's self-defense. If self-defense is what we're talking about, you can do anything you want.
And in my view, Israel, who is taking a self-defense, rationally, logically, obviously, common sense, they're taking a self-defense posture, and in some situations, such as determining who can freely use a road, it requires some discrimination.
Now, I'm not favoring it.
I'm just saying that if you're going to Be mad at somebody for self-defense, you're off base.
And it's the same argument about the border.
I want the border sealed tight as a gnat's ass.
But would that be discrimination against, you know, the good people who just want to be American citizens and work and add to the tax base?
Yeah. Yeah.
It would be a little, some would say, unethical or immoral to discriminate against 99 people to stop that one cartel or Venezuelan gang member to come over.
You know, you're basically treating 100 people like the one bad one that's in the batch.
I'm okay with that. No problem with that.
Nope. Is it immoral, unethical, I don't care.
Why would I care?
If it saves me from being killed, be unethical.
Be immoral. Violate your Bible, if you like.
If it keeps me from getting killed, of course.
So I'm going to apply the same standard to Israel, which is if I watch anybody doing anything that looks unethical or immoral to somebody else, but it's also clearly keeping the people safe who are doing it, I'm going to say, none of my business.
None of my business.
Because you know what else is?
None of anybody else's business is what I do to keep myself safe.
None of your business.
Nobody's business but mine.
So, same situation.
So, it's complicated, and I think it's fair if you want to understand the situation to see that there are legitimate complaints from the citizens of the Palestinian situation.
But, in my opinion, the source of their complaints is their own people.
If the Palestinians rooted out the terrorists within their ranks, taught their children not to be dangerous in these situations, then eventually they would solve their own problem and Israel would say, huh, nobody's attacked us like a terrorist in 10 years.
Why do we have these roadblocks?
It's not helping anybody. So they get rid of the roadblocks.
So the Palestinians have a lot of control Over their situation.
But it's going to look like Israel's the bad guy because they're the ones putting the force down.
But self-defense.
There's no argument against self-defense that makes any sense.
So that's the situation.
I hope I nuanced that enough so I don't get double canceled by the end of the day.
And ladies and gentlemen, I think I've said enough for today.
Too much, maybe. I'm going to talk to the subscribers on Locals privately, so the rest of you who are on X and Rumble and YouTube, I'll see you later.
You can see over my shoulder.
No, that shoulder.
The 2025 Dilbert Calendar, now for sale at Dilbert.com.
It's the only place you can find the link to buy it.
It's not on Amazon, and it won't be.
It's not in bookstores, and it won't be.
It's only in one place.
Online at the link at Dilbert.com.
It's right at the top. You'll find it.
And then I've reintroduced my book, Win Bigly, that you see behind me.
This is the second edition.
So if you're trying to understand persuasion, you can learn persuasion to use it yourself by listening to the story about Trump and 2016.
A little bit of updates in the book, but mostly about the prior election.
And you can see all the tricks of persuasion.
And you can learn them for yourself.
A lot of people say it changes their life.
Once you learn how persuasion works, you're just better at everything.
