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, UAP Conspiracy Theories, Tesla Robots Event, Tax Deductible Car Loans, Pharma Influenced Research, Voter ID, MSNBC Election Priming, Obama Backlash, Black Trump Supporters, Virginia Voter Roll Cleanup, Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, JD Vance NYT Interview, Men For Harris Ads, Kamala Health Records, Swing State Polling, Axios Spin, Mark Milley, Emergency Prep, 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
There we go. Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I'm pretty confident that you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better today with extra oxytocin.
It happens now.
So good.
Peace.
Delightful. Well, here are a few things that I've heard on social media in the last few days.
The United States has some big facility at the South Pole where we're controlling earthquakes and the weather.
I'm not going to say that I'm buying into that one yet.
Stop it, Kamala.
I don't know how that happens, but the video just started running on its own.
Go away! There we go.
So I don't believe the South Pole has a major earthquake-making weather-changing facility, but maybe.
Maybe that's where they're keeping all the UFOs.
I've heard there's something called zero-point energy that we got from the UFOs or the UAPs.
So we have infinite energy, and the question is, do you steal it or give it away?
And I thought, that's kind of an interesting question, isn't it?
Suppose the United States, or any one country, captured a downed UFO and reverse-engineered its energy-making properties, and then suppose that one country on Earth had the capability of having free unlimited energy.
What do you do with it?
Well, here's the weird thing.
If you think about, well, we'll give it to the world and then the world will have free energy.
I'm not sure we would do that.
I'm not even sure we would ever make it available.
So I love the fact that I don't, well, I don't think that we've discovered any infinite energy from UFOs.
I'm not on that page.
It is true that if we did, we wouldn't necessarily ever release it.
Because what it would do is it would equalize the power of all the countries in the world.
Because suddenly the smallest country in the world would have unlimited energy.
If you had unlimited energy, you could end up building particle beam weapons and lasers and You wouldn't be able to dominate the world as America likes to do.
So sure enough, if we had infinite energy and it was free energy, I don't know if we would tell anybody.
We might just keep it to ourselves.
There are other accounts that the aliens have now been well discovered, and a whistleblower can guarantee that there's a big government facility looking at all the alien ships, and let's call them UAPs because we don't know if they're from outer space, and that there might be some announcement soon.
I do not believe any of that.
I do not believe there will be an announcement of any official sightings of UAPs.
I do not believe that there are orbs.
So the reporting is that the UFOs are orbs, you know, like just round glowing things that seem to defy physics.
I don't think so, but I could be convinced.
So all these things that I've been hearing on social media, I don't believe a single one of them But I could be convinced.
I could imagine some future situation in which there's better information and suddenly I think, hey, those alien orbs are all over the place.
But not yet. So remember I told you how impressed I was that Elon Musk sent his Tesla robots, the optimists, to mingle with the crowd at his launch event, and that the robots would just have conversations and mingle and act like people?
And then today I saw a video that suggests, and we do know that at least the bartender robots had some human assist.
So there were some humans operating them remotely so that they could do maybe a little more than a robot could do.
But I think the reality is that maybe all the robots might have had a little remote exist.
So I don't think that that event showed you what the robots can do.
I think it's showing you what they think they can get the robots to do eventually.
I don't know that for sure, but I would be a little cautious that the robots are as advanced as the initial press suggested.
In my experience using AI as just a consumer, it did not seem to me that the AI itself would be anywhere near good enough for a robot to act the way the robots were supposed to be acting.
So it wouldn't surprise me if there was a little more human remote assistance in those robots than was immediately apparent.
So I saw one video of a robot having a conversation at the event, and it was clearly just a person.
There was no doubt about the voice coming out of the robot in that clip was a person, not an AI. But the clip itself could have been fake, so I don't know what's going on.
So I don't know if the clip was fake or the robots were human-assisted.
But I wouldn't believe that they can do all the things that you thought they could believe they could do.
Not yet. I think they will.
Speaking of Elon Musk, Starship 5 is going to take off in two days.
So that's that really big, fat rocket that I don't think has successfully launched yet.
But if it does, it's a big, big deal.
It's a Starship. And what's fun about it is that when this one lands, if everything worked, there are these two gigantic chopsticks.
That will hold it when it lands.
So it's going to come down like a regular rocket, but apparently it won't be completely stable when it lands.
So these giant chopsticks are just going to grab it when it reaches the ground.
Do you think that's going to work?
I'll tell you, if you told me that rockets were going to take off and then land so they could be reused, I might have said I don't know if he could ever do that.
And then I hear that you're going to grab the rocket with giant chopsticks.
And then I say again, I'm not sure you could do that.
I don't know if that can be done.
We'll find out in two days.
We might find out if it can be done.
I wouldn't bet against Musk when it comes to giant mechanical things.
Well, Babylon Bee has a parody movie called January 6th, The Most Deadliest Day.
The most deadliest day, because Democrats say January 6th was the most deadliest day, which is laughably incorrect.
So I only saw the trailer for it, but it looks like it's very funny.
CBS News was acting ridiculous.
They had a headline today that Trump wants to make auto loan interest tax, interest on auto loans tax deductible.
Now, that part's true.
Trump did say, I'll make the interest on auto loans tax deductible.
And then CBS News says it would mostly help the rich, experts say.
It would mostly help the rich.
To make a write-off on your car loan.
Well, this is awkward.
But as an official representative of people who are often called rich, we don't get car loans.
Did anybody know that?
It comes with being rich.
They just sort of pay cash for the car.
I mean, I don't know what kind of car you would be rich and still need a loan for.
That's sort of like not being rich.
Now, to be fair, the car I'm driving, I did have a loan on.
The BMW SUV that I have.
It just happened to be some weird period in my life where I had this, you know, a lot of cash output at the same time, but I wanted a car and I didn't want to wait a week and I didn't want to sell any stock because I liked the stock that I had.
So I did get a loan. Believe it or not.
Now, because I'm rich, as soon as my cash replenished, I paid it off.
So I didn't pay it until completion.
It was just sort of a short-term cash flow management thing.
Very normal. That had nothing to do with being rich or poor or anything else.
It was just a weird coincidence of events that I needed cash at the same time for a bunch of things.
But generally speaking, it would be true that rich people pay cash for cars.
So CBS, you're being silly.
There's a report in the New England Journal of Medicine, John Fleetwood's writing, that Big Pharma apparently paid over a billion dollars to influence medical research between 2020 and 2022, which would be the period of the pandemic.
But they tried to influence the medical research in BMJ, JAMA, and the Lancet.
Those are the big ones. It said 59% of journal reviewers, so these would be the people reviewing the studies to say that they're passing peer review or not, that 59% of them received pharma payments, revealing massive conflicts of interest.
So, you trust that science?
Knowing that 59% of the people reviewing the science are being paid by people who would kind of like that science to go their way.
Yeah. So, you should not be surprised that science is in a state of total lack of credibility when there's a good reason for that.
Apparently science is pretty much bribed and ruined like everything else.
But, so you've heard that there's a big argument about voter ID.
Democrats say, we don't need no voter ID.
It's just causing people to not be able to vote.
And Republicans are saying, if you don't have voter ID, Then all the people who are not allowed to vote are going to vote and the election will be different.
Well, there is one study from 2019 that allegedly found that strict ID requirements have no effect on fraud.
That if you have strict ID requirements, you get basically the same result as if you don't have any requirements at all on fraud.
Does that sound even slightly true to you?
I don't know. That looks like the sort of study that may have gone through the 59% of journal reviewers who were tainted by the pharma industry payments.
In this case, it has nothing to do with pharma, but kind of wonder who reviewed this study, don't you?
Who reviewed that study?
I'm going to say that it might not matter if you have strict ID requirements if the environment is that people are not talking about ID requirements.
If nobody is talking about ID requirements, I completely understand why it wouldn't be much of an issue.
Because people who didn't have ID would think that they needed it, so they'd stay home.
And that would be the end of the story.
Everybody would just assume they needed ID if they were going to vote.
So if they didn't have it, they'd just stay home and they'd never bring it up and nobody would even think there was any difference.
But what if there's a gigantic national conversation about voter ID combined with a massive influx of people who don't have ID because they're coming from other countries?
Do you think you can use your 2019 study that's probably bullshit in the first place to find out what will happen in a completely different fucking situation?
Science. I'm glad we've got this science to tell us what's true.
So I'm not going to believe that one.
The propaganda network, sometimes called MSNBC, I can't call it a news network anymore.
It's just so ridiculously over-the-top propaganda at this point that to imagine it's like a news platform, it's just so far from news.
It's not even close.
But Chris Hayes is telling us that Trump is signaling he's not going to accept a defeat in 2020.
Here's how I interpret that.
If the propaganda network tells you Trump is signaling he won't accept the election results, what I hear is a secret dog whistle from MSNBC telling us that they're going to definitely rig the election and they want to prime you in advance that anybody who would question this upcoming election is some kind of a crazy, fascist, Nazi, possibly...
Yeah. I'm hearing the dog whistle.
The dog whistle says we're totally going to cheat, so we want to make sure in advance that if anybody is going to question the election, that we'll discredit them before they even try.
I mean, people, who's going to question an election in the United States except bad people?
Only bad people are going to question an election, unless it's the Democrats, in which case they've got a really good argument.
But when the Republicans do it, bad people, just bad people.
Anyway, that's not a good look.
Barack Obama is still getting some backlash for telling black men that maybe they're just a little too worried about having a woman president and therefore are not supporting Kamala Harris as much as maybe they should.
And I'm not too interested in it.
I'm sort of interested that there's a backlash from both the left and the right to it.
The right just sort of makes fun of it.
But the left, I've seen a number of people saying, why is Barack Obama insulting my people?
Why is he insulting black men?
Have you noticed that when people don't do what Democrats want, It's not so much the reasons why they should do something different.
It's like, you suck. Everybody's a racist or a fascist if they don't do exactly what a Democrat wants them to do.
How about sometimes you make an argument?
No, you're just a bunch of sexists, according to Barack Obama.
But here's something I wondered.
If it's sexist, and it could be, by the way.
I have heard some black men on social media say that they wouldn't vote for a woman as a leader.
However, the people who say that, that I saw on social media, Gives that strong indication that they weren't going to vote anyway.
They didn't exactly look like regular voters, the one who said they wouldn't vote for a woman.
But I wondered, would they have voted for Hillary Clinton?
Because we would know that, right?
Because she ran. Well, Clinton got 88% of the black vote in 2016.
How do you get 88% of the black vote unless black men are massively voting for you?
Am I wrong? I mean, let's say you even got, I don't know, 98% of the women voting for you, the black women.
You'd still have a whole bunch of black men voting to get up to 88% of black voters for Hillary.
So I don't know how much it showed up when Clinton was running, because as I've often said, you can come up with plenty of criticisms for Hillary Clinton, But among the criticisms would not be included the following.
She's stupid. Nope.
Nope. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, and I say plenty.
She's not stupid. She's very, very smart.
So if you're a black man...
And you see that she's been a senator, she's been a State Department person, she's been in the White House.
Do you think that black men would look at Hillary Clinton and say, oh, there's someone who could never be a commander in chief?
I deeply hate Hillary Clinton, but she absolutely could have been a commander in chief.
And I'm not going to say that about everybody, because I don't think it's true for Kamala Harris.
But I think it depends who the woman is.
I think that this whole idea that misogyny is involved but just with Kamala Harris, I think that has more to do with her.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if the way people interpret it in their own minds is, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a woman as a leader.
I think they were pretty comfortable when Hillary Clinton was running.
Even I would be. I mean, even I would be comfortable with her in charge, you know, if I trusted at least her mission.
She has at least the capability, full capability.
All right, but here's the thing that sticks out for me.
I haven't heard anybody talk about it.
How did it suddenly become socially acceptable and socially safe for both black men and black women To say in public and on video and on social media that they have a complete support for Trump.
This is new, right?
Now, I'm not saying that there were not any black supporters of Trump before, because of course there were.
But I don't feel like they felt safe saying it out loud in public, like, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm totally, I'm Trump all day long.
And I've seen video after video of young people, older people, a whole bunch of different ages, but black voters, usually on the street, sometimes in small groups, and they're just saying, oh yeah, Trump, Trump, Trump all day.
Now, they're not all saying Trump.
There are others who are voting for Harris, etc.
But this is completely different.
And here's my speculation.
I don't believe that you would see so many people so many black American voters Supporting Trump vocally and in public and with no sense of embarrassment about it.
You know, no sense of, oh, I hate to tell you this, but just saying it.
It's not like I have to hedge it.
I have to say, well, he's bad in these ways, but all over, you know, if you weigh everything, I think I slightly support him.
You know, that's what white people say.
That's how white people talk.
You know, all this nuance.
Well, you know, I don't like everything about him, but better than the alternative.
And you see the Black American voters are just, oh yeah, Trump all day long.
It's not even close. So here's what I think.
I think you couldn't possibly see so many Black American voters Be completely comfortable to give a non-nuanced, full-throated, yes, Trump, in public, unless, unless the private conversations look the same.
And maybe more.
Because I don't know what percentage of Black Americans privately saying Trump might be the answer is sufficient for anybody to say, oh, I could just say that in public now.
And I couldn't say it in public before, but I can do it now.
Something big has changed.
And I think it's not just the public statements.
I think that, you know, I think that at home, the conversation is completely different.
Glenn Youngkin points out, it's only 30 days till the election, and I guess the Biden-Harris Department of Justice, they're filing a lawsuit against Virginia, the Commonwealth, for enforcing a law to remove non-citizens from the voting rolls.
So Virginia followed its own law, It's a law that says they have to do it, and they cleaned up their voting roles so that it's only people who should be allowed to vote are on the list of people who should be allowed to vote.
Now, what's the problem with that?
What would be the problem of improving your list of voters so that it doesn't include people who shouldn't vote?
Well, according to the Biden-Harris Department of Justice, They're getting sued for doing that.
And here's the question I would ask.
Since the argument against it has something to do with disenfranchising voters, can you show me that person?
Can you just find one?
One would be fine.
You know, normally I would ask for a scientific poll to make sure that there's really a problem here that needs to be addressed.
The problem being that if you get rid of all the voters who are dead and not in the state and should not be voting, that it would somehow suppress the votes of people who are completely allowed to vote.
So somehow Preventing people who are not allowed to vote from voting would have some kind of an impact on people who are allowed to vote.
So can we get an interview with that person who would not vote because Virginia cleaned up his voting rolls?
Just one. Again, I don't need a gold standard controlled trial.
Just show me...
Just show me that one, just one voter who said, I was totally going to vote until Virginia cleaned up his voting rolls, and now I don't know what to do.
Can I vote? I mean, I'm totally a legal voter, and I've always been a legal voter, and I live in the state, and I'm an American citizen, and I've got ID, but now that Virginia got rid of the people who are not legal voters, I don't know if I can vote anymore.
Let's have a talk with that guy.
Because that guy sounds kind of fun.
I think I'd like to see that crazy old bastard explain exactly why he can't vote this time.
Because the people who have nothing to do with him can't vote.
Just one. Just one.
Just one interview.
And I'll be on your side.
Democrats, you can win me over.
With just one, one data point.
That's all I'm asking for, just one.
Anyway, we're going to play a game that I call drunk or stupid.
I'm going to play a video of Kamala Harris at a recent event, and I'd like you to judge drunk or stupid.
One moment, please.
Oh, it's not working.
Bye.
Thank you.
Bye.
Let me see if I can make it work.
Can you hear that? My technology is failing me.
You you you
Drunk or snippet? All right.
Well, you'd have to see it.
And I did test this.
I'm in the rumble studio.
Oh, you got no sound?
Not on locals? Darn it.
All right. Sorry about that.
But the technology does do this, and I did test it before we went live, but it just stopped working in the middle.
So that's not cool.
That's not cool. Anyway, so if you'd seen it, boy, would we be having a good time now.
We're not. Now I'm just all pissed off.
But if I were not pissed off and you had seen that, my goodness, we'd be having a good time now instead of this whiny, fucked up attitude that I have because this fucking thing didn't work when I wanted it to.
But boy, would we be having fun if it did.
No, she's... I'll just give you my opinion.
In my opinion, she's obviously drunk.
And it's just funny that we're pretending like we don't see it.
You can see it on my X feed if you want to see it.
Anyway, while she was acting stupid and drunk in public, Tim Walsh was talking to Michael Strahan.
And if you want to see a car wreck of an interview, you should see that.
Now, it turns out that every single day now, now that both Walsh and Harris are doing more public stuff, it really is just the news about them completely blowing, so to speak,
some public event. And I've never seen an easier campaign where the other side just has to show the actual event with no commentary and just have, Donald Trump, I approve this message.
He's actually doing that now, and it's freaking amazing.
He literally just ran a campaign where it was nothing but her exact words.
He added no commentary whatsoever.
And then at the end, he just said, I approve this message.
That's baller. If you could just show them in their own words and not add a single thing and just say, here's my campaign ad.
Look at this.
That's great. Yeah, so the Tim Walz thing was a total train wreck as well.
One of the questions was, I guess he had at one point Said he wanted to get rid of the Electoral College, but the campaign is not on that.
So Strahan asked him, well, you said you wanted to get rid of the Electoral College, but what do you say now?
Because Kamala Harris does not want to.
And he did the, well, you know, I said a thing, but the campaign is very clear, very clear.
We're not going to do that.
Okay. All right, so J.D. Vance was being grilled by a New York Times reporter, and the New York Times reporter was trying desperately to get him on video to say that he wouldn't accept the results of the next election, because that would make sure that you knew that maybe they didn't accept the last one, and maybe that's just who they are, and maybe that's just proof that Trump is a fascist.
So... She tries with the question asking Vance, you know, did Trump lose the 2020 election?
And Vance went into a story about how the FBI convinced the technology platforms to lie about the Hunter laptop and that there is science that supports the fact that it changed the outcome of the vote in a pretty measurable way.
And then, of course, she didn't like that because that was something that's sort of outside of the vote counting world.
So she wanted to limit it to the, you know, is the vote rigged or not?
And then once again, J.D. used her question as an excuse to talk about not what she wanted to talk about, which is vote counting rigging.
But talking about rigging in a larger sense because the social media platforms and our information network were clearly rigged in a way intended to change the election, and it was done by people within the government.
And then she didn't like that, so she tried to ask him a third time.
And then JD, for a third time, used the time to describe how the election had been totally rigged outside of the vote counting part, totally rigged by the information, you know, bad behavior by our government.
Then she tried for the fourth time to get him to say something about the upcoming elections.
And he asked if he commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Now, J.D. Vance, being one of the more gifted communicators, did the following, which I, if you want to see perfect form, this is it.
So the question is, would he commit to a peaceful transfer of power?
What's the first thing you say when asked, would you commit to a peaceful transfer of power?
What's the first thing to say every time?
Yes. Okay.
If you don't say yes to that question and you start explaining or giving some background or, well, you need to know the context, oh, you fucked up.
The question is, you know, will you accept a, you know, will you do a peaceful transfer?
You say yes to that.
You give that a hard yes.
And then you talk about it.
You don't talk about it first and then get to something like a yes.
No, no, no.
You say yes, hard yes, unambiguous yes.
And then you talk about stuff.
For example, he said, of course it will be peaceful.
And then he said, because he expects Trump to win.
Perfect. Perfect.
But of course, you know, he wasn't saying it would only be peaceful if Trump wins.
He was just, you know, projecting that he thinks he won't.
But then he said, and I quote, but if there are problems, of course, in the same way Democrats protested in 2004 and Trump raised in 2020, we will make sure every ballot is counted.
There we go. There we go.
If there are problems, he almost got there.
This is very close to a perfect answer, but it's short.
So I'm going to criticize it.
At the same time, I'm going to say, it's the best I've seen.
Nobody's been closer to getting this perfect.
He got really close.
But that last 10% that he fell short on this answer is the 10% between a landslide victory and making no difference at all.
It's just so close.
And here's the difference between landslide victory and making no difference at all.
He should have gone on offense.
So he was completely on defense, and boy did he do a good job on defense.
Boy, if you were going to say, did he defend himself well?
Yeah. Yeah, great.
Good, good defense.
Except, the Democrats, when they ask the questions this way, are exposing their soft underbelly, meaning that they're providing a kill shot If you wanted to go on offense.
He came close to offense.
He came close when he took it out of the domain of counting the votes and into the domain of the information manipulation by the press.
But it's going to feel to the public like a little bit of a weaselly avoidance of the question because he wanted to avoid the vote counting issue and go to another issue that he could make hay with.
Good defense. Good defense.
Here's what offense looks like.
Mr. Vance, are you willing to accept the outcome of the election and have a peaceful transfer?
Before I answer, I think for the benefit of the audience, we'll need some clarification.
What are you talking about?
Well, are you talking about an election that looks to all observers like it looks clean?
Well, I'm asking you, will you accept the election?
I know, but one can imagine there could be an election where even objective observers think, oh, that's very non-standard.
So I'm asking you, just so I answer your question correctly, are you saying if the election looks like something's deeply wrong with it, will I accept it?
Is that your question? Well, no, no, if it's like 2020.
Oh, well, you know, 2020 was very different from a lot of projections and there were a lot of bellwether states that didn't go in the direction anybody had ever seen before.
Is that what you're talking about?
Are you saying that if the next election also violates a lot of expectations and bellwethers and looks very non-standard compared to what we would expect, is that the situation you're asking about?
It's a kill shot. You can make the questioner just melt.
You're trying to make me think past the sale.
The sale that you're trying to make is that the election looks perfect in every way.
If the election looks perfect in every way, I can commit 100% we're going to accept it.
There will be a peaceful transfer of power and the people will have spoken.
Is that what you're talking about?
One that doesn't have any problems and there are no questions when you look at it?
And even the Republicans and even the most ardent Democrats could look at it and say, yeah, that looks fair.
I don't see any problems with that.
Somebody just lost the...
Did you really lose the sound?
I can't tell if I'm being pranked.
Hey, Paul, are you still there?
I need a sound check, Paul.
I have to ask somebody I can trust on the networks.
I'm getting pranked in the comments.
All right, there's no problem with the sound, right?
All right, good. So that's the thing.
If anybody asked Vance or Trump that question, or any of their pundits, the person before answering, you have to say, I need a clarification on your question.
Do you mean if it looks like it's fraudulent, or do you mean if it looks perfect?
It's a kill shot. It's the end of that question.
And it's their biggest issue that he won't, you know, he'll stay in office.
But nobody would be able to get past that question.
It's a kill shot.
There aren't very many kill shots that are this clean.
This is a clean kill shot.
And it keeps being presented over and over again.
And nobody takes the shot.
And I'm not exactly sure what's going on there, but take the shot.
Take the shot next time.
JD, I think you could end this thing.
Anyway, have you seen the ads of men for Harris, the men who say they're supporting Harris?
There's a new campaign ad from that group, and so it purports to show Tim Walz and a number of Manly pursuits.
You know, he's using tools.
He's driving cars.
He owns guns.
He's got a dog. He's a man's man.
But I have to say that if I can advise one thing for the Harris campaign, You should really hire at least one heterosexual man, and you would not embarrass yourself this much.
Because if you saw the commercial, it is the gayest looking thing you've ever seen in your life while trying to teach us how manly he is.
And, you know, this is not a criticism against anybody gay.
I'm just saying, if I were doing a commercial about how to be a gay man, I would hire a gay man.
I wouldn't hire a lesbian.
If the commercial is, let's show this guy as a heterosexual man, I would have heterosexual men working on it and nobody else, because they know far better what it's like to be a heterosexual man.
Again, if it were for Black voters, I'd make sure that the commercial was mostly managed by Black voters, because they would know what Black voters are feeling and thinking better than other people would.
So, Harris' campaign needs to find at least one heterosexual man.
Maybe a token. You know, you don't have to give them a lot of power.
But at least put them in the room to say, um, that looks super gay.
Just, you know, so they know it before they put it out.
So that's my advice. They need a heterosexual man to do some serious mansplaining.
It's just one of the times mansplaining is exactly what you need.
Did you know that the ad, probably the first ad you saw for Kamala Harris, an ad that was Men for Kamala, was written by one of Jimmy Kimmel's writers, Jacob Reed?
And apparently none of the men who were used in that ad of Men for Kamala were actual regular people.
They were paid actors.
So the men for Kamala weren't even the men for Kamala.
I mean, they might also be for her, but they were paid actors.
I guess they couldn't get any, like, real normal men that look good on camera who would just say that they were for Kamala Harris.
I'm pretty sure there are tens of millions of them, but they couldn't find anybody they were happy with, so they got actors.
Well, Harris has released her health records.
I think Trump has not for this cycle.
But what I wonder is, did they test her for drugs?
And why not? If I'm going to see a presidential candidate's health records and it doesn't have a drug test, I don't really think I've seen the records.
Because if somebody is acting so drunk or inebriated on something, then it becomes a major campaign question, and you don't reveal any drug tests that would indicate a drug problem or any other drug use.
I'm going to say that's not actually a health record, or even close.
That would be a partial health record, intentionally keeping out important elements.
Now, if it were Trump, I probably wouldn't even ask for that.
Because, you know, he's so famously a non-drinker, and he never looks like he's on any kind of drug.
So, I think we need to know.
She needs a drug test.
And I don't mean that purely politically.
I've seen how she acts.
And I don't want that person in charge of the nuclear football.
So you need to tell me, is that real?
Is the way you're acting in that video real?
Or are you drunk?
Because if it's drunk, I don't want you near the nuclear button.
I mean, really, seriously, that's important.
So, anyway.
I heard today in the comments to post about Tim Walsh a set of accusations that were very specific and very terrible.
They are sufficiently terrible.
It's an accusation of a past behavior during his football coaching years.
Now, it is so bad that I'm not going to repeat it.
And it's not from a credible source, meaning some platform that I would believe.
It's from an individual, but the thing that bothered me about it is it was really detailed.
It was really detailed.
So maybe there's something to come out.
I'm definitely not going to tell you what I read because of the source.
But if it's true, Wow.
Thanks, Paul. If it's true.
Well, the polling information is all over the place.
The 538 forecast says Harris remains ahead in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan, which would give her enough to win.
538. Have you heard of them?
538. So that used to be Nate Silver's entity, but he sold that and he's out of that.
Now I think it's just the New York Times owns it.
Does the New York Times own 538?
I'm not sure who owns it, but this is a different result than I'm seeing in other news.
In other news, real clear politics is flipping Nevada for Trump, which I think would give him all of the swing states.
Because I've been hearing the last 24 hours, oh, it looks like Trump's going to win all the swing states, or could, with the exception of Nevada.
And then today's news is, oh, he's going to win Nevada.
Keep in mind that I don't believe anything about the polls at the moment.
They're just all over the place, and they're crazy, and they disagree with each other.
So on one hand, 538 says Harris is ahead in the swing states.
On the other hand, real clear politics says that she's so far behind she's even going to lose Nevada.
In other news, apparently the number of mail-in votes is way, way down in the swing states, and that presumably would help Trump.
We don't know. It does seem, and then there's another thought that, I think, was it Mark Halperin who was saying this, that the internal polls are worse than the public ones.
And the reason is that the internal ones are maybe the expensive and good ones.
So, we'll see.
Rasmussen is signaling that Trump's, you know, got a solid situation here.
And then if you looked at the results against Trump, the funny thing about having Trump run for election three times in a row is that you have a baseline to compare things to that's really interesting.
And Harris is doing way worse compared to either Biden, who won, and also to Hillary, who lost.
So Kamala is way under the numbers that even Clinton had when she lost, although lost very narrowly.
So what's confusing is that Harris, in the polls anyway, seems to be maybe one point ahead or effectively within the margin of error on a whole bunch of states, depending on which poll you're looking at.
And most of the smart people would say that if he's tied in the polling or within one, it's actually a win because he always performs better than the polls, but the others don't.
So if that's true, that this time he's also going to perform better than the polls, and I'm speculating that this will be the biggest difference between the polls and the actual vote.
So this is my prediction.
So this will be the third Trump run, and each time they say what they think the Trump vote will be, and each time it's bigger.
Two out of three so far.
I think this one will also be bigger, but I'm going to predict it's the biggest of the differences.
That there are more people who are intentionally just pranking the pollsters than at any time in the past, and that they know it's part of winning because they're trying to use a prank basically to defeat what they think will be cheaters.
So if they prank hard enough, the cheaters won't know how hard they have to cheat, and they may undercheat, which the belief is that that's what happened in 2016.
I don't have any evidence of that.
I think Jim Cramer came out and said that Harris is going to win.
Jim Cramer is sort of famous as a counter indicator.
So you can interpret that any way you want.
Axios is trying to soften the fact that people are learning that Democrats challenge elections too.
So Axios says that when the Democrats challenge elections, it's largely symbolic.
Not like those serious challenges coming from the Republicans.
So when they do it, it's just talk.
It's largely symbolic.
For example, in 2017, or in, let's say, 2005, Democrats objected to Bush's win in Ohio.
But, you know, they just sort of went through the process and worked it out.
And, you know, they're largely symbolic.
Now, is it symbolic if you have to recount the hanging chads?
Symbolic is when you don't do anything in the real world.
They have to recount.
A recount's not symbolic.
That would be the opposite.
The recount is an actual set of actions that happened in the real world.
That's not symbolic.
That was actually trying to find out one.
How about 2017, with half a dozen Democrats filed objections to Trump's elector slates, but they didn't get a backing of any senators, so they couldn't force any votes.
So, largely symbolic.
No, it's not. That was a full-on attempt that just didn't work.
There was nothing symbolic about it.
It just didn't work.
And Jamie Raskin, of course, he would be the figurehead of Democrat lying.
He said, quote, Democrats don't engage in election fraud and election fabrication.
Now, he's also one of those backwards indicators that whatever he says they don't do, oh, they're definitely doing that.
So if he ever tells you they're definitely not sacrificing children in satanic rituals, They're definitely sacrificing children in satanic rituals.
By the way, I don't believe that.
But I also don't rule it out.
I think it's highly unlikely that there's a massive national satanic network that the Democrats are all plugged into and Diddy and Epstein and all that.
I don't think so.
But we do live in a world where if you said, would you give it 5%?
I'd say, yeah.
Yeah, I'll give it 5% possibility.
Anyway, there's a...
There's a piece in Slate.
Slate is a publication.
And written by Ben Mathis Lilly.
And he's talking about how people like me say that when Trump says something that's not true, his hyperbole, as I call it, And they quoted me in the article, quote, Trump's hyperbole is directionally accurate and benign.
And here's how they described me.
They said, Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator turned right-wing thought leader.
Am I a right-wing thought leader?
I don't know. Not bad.
But they didn't hit me hard.
They just noted that I've got this framing that is directionally correct even if it's hyperbolic.
And then they tried to fact check Trump that at an October 5th rally he told a Story about a woman's weightlifting record that was broken by somebody who was born a man and had never lifted before.
And so they fact-checked it and found out that that wasn't true.
But somebody should tell Zuby because he thinks he was the person in the story.
Do you know Zuby? Famous musician, social media personality.
He's got a lot of different talents, so it's hard to describe him.
But Zuby famously entered a woman's weightlifting competition, identified as a woman during the competition and won the competition.
Now, that was a story that a lot of people in the right side of the political world have heard.
And even Zuby, when this was first mentioned, Zuby posted on social media, on X, is he talking about me?
Or I think he's talking about me or something like that.
And I think he was, because I think it's the most famous story of somebody entering a woman's competition as a man and winning.
So I'm not sure the fact check was right, but I'm also not entirely sure what Trump was thinking.
Anyway, so yes, apparently, My idea that Trump is directionally accurate is a little too dangerous for the Democrats to stay out there without a little pushback.
So they tried to push back on it, but it wasn't much of a push.
So I came out okay on that.
Trump is teasing that Kamala Harris is doing so poorly that the Democrats must be thinking about switching around a few weeks before the election.
I don't think that's going to happen.
But I'll bet I wouldn't be surprised if it's been discussed.
She's doing so poorly, really worse than any candidate ever.
I mean, we always make fun of Dukakis.
Remember when Dukakis ran and he rode around in a tank and everybody teased him and he lost?
Well, Dukakis was much better than Kamala Harris as a campaigner.
So she is the worst campaigner in the history of campaigns as far as I know.
But I don't think they're gonna switch around.
I think they're gonna have to live with what they got here.
There are reports that Trump is massively ramping up his security.
We don't know the details of that.
But it does seem that the threats against him must have ramped up and maybe the Iranian thing is looking bad.
There's some indication that maybe he rides a decoy plane sometimes and he's not always in his plane.
I don't know if that's true. But we've got to keep him alive, people.
And there are reports that the Secret Service is not always consistently doing a good job.
It's scary stuff.
So keep him alive.
According to the Woodward book, General Mark Milley is afraid he might be court-martialed if Trump wins.
Interestingly, Mike Benz, who knows more than we do about things, has been saying for a long time that eventually the evidence about January 6th will point to Milley.
Now, I don't know exactly what the accusation is, but my guess is that it would be something like Mark Milley might have...
Intentionally allowed the situation to get out of hand, or worse, may have been part of instigating things that made it get out of hand.
Now, that's not an accusation from me.
I'm just saying that if it's true, and Mike Benz is highly credible and has demonstrated great mastery of the information about all things political, it seems, but Maybe.
Maybe. It doesn't feel wrong to me, but I also don't have backing for it, so I can't say it's true.
But I will be interested to see if anything about Mark Milley comes out.
I have long had a feeling about him.
And my feeling is, he doesn't look like he's exactly on my team.
But it's just a feeling.
So we'll see if there's anything that would be suspicious about his activities.
Maybe someday we'll know.
New York Post says the feds have deported some of those ISIS migrants who slipped into the country.
Some would say that most of them have been in prison the whole time, so they weren't dangerous.
But it reminds us once again that we need a secure border, not whatever's happening.
Has Israel attacked anybody in the last hour?
Because we're waiting for it this weekend.
So the smart people are saying probably this weekend Israel's gonna do some kind of a response to Iran.
Some say they're not gonna attack the nuclear facilities.
Some say they might. Some say they're gonna attack the oil producing facilities.
They might. They might.
I don't know if they're gonna...
You think they're gonna attack Beirut?
They might. I don't know.
We'll see. Then there's reports of some kind of...
Maybe there was a cyber attack already on Iran's nuclear and military assets.
I don't know if that's true.
And what do you think?
You think it's going to be massive?
Because if it's massive, Iran probably will respond.
If it's a decapitation strike, which would be gutsy, big risk, then I don't know how they respond because they would have to figure out who's in charge.
That could take a while.
I don't know. There might be something lighting up this weekend, but we'll find out.
I'll give you some advice that I would like to give.
Well, I'll just give you some advice.
You're probably feeling more anxious than you have maybe much of your life, but a lot of that is that the news is just saturating you with bad news and scary things more than ever.
So we're probably not in any worse shape survival-wise than we've ever been at any time in the country.
In fact, we're probably in better shape risk-wise than maybe any time in history.
Now, that doesn't mean everything's going to go right, but if you're looking at risk-reward and compared us right now to any time in American history, it'd be okay.
It's not like everything's falling apart.
We've had about this many complaints before, gotten out of it.
But, you know, the thing I would advise is that the odds of your lights and your water being disconnected for much longer than normal are above anything I've ever seen.
So I would advise you to get a little extra food and water, get some batteries, get some backup generators, talk to your neighbors, maybe get a little more organized about who can do what, who does what when.
My understanding is That you can get a Starlink, you know, internet device that can be powered just by a small camping generator, like one that uses solar.
So it doesn't use a lot of electricity.
So I'm thinking of getting one just as a backup.
Elon Musk actually suggested that.
It's not a bad idea. So it wouldn't be my primary internet.
I did buy two solar recharging small generators.
So I could do small appliances.
I could run a fan or charge my phone.
I could keep one refrigerator running.
But I could also run my Starlink.
Now, I might run out of electricity In the evening, but then I can recharge it and start over the next day.
So Amazon had some, so I put it in order.
I'm surprised that they had any left, so they haven't actually shipped it.
I'm not sure if they'll ever be able to ship it, because my brain just tells me that there are too many hurricanes going on, and that they probably already were bought out.
But you should all give a little more thought To being able to be self-sufficient at least for a while.
I can't tell you how long.
I mean, some people are talking about the whole grid being taken out and, you know, we're powerless for months.
Maybe. I would bet against it.
I think the odds are against that.
But the odds of losing power for a week are pretty high.
The odds of losing power where you live for a week, just based on either a natural disaster or based on a hack or something like that, pretty good.
The odds of losing your power virtually permanently, you know, some catastrophic attack to the network, low, but definitely a possibility, but low.
I heard there were some problems with some of the natural gas generator backups, but I don't know what those problems are.
I'm not sure.
I'll see you next time.
I'm short of being a prepper.
But I'm prepper adjacent.
I'm prepper adjacent.
I'm right in that general thought category, but not quite a prepper.
Twelve days, yeah.
A lot of people put in generax.
Well, I priced mine.
It was $100,000, so I decided not to do it.
I might look into it again, maybe with a different company.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all for today.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
Thanks for joining. If you're on X and Rumble and YouTube, remember to get the Dilbert calendar.
You can only get it at Dilbert.com.
And Win Bigly, my new book, my new updated book, you see it in the background, is available on Amazon.
The calendar is not available on Amazon.
You have to go to Dilbert.com and you can follow the link to purchase it.
And delivery of the calendar will start in a few weeks, I think.
But we're shooting for making sure everybody has them for Christmas.
And the sooner you get it, the sooner you will get it in the cycle.
