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, AI Training Future, Solar Powered Desalination, Anti-Woke University, SpaceX Chopsticks, NASA DEI, President Clinton McDonald's, DC Madam Palfrey, AG Merrick Garland, AG Bill Barr, Joe Scarborough, Marc Benioff, JD Vance, Martha Raddatz, Elon Musk, Kamala Harris, Kamala Policies, Kamala Polls Collapse, Walz Hunting Cosplay, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And I can assure you that you've never had a better time in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take this up to levels that nobody can even comprehend with their shiny, tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gels, a sty and 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 of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Oh my goodness.
I'm seeing in the comments a sign from Berkeley that says, Conservatives welcome.
Is there an official Berkeley statement that they're welcoming conservatives?
That's not true.
It's not even close to true that they're welcoming conservatives.
It's ridiculous. Well, the top of the news, according to Science Alert, drinking caffeine may reduce your Alzheimer's clumps.
Yeah, if you've got some clumps in your head, and you put enough coffee in there, the coffee will remove your Alzheimer clumps.
I feel like I got a little clump forming, so if you don't mind, then I can take one more sip to see if I can declump that so the show is that much better.
I think it's working.
Yeah, yeah, I feel the clump going away.
Excellent. Alright, here's your simulation thought for the day.
This is going to ruin your whole day.
Here's what's going to happen.
AI is going to train on everything in the real world.
So it's going to suck up the entire internet, already has.
Then it's going to learn from robots who are doing real things.
So as the robots are learning how to do things, the other robots will get that knowledge and then they'll all be able to do things.
However, between the time that AI has sucked up everything that's on the internet and the time that there are enough robots operating in the real world just like there are people, there's going to be this period where the AI is going to be trained on artificial worlds.
In other words, the AI will create an imaginary world and then it will observe the imaginary world to learn things for the real world.
How many imaginary worlds will each AI platform form in order to train itself?
The answer is more than one.
So every AI that's based in the real world will be creating probably multiple AIs just to train itself.
So for example, it might train an AI about a guy We're good to go.
Right now, my neighbors are saying, is there some reason that this stream of water is running from your property down the road?
To which I say, hmm, I guess that will be number 1,625,000 things that I will have to look into to find out about my water leak problems.
Could it be? That I am an artificial training module who is supposed to live something like a normal life except it's peppered with continuous problems in just a few different domains.
I have a few other patterns like the water thing where there's something that happens to me Over and over.
Just my entire life.
Just to me. Over and over.
And as soon as one part is done, a new part will jump in to replace it.
Now that can't be a coincidence.
It really can't be.
There's just no way that these are coincidences.
So I've, for the longest time, I've been under the impression that I'm a training module.
But I never thought I was training AI. I always assumed I was training just people in another realm.
But it makes far more sense, since we know our AI will create training modules, the odds are that we're a training module.
Or the odds are that I'm a training module and you might be NPCs, I don't know.
Or there could be one big fake world, but then the individuals are placed into it in artificial situations that they can spot.
So, I will add to the thing that Elon Musk says often, that if you're going to create even one artificial world, you'll probably create more than one.
So the number of artificial ones that think they're real will definitely far outnumber, maybe a billion to one, the number that are real.
Did you know, there's a report from No Ridge, no with a K-N-O-W, that MIT engineers have figured out how to use solar power for desalinization.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, I'm pretty sure they already know how to use electricity to desalinate water.
Duh! Well, here's what they did that's different.
They don't need a battery.
Normally, if you're desalinating, you have to put a constant amount of pressure to shoot the water through the filter, usually, or whatever it is that they're using to desalinate.
But the MIT engineers found a way to moderate how much energy is going into the desalinization based on how much sun there is at any moment.
And that gets rid of the need for battery storage, which is a big, big, big, big, big deal.
It means, listen to this number.
So I saw a picture that looked like it was maybe like the size of the, I don't know, the back of a small van or something.
But I couldn't tell how much that was the active part of the equipment.
But it fit in there. So it's, you know, it's not as big as a building.
It's something you can put in a truck.
And it made... 5,000 liters, I think?
Where's that number? It made 5,000 liters of clean water in one day, even as the weather was changing.
So it wasn't always sunny, and it wasn't always daytime.
And it still made 5,000 liters of clean water in one day.
That feels like a lot of water, isn't it?
Like, how much would you need to take a shower?
How many liters?
I don't know. It's hard to put that in perspective.
Anyway, did you know that there's a new university in America?
That's sort of anti-woke and some billionaires are funding it.
So in Austin, the University of Austin is brand new.
Well, brand new. November 2021 it started.
It's got a couple of big billionaires behind it.
It's got Harlan Crow and Jeff Yass.
And it's small.
It's only got 92 kids in it, but it's growing.
So here the free market is doing the free market thing.
So there's actually a college you could go to now without all the woke garbage.
Will it work? I don't know.
I still think that AI and robots are gonna, you know, be the new education system of the future.
I don't think the idea of driving somewhere and some big organizations in charge of your...
I don't know if that model is gonna work in the long run.
So, anyway, you probably all know the story.
Yesterday, Elon Musk's Starship took off and not only successfully took off and separated, which is what they were testing, but the hard part was the reusability.
The reusability depends on this thing.
I guess they can't do it the way the other rockets do, which is simply to land, you know, standing up.
For some reason, they can't do it.
I think it has to do with the size of the weight or something.
So instead, Musk designed a gigantic set of chopsticks.
That's what he calls it.
It's like two arms that are like chopsticks.
And this gigantic rocket falls down and these chopsticks grab it before it hits the ground.
And you don't even believe this could possibly work.
It's the most ridiculously unlikely successful thing you've ever seen in your life.
I would have made a pretty big bet That that wouldn't work.
There it is. It's probably like a billion dollar bet that paid off.
So I have to say that was one of the most inspiring things I've seen.
And I'm going to say what you're all thinking, but you don't want to say out loud because you're good people and you don't like to cause trouble.
Did you notice that we got the biggest, most impressive technical achievement out of the company that's most famous for ignoring DEI? Is that a coincidence?
It might be.
It might be a coincidence.
But it's hard to ignore that there's one person who's the most vocal about being anti-woke, And that that very same person's company did something that we didn't even think could be done in America anymore.
Because we don't have other companies doing something that impressive anymore.
So we just sort of thought, well, I guess we're done doing impressive things.
And then he does something that's so impressive the entire world stopped and said, wait, what are you doing over there?
What? Did you really just send an enormous rocket into space and just catch it with giant chopsticks?
You did? My God, that is impressive.
Now, I don't want to go too far and say that, yes, it's because they ignore DEI. That's why they're successful.
That's not in evidence.
That's not in evidence.
I'm just saying it would be a weird coincidence if the person who's most famous for being in favor of merit coincidentally had the best success.
I mean, it could be a coincidence.
But I doubt it. I doubt it.
By the way, I do think they probably do have some kind of DEI efforts, but maybe they don't go crazy on it.
Probably they do. Here's a stat from Evil Texan on X. Did you know SpaceX has 13,000 employees?
And they're doing amazing things.
And NASA has 42,000 employees.
And your tax money is paying for it, unlike SpaceX.
And so far, the 42,000 employees at NASA have managed also a success.
So they're both good.
So SpaceX has put impossible rockets into space and rescued some astronauts.
And NASA, with its 42,000 employees, not to be outdone, they've launched a gay flag.
So they've matched the regular flag with a gay flag.
And, you know, it didn't launch itself, people.
I mean, that flag didn't just get on that pole by itself.
That required NASA and its 42,000 employees.
So good job, NASA, of raising a flag.
SpaceX halfway to Mars.
Okay. Meanwhile, in a story that shouldn't be funny, but it is, Bill Clinton went to McDonald's.
And he was being filmed from a short distance away, just to see.
And the idea was, apparently they were trying to see the reaction of the staff when Bill Clinton walks in and orders a hamburger.
Just imagine what the ordinary staff would be.
They're just doing their McDonald's job.
It's like, would you like some fries?
Would you like something with that apple pie?
And then the next customer that walks in is Bill Clinton, just by himself.
He walks up to the cashier, and the cashier, now just so you can imagine it, it's not important to the story.
But just so you can visualize it, imagine a maybe 20-something-year-old black woman, and she looks up and she sees Bill Clinton standing on the other side of the cash register, and she goes, Joe Biden?
And Bill Clinton had to introduce himself.
No, I'm Bill Clinton.
Well, then she was very impressed.
She did recognize that name and they got along great.
So that wasn't exactly what they were planning on when Bill Clinton went to McDonald's, but it was still good.
It was still fun. So apparently Duke Energy had this big solar farm in Florida.
It's where they've got a gigantic number of solar panels on big fields.
And I guess Hurricane Milton, or more specifically, probably a tornado associated with it, just ripped a path right through the middle of it.
So, one of the problems with solar panels is that a big windstorm will just rip them up.
I don't know, do you think that a nuclear power plant would have problems from wind or a tornado?
Would a tornado hurt a nuclear power plant?
I feel like they would make sure that it wouldn't, that that would be kind of basic to make sure that it was hardened against that.
But the solar panels just got destroyed.
Anyway, so there's a report of a potential third assassination attempt against Trump.
But there's a little ambiguity this time, because the person who was captured didn't have guns with him, but he had guns in his car.
He apparently is a well-documented, longtime Trump supporter.
And there's evidence of it more than just him saying it.
So he's got some girlfriend type who says, I've been going to Trump events with him forever.
He's a Trump supporter.
But the local police...
Local police sheriff said that because the guy showed up with multiple passports and different names, he had an unregistered vehicle with a fake license plate, he had loaded firearms in it, and apparently he had some fake way to get into the VIP section.
And the sheriff says, if you're asking him right now, I probably did have W's that prevented the third assassination attempt.
So basically he says, the sheriff says, we have a serious, serious problem in this country because this is a common sense reason.
In other words, the sheriff is saying, That this guy was so sketchy in his behavior, not his thoughts, we don't know what his thoughts were, but his behavior was so sketchy that to imagine that he wasn't up to something no good is sort of unreasonable.
But, from what I can tell, there's pretty good evidence he's a Trump supporter.
So, this one's a funny one.
I don't think I'm going to take the side of him being an assassin.
But anything's possible, right?
Anything's possible. So, I'm not going to rule it out.
But innocent until proven guilty.
He has a history of being a Trump supporter.
And before that, apparently, he was a Bernie guy.
And I don't think the Bernie guy who becomes a Trump supporter becomes an assassin, unless there was mental illness involved, and apparently there wasn't.
But on the other hand, why does he need an unregistered car full of guns and fake passports with different names?
Well, I'll just throw out a possibility.
There are a lot of Trump supporters who say things like, I think Andrew Tate says this, that you should have multiple passports because the country might not be safe, meaning America might not be safe, so you might need a bug-out country or multiple bug-out countries.
He's not wrong about that, by the way.
When Andrew Tate says maybe you should have some multiple passports just in case things go bad wherever you are, that feels like just sort of basic risk management.
That's not crazy at all.
I'm not doing it myself, but it's not crazy.
So who knows? We'll find out, maybe.
Here's a reminder of something I did not know at the time, maybe.
Do you remember there was a case of the D.C. madam, and that there was some famous madam of many prostitutes in D.C., and she got picked up, arrested, and you said to yourself, uh-oh, all the big names of the big politicians who use prostitutes are going to come out.
You know, like the Epstein list came out.
Well, more recently, like the Diddy list came out.
Oh wait, the Dini List didn't come out.
Oh wait, the Epstein List didn't come out.
Oh wait, the D.C. Manum List was never released.
Well, but at least...
At least, you know, there's this that in Congress, I think in the House, there's a fund for paying out sexual claims.
So at least we've seen the list of all the sex...
No, we haven't.
We haven't. So there are at least four different lists of sex offenders of high-level people that we know for sure exist.
And we'll never see them.
Never see them. Now, here's something I don't remember happening in the news, so give me a fact check.
Did Alex Jones, did the D.C. madam tell Alex Jones that she wasn't suicidal and then soon after was found in a suicide?
Is that a real thing that happened?
I don't remember how that situation resolved itself, if that's the right way to put it.
But is it true that the D.C. madam said in public, To Alex Jones that she wasn't suicidal and then committed suicide?
Allegedly? Is that a real story?
Or did somebody just...
I'm seeing yeses in the comments.
How did I not know that?
Like, I missed that entirely.
Wow. And did you know that people were trying to get the client list from that madam reversed?
People were trying to get it revealed, the client list.
And there was a judge who decided not to.
So who was the name of the judge back in those days who blocked the client list from being revealed?
His name was Judge Merrick Garland.
Have you heard of him? He would be the current Attorney General.
And as Mike Ben says, who knows more about this stuff than all of us put together, he says, Garland is the mop-up man.
He's a career janitor on permanent sweep duty for crimes of the intelligence state.
Hmm. Huh.
Now, it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
If you were the, you know, allegedly some kind of deep state people, And you wanted to make sure that you didn't personally go to jail.
What is the one job that you'd want to make sure you had your person in?
It'd be the Attorney General, wouldn't it?
You'd want to really, really make sure the Attorney General's on your side, no matter who the President is.
It wouldn't matter who's in office.
You'd really, really, really want to make sure the Attorney General's not on the President's side.
You know, less by coincidence, but more on your side, whoever you are.
And I say that because Liz Harrington is talking about that in 2020, December 2020, a quote, irate Bill Barr called investigators looking into Jesse Morgan's claims of hundreds of thousands of completed mail-in ballots hauled across state lines, and Bill Barr told the investigators to stand down.
And he was quite agitated, it is reported, And told him to stand down.
Do you remember the reasons he gave for that?
The reasons for standing down on what looked like a very credible claim of massive election fraud?
Do you remember the reasons?
I don't. I don't remember any reasons.
And Liz doesn't mention any.
I don't remember seeing any in the news.
Did he have reasons?
Why would he have reasons?
If the investigators thought that there was something that was reported by a, as far as they knew, a credible citizen, and it was a report of the most major crime you can imagine, and then Bill Barr was one of the ones who was, you know, quite certain that the election was fair.
How could he know that?
There's one thing you can't know, whether the election was fair.
But Bill Barr seemed to act like he knew it.
Don't you think Bill Barr would know, because he's been around everything and he's smart, wouldn't he know that it is unknowable if somebody cheated and got away with it?
The only thing you'd know is that you didn't have proof from some court or something that maybe you believed.
But you can't know the election was good.
That's not a thing. You can only know you didn't find anything.
So, here's my question.
Are all the Attorney Generals sort of deep state people, and it wouldn't matter who the President was?
I kind of wonder.
Maybe that's the one thing you have to control, and then everything else takes care of itself.
I don't know.
Let's talk about the propagandists, the propaganda network MSNBC.
They like to bring in these crazy generals.
So the anti-Trump people like to bring in generals.
The generals they bring in are the least impressive generals I've ever seen.
If the only thing I knew about the American military was the generals that go on TV and say things about Trump, I would immediately attack the United States.
After seeing like three or four of our best generals, I don't know if they're the best, but if you see three or four of our generals go on TV and talk about how Trump is a fascist, I would just say, oh my God, they don't have any leadership there.
Attack now. They all look incompetent.
So MSNBC Propaganda Network has this retired Major General Randy Manor.
And he says, quote, you tell me if this sounds like a reasoned, tactical, strategic, brilliant general, or in this case, a major general.
Quote, President Trump is demonstrating the attributes of fascism every single day, and every American that is supporting Trump right now needs to understand that they are absolutely supporting fascism if they vote for Trump.
And, of course, there were lots of reasons to back up that opinion, right?
He just looked crazy as shit.
You just have to look at the Major General.
Just look at his eyes.
Look at his face. And if he doesn't look crazy, maybe it's just bias.
But, I mean, they just don't look like they're playing on the same wavelength as other people.
They just look like, oh, my God.
You were in charge of people?
Like, how could this person have been in charge of sending people into battle?
My God. Anyway.
And then Joe Scarborough said, quote, talking about Trump, he says, he thinks fear, he thinks loathing, he thinks darkness wins.
How do you combat that?
You combat it with being defiant by being joyful.
Talking about Harris. She seemed to strike that tone last night very well.
Talking about Harris's rally in North Carolina.
Yeah. So according to Joe Scarborough, if you want to beat fear, loathing, and darkness, you should do it with joyfulness.
Well, I'd like to give a little persuasion lesson to you.
Persuasion lesson number one.
Nothing that Joe Scarborough says is worth listening to.
That's number one.
Number two, fear beats everything.
Joyful doesn't beat fear.
No, fear beats joyful 100% of the time.
That's not even a fair fight.
Joyful can beat boring.
Joyful could be, you know, somebody who's less capable.
Joyful could be somebody who has maybe better, little bit better policies.
So joyful is not empty.
Joyful can motivate, but not against fear.
So imagine you're, you know, there's a knock on the door and you think it's the Venezuelan gang coming to get you.
What are you going to do?
Are you going to ramp up your joyfulness?
Well, it looks like I might be killed by the people on the other side of that door that they're knocking hard trying to knock it down.
It looks like they're all armed, as I point out if I look out the window.
But if we ramp up the joy, I think we can counteract this.
No. No.
Joyfulness is not a response to fear.
Fear wins every time.
Every time. So that's your persuasion lesson.
And it's also the reason that the...
And keep in mind, Morning Joe just had a major general on...
To scare Americans into thinking that Trump was the scariest fascist alive.
And then the very next opinion is, well, you know, joyfulness beats fear.
On the same network, same morning.
The propaganda network, it's so funny.
But here's something you don't hear about on the news, and it takes people like me to really point it out.
Let's see if this works.
So here's a picture, you can't see it, but it's a picture of young Joe Scarborough.
And I think I understand why he doesn't shave his head.
Because if he did, he would look exactly like one of those gray aliens that we keep thinking are kidnapping people.
Now, if you're only listening to this, you are not seeing the hilarious side-by-side pictures of an alien and young Joe Scarborough.
But trust me, you'd be laughing so hard right now.
All right, let me get back to where I need to be.
Back on me, where we belong.
Speaking of propaganda...
The headline in the Washington Post is, quote, Trump urges using military to handle radical left lunatics on Election Day.
Do you think that happened?
It's in the Washington Post.
It's a paper of record.
It's one of the news-making papers, one of the most respected institutions in all of America.
So do you think it's true that Trump urged using military to handle the radical left lunatics?
Of course not. Of course not.
Did he say, quote, that if there were any trouble around Election Day, did he say, quote, it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen.
Does that sound like urging to use the military against the radical left?
Or does it sound like, if it's a last resort, We can't have the country torn apart, so you might have to do what you got to do.
I see Mike Burke coming in from the locals.
Looks like we have a success.
That only makes sense to the people and locals.
Yeah, so Trump saying that in the worst case scenario, you would have to do the thing that nobody wants to do, which is use the military, which to me sounds like A normal person talking in a normal way.
Washington Post says he's urging the military to take care of these radical left lunatics.
No, that's not exactly what happened.
It was sort of a last resort kind of thing.
Did you know that Time Magazine...
It's currently owned by, at least in part, by Mark Benioff, the billionaire owner of and creator of Salesforce.
And so that means it's left-leaning because Benioff is a big Democrat supporter.
But even he is not too happy that Kamala Harris refused an interview in Time magazine.
And he said, quote, Harris declined repeated requests for an interview for this story.
So Time magazine did a big feature story about Harris without getting to talk to her.
Now, Time Magazine isn't what it used to be.
You know, it used to be one of the most respected news entities.
At the moment, it's a hollowed-down, you know, gawker, Huffington Post kind of situation.
So it's not really what it used to be.
But still, she did not do it.
And then Benioff says, in contrast, Trump talked about his policy vision with the Time reporter for 90 minutes across two interviews.
Okay, that is an unambiguous statement that said Trump is a better politician in this specific regard than Harris.
That's really clear.
You know, I got to tell you, I think I may have told you this story.
I used to do a lot of public speaking.
And I've only had one person who hired me for public speaking tell me that I did a bad job after I was done.
It was Mark Benioff.
And by the way, he wasn't wrong.
He wasn't wrong at all.
Because I wasn't doing speaking when the request came in.
And so I slapped something together.
Because I guess their speaker canceled.
So the speaker's bureau said, uh-oh, we've got to find somebody who can drive there.
Because, you know, it's too late to travel.
And I live locally. So they said, you know, would you do something on short notice?
And I was like, oh, I really...
Don't want to, but they're going to pay you a lot of money.
I was like, oh, how much?
And they said, this much.
And I said, really? And I said, I'll be right there.
So I hung out with Benioff before the event.
And I have to say, he's one of the most impressive people in person you'll ever meet.
You know, sometimes you meet a rich person and you say, how did you get rich?
It must have been luck. But you talk to Benioff, you go, oh, okay, I get it.
I see how you got rich. His philosophy, his whole mannerism, his charisma, his intelligence, the whole thing is there.
He's missing nothing. But one of the things that he can do is he can invite me in to give a talk and then tell me it was bad after it was done.
And the thing was, he wasn't wrong.
That's what I appreciated.
It was the worst, maybe, maybe the worst presentation I'd done since I started doing it years before that.
So he wasn't wrong.
And here he is, you know, he's very clearly a Democrat, but his person who's on his side, Harris, fucked up.
She said no to Time Magazine for a big feature piece.
And so he's just saying, okay, in public, you're no Donald Trump.
So the first thing you have to know about Benioff is that he's the real deal.
If you do something good, he'll say so.
If you do something bad, he'll say so with the same level of candor.
So, I mean, it's not an accident that he's a billionaire.
It's not an accident. Anyway.
J.D. Vance was talking to ABC's Martha Raddatz.
And he is so good at this.
J.D. Vance is a really good pick.
Because he just really dominates the interview situation.
And that's not common.
Not everybody can do that. But...
So apparently the mayor of Aurora, Colorado, was saying that the issue with the Venezuelan gangs was real, but it was a handful of problems and that they were all handled.
So there wasn't a real problem that needed to be addressed at a national level.
There were some problems.
They took care of it. We're all good now.
Now, Trump had been saying something closer to, you know, the gangs were taking over the city of Aurora, and the mayor was disagreeing.
So Raddatz was taking the mayor's...
I won't say she took his side, although she did, but she was quoting him.
To say that Trump was exaggerating the thing.
Now, here's what J.D. did, which was a very clever reframe.
No, that's too nice.
It was a weaselly thing he did, but he did it so well, I'm going to point it out.
So Raditz says it's only a handful of problems.
So she's quoting the mayor.
There were only a handful of problems.
But the issue was, were there apartment complexes in which the gangs had basically taken control of the apartment buildings?
Now, when you hear the phrase from the mayor that there were a handful of problems, does that tell you that there were a handful of apartments taken over by gangs?
Or were there a handful of problems, and it wasn't that they took over the whole building, but they might have been in a building, and there might have been a problem, and then they took care of it?
What do you hear? When I hear there were a handful of problems, I don't hear they took over a handful of apartment buildings.
Now, again, I wasn't there.
Maybe they did take over a handful of apartment buildings, and I don't know it.
But that's not what the statement was.
It was a handful of problems.
But J.D. says, and very cleverly goes, he said a handful of apartments.
So he changed a handful of problems into, well, you know, you're saying it's not a problem that a handful of apartments were taken over by Venezuelan gangs.
And And then he accused her of nitpicking versus acknowledging that apartment takeovers by South American gangs is something you should worry about.
Really well done.
Really well done.
If I'm going to be honest about it, he did a little bit of a magic trick there.
By changing a handful of problems into a handful of apartment buildings?
It's not the same.
But in doing so, he pressed his point perfectly.
The point is, you shouldn't take this lightly, even if the mayor is.
Like, it's still a big enough deal that this is worthy of conversation.
And it is. So just watching him handle that situation, and then Raditz had to, at the end, put in her last little fact check.
You know, she goes, but they did not take over the city.
Now, even J.D., I think he admitted during the interview that there was some hyperbole involved in saying taking over the city.
So Vance was not going to support the point that they took over a city.
That was hyperbole, but we're talking about some apartment buildings, and that's pretty big.
If it's true. So, great job in handling the media there.
Did you know that Democrats are going crazy about Elon Musk and not in a good way?
So, a number of people are thinking he should go to jail.
I don't even know for what.
What would be the crime?
So Hillary Clinton has said that Musk maybe needs to go to jail.
Hillary Clinton.
Silicon Valley investor Robert McNamee called for Musk's arrest and said that it should be a condition for getting government contracts.
It should require him to moderate his speech.
So for the fact that his speech is not moderated, maybe he should go to jail or not get government contracts.
Robert Reich, the former Clinton Secretary of State, said Musk should be arrested for refusing to censor other people.
So he's not doing enough censorship on the X platform, so he should be arrested, according to Robert Reich.
And then Keith Olbermann, of course, batshit crazy Keith, called for Musk to be deported.
And all the federal contracts with his company is canceled.
The Democrats are crazy as shit.
I mean, they're just batshit crazy.
They can't even come up with a crime.
They're asking to jail a guy after he just did the greatest technical week of innovation that anybody's ever done in the history of the United States.
And all for the benefit of humankind.
And these assholes want to put him in jail.
It's so pathetic.
The Democrats have just become completely pathetic.
Anyway. Kamala Harris has a new racist plan.
So she's not hiding anymore.
She's going full racist.
And it involves providing...
So it's a plan to get black voters on her side.
So it's a bunch of economic things targeted.
Primarily at black voters.
So she wants to give a million loans, forgivable loans, up to $20,000 for black entrepreneurs.
And quote, others who have historically faced barriers.
So in other words, not white men.
So she wants to give...
So if you're poor and you're a white man, fuck you.
You're a poor white man.
Fuck you. Go die in the gutter somewhere.
Because the racist Kamala Harris has some good plans for people who are just as poor as you, but they happen to have different colors.
So she'll help them.
But not you, you whitey.
Go die in the gutter, says the racist.
And she would, let's see, what else she would do.
She would have a national health equity initiative that would aim to address sickle cell disease, diabetes, mental health, prostate cancer, and other health challenges that disproportionately impact black men.
That one's good. If there's one place you should have equity, you should definitely have equity when it comes to healthcare.
That's one place where I'm all in.
I'm all in on that.
If black Americans have special, you know, some healthcare risks in some categories, yes.
Yes, go do that.
So that's fair. Now, is it racist?
Yes, but in a good way.
Is that a thing? Because, you know, the world is complicated.
It's not like racism all bad, racism all good.
That's not true. This is purely racist because, you know, white people don't have sickle cell and some of these special health impacts.
But yeah, let's treat every patient like they're unique and And if you can know something about them because of their genetic background, that's part of what makes them unique.
And let's get everybody some help.
Absolutely. Totally on board with that one.
So that would be a case where in my...
Because nobody's left behind, right?
They're not saying that if you're a white person, they're not going to check your prostate.
If they said we're not going to check your prostate if you're poor and you're white, I'm out.
Just to be clear, I'm not going to go to that level of racism.
But if you want to make sure that people who are different individuals with different situations are also treated as best they can, yes.
Full equity. Give me all the equity you got.
How about this one? Legalizing recreational marijuana nationally and creating opportunities for black Americans to succeed in the industry.
I know a white American who once tried to open a weed business in California and there were lots of obstacles because it's actually a really hard business to get started and he couldn't make it through the red tape and the bureaucracy and the approvals and all that stuff.
What's wrong with that guy? Why can't he have a weed business?
But if he were black, he'd be in the weed business?
And that's fair how?
Nope. Nope.
You can go fix all the sickle cell anemia, please.
Please do. But no.
This is just fucking racist.
Everybody who is poor...
Should have a shot at everything that's better than being poor.
No, this is just fucking racist.
How about this one?
Harris would provide education, training, and mentorship programs to help black men get jobs in high-demand industries, but she would target specifically teaching jobs.
What, there are no white men who could use a little mentoring and help to get a teaching job?
And why do you want to specifically target one group for one profession?
Why can't just everybody who needs a help get a little help?
This is purely racist.
Purely racist. Now, I will, but I'll make one small shift to this.
I do think that one of the biggest, I guess, systemic racism problems that I recognize, besides the school system, is mentorship.
Mentorship is a really big deal.
If you happen to be lucky enough to know a bunch of rich people, let's say your parents are doing well and they know other rich people, that's a huge, huge advantage because you can get advice and you can get connections and stuff.
So if you could fix mentorship for the underserved people in the world, as long as you're doing it for everybody, That would be a really big bite out of what I would agree is systemic racism.
So for that, I'm all in.
On mentorship, I think everybody should get more.
It's a fact that Black Americans have less access.
So a little extra effort.
I think that would be fair.
But if you're spending money On things that everybody needs and you're only allowing one group of people to get it, not so good.
Not so good. The thing about mentorship is it doesn't cost anything.
One of the weird things I've told you a number of times is that although I got cancelled, I have and continue to mentor black individuals just because they asked.
It turns out the asking It's a really good strategy.
Who teaches this?
There's somebody very famous who recently has made a big deal about the fact that just asking.
If you can learn to ask, knowing that you'll get turned down for a lot of stuff, you're going to get a lot of stuff.
So when somebody asks me for some kind of mentorship or advice or a connection or something, I don't ask them their color.
I don't ask them their politics.
I don't say who you don't like for president.
I just say, you have something that you need.
I have the answer to that question.
Why wouldn't I give it to you?
Why wouldn't I? Of course I will.
So when it comes to mentorship, most of it should be free, and it's a gigantic disadvantage when you don't have it, white or black.
So I'm pretty liberal in giving it.
So I'll give this advice.
If you're black and you're under-mentored, and it's probably the case, you should really just try asking some white people and some brown people who have succeeded and some women who have succeeded.
You're going to be amazed.
You're just going to be amazed how willing people are to help you out on an individual basis.
But if you go to somebody and say, can you do something for all the people who look like me?
Good luck. I'm not in on that at all.
Not at all. But if you individually have something, sure.
Just ask. Trump is going off on...
Kamala's brain. So I'm just going to read this because I love his writing.
So this is Trump posting on truth.
He said, quote, Her actions have led many to believe that there could be something very wrong with her.
Even 60 Minutes in CBS, in order to protect Lyon Kamala, illegally and unscrupulously replaced an answer she had given, which was totally bonkers, with another answer that had nothing to do with the question asked.
Also, she is slow and lethargic.
In answering even the easiest of questions.
We just went through almost four years of that.
We shouldn't have to do it again.
Oh, this is brilliant.
It's brilliant. Now, will she take a cognitive test?
Of course not. Of course not.
Will they fight back and say, you're the one who's too old and should take a cognitive test?
Of course they will. But I love that he's injecting it into the conversation And saying that the evidence is clear that she's got a cognitive deficit.
Now wasn't it, I need a fact check on this, did Harmeet Dillon say on Tucker Carlson that she remembers Kamala Harris from long ago and that Kamala Harris didn't used to be stupid?
Did that actually happen or did I imagine that?
Can you give me a fact check?
So it would have been the Tucker Carlson conversation with Hermit, but I thought I saw like just a clip or a reference to it.
So give me a fact check, I'm not sure of that.
But the funny thing is that I had that same experience.
Meaning that, let's say, I don't know, eight or ten years ago, when I would see Kamala Harris in public, like as a senator, I would say to myself, pretty good.
Pretty good. Handled herself well.
And then I would see her at a hearing or something, and she'd be one of the attack dogs that the Democrats like.
And I'd say to myself, oh, you did some good questions there.
You look tough, smart.
But then she runs for president and she kind of looks like an idiot.
And I've been racking my brains and trying to figure out, was it me?
Was it me who just was fooled, but she's always been a moron?
Or did something actually change?
Now, Trump is suggesting, by asking the question and asking for a cognitive test, he's suggesting that something might have changed.
And I'm on that page.
It could be substance abuse, which is what it looks like.
But it also looks like just some kind of cognitive decline.
And I mean that seriously.
I don't mean that as, oh, say anything to make your candidate win.
And, you know, I'm pro-Trump.
And I always say that whoever's against Trump has cognitive problems.
I don't. And I remind you.
Joe Biden certainly had cognitive problems, which I called out four years ago and was completely right.
Hillary Clinton has no cognitive problems whatsoever.
Not once did I suggest that she was not smart.
Not once did I suggest she had any kind of dementia.
Nor does she now.
I've never said it about Obama.
Clearly very smart.
Clearly does not have any dimension.
But I'm one for one on Joe Biden, and I'm one of the ones who caught it as early as you could possibly catch it.
I'm catching something with her.
There's something. I don't know what it is, but it's a mystery.
I would love to know if she used to be smart and isn't.
Or is it a substance abuse problem?
Or is it me?
Because remember, I can't rule out the possibility it's me.
It could be that I'm so deeply biased, or maybe she was always dumb, but she acted better back then because she had some notes or something.
I don't know. I just don't know.
Somehow she became a senator.
So we all watched her try to run for president the first time, where she was the first one that got kicked out of the primary.
What did her Senate races look like?
Was that just the California machine put her in office and it didn't matter how she campaigned?
Did she ever act capable?
I'm very curious about that.
I really don't know. But I love the fact that Trump is injecting that idea into our conversation.
Now, do you remember I've been telling you that there's something I called an October surprise coming?
And I told you that I had some knowledge of it coming.
Well, today's the day I'm going to tell you what it is.
You've already seen it. It's the polls.
The polls were going to change in the middle of October.
And you were going to be shocked because nothing would happen that would make the polls change.
All it's going to be is a rethinking of who the likely voters are.
And once that's rejiggered, which is what's happening now, it's going to make Harris look less competitive.
And it's going to happen suddenly.
It's going to be dramatic.
And it's going to change the conversation totally.
And it just happened.
So we got some new numbers coming out.
So according to, let's see, ABC and NBC, if I said ABC and NBC, what would you say about their support for Democrats versus Republicans?
ABC and NBC. You would say, oh, those are the two friendliest networks to Kamala Harris.
In fact, ABC is Martha Raddatz.
ABC is the last debate that people think was fixed.
So ABC News, the poll before this most recent one, had Harris up by six.
Does that sound like that was true?
Does anybody believe that Harris was up by six last week?
Just last week?
Up by six? Well, they just revised it, and now she's up by two, which is probably the margin of error.
Do you think that anybody in the real world, when nothing really happened, do you think she really went from six to two?
No, of course not.
No, not in the real world.
No, they must have rejiggered.
Who the likely voters would be.
How about NBC? NBC until last week had Harris up five.
Up five?
Do you believe that Harris was up five last week?
They have a new poll now.
It's tied. Now it's tied.
Do you think that in the normal world she went down five points in a week when nothing really happened?
No, of course not. Of course not.
Those are polls being rejiggered.
Now, the other thing I predicted is that it wouldn't happen all at once.
There would be an obvious pattern to it.
So the pattern would be that for the few months leading up to it, everybody would be a little biased toward Harris.
And it would make it look like it's a close race, because everybody likes it to be a close race.
But even the pollsters who knew That those poll numbers were maybe a little artificial because of the assumptions they made about who was going to vote.
They knew they were going to close toward the election day.
And the middle of October is when you do it because you don't want to do it too soon, but you don't want to do it too late.
The middle of October is just right.
So from the start, I predicted that the pattern would be the polls are really tight.
You can't tell who's going to win.
There'll be some outliers, but basically all tight on average.
Then you need, here's the second part that I predicted, you're going to need a couple of very pro-Harris polls to reverse.
Somebody's got to go first.
If somebody doesn't go first, the rest won't follow.
So it's got to be a name brand or one or two big ones.
It just happened. NBC and ABC. They went first.
So now they took the ridiculous numbers and took it down to something closer to a statistical tie.
Do you think they're done?
Do you think that that's now reality?
That they took it from Harris way ahead, winning easily, down to a tie?
Do you think they're done adjusting?
No, they're not. So what you should see is what I'm calling the Kamala collapse.
So you're going to see a complete collapse of the polling.
And it's not really a change.
It's just they're adjusting it closer to reality because they have to when it gets to the actual end.
And here it is.
It's exactly on schedule.
It's like right on schedule.
You could have predicted this six months ago.
I mean, she wasn't the candidate six months ago.
But you could have predicted that whoever was the candidate, it would be close, close, close until October, and then you would see this pattern.
Now, Biden was a special case because we've never seen anybody lose a debate the way he lost a debate.
So his numbers would not have been close even in the summer.
You know, August would have been a route and, you know, there's no way it would have been close.
So he was sort of a wild card.
But the moment they took him out and put in something that's sort of like a normal person to run, Immediately it did the thing it's supposed to do, which, oh, they're tied.
Oh, Harris is a little bit ahead, actually.
A little bit ahead, so give us money.
How much fundraising would Harris do if she had always been shown as behind?
It'd be hard. Why would you give money to that?
But if they show that it's a horse race and it's a tie, then you really think your money is going to make a difference.
If you're the billionaire who can give $20 million to a pack and it looks like it's a tie, you're going to say to yourself, you know, my $20 million could easily be the difference in this race.
And then you open up the wallet and But if the race is a route, why would you give money?
It has to be close to give money.
It has to be close to even bother running commercials on the news networks.
So making it close is sort of so important for the whole system that all the biases are there to just force it to look close when it really maybe isn't.
All right. Here's some more hints about the Kamala collapse.
I told you this, but Michael Tracy, independent journalist, said that Kamala Harris's Univision crowd was half-rent-a-crowd, meaning literally a company goes out and pays people to be attendees at different audiences.
So half of it was paid and half was flown in because they were supporters.
They were supposed to be undecideds, but I think they got very few undecideds, if any.
Then, of course, they've got Tim Walsh going out trying to pretend to be a real man and completely failing at it.
The people who know guns better than I do say he was awkward with his gun stuff and he looked like he just bought his hunting clothes that morning and all kinds of things that didn't make it look as manly as it was supposed to.
And Scott Jennings on CNN put it this way.
That Tim Walsh was doing hunting cosplay.
Cosplay, where you're just pretending to be a character.
He goes, Tim Walsh is doing hunting cosplay and cringy videos that are not helping with men.
I'm going to go further.
And I'm going to say, if you look at the way the Democrats, very publicly, they said they were going to try to woo men.
And then they showed that they don't even know what men are.
Apparently, there are so few people with influence who are men, I'll say heterosexual men because that's what they were targeting, that they didn't even know how to get one of them to pretend to be one.
Wouldn't you love to have been in those meetings?
All right, Tim, we've got a problem with men.
We need to woo some men.
He goes, well, we've got all the gay men, you know, or most of them.
We're working on Richard Grinnell, but we think we have most of the gay men.
Scott Pressler, no.
We don't have him, but we'll work on him too.
But we think we have most of the gay men.
So how can we woo the heteros?
And like, anybody have any ideas?
And somebody's like, I've got it.
Monster trucks. No, two on the nose.
Two on the nose. How about shooting things?
Shooting things. They like to shoot things.
Yes. Yes.
We're going to have our guy go out and shoot something.
But, oh, hold on.
Hold on. You have your hand up?
I'm a vegetarian. Oh.
Okay. Well, he needs to shoot something, but we don't want to see him shooting something.
How about he just goes into the forest with a gun, loads it, and then we don't see him shoot anything because we don't want to see any dead stuff.
Too manly? Perfect.
You can just imagine what that conversation looked like with no actual men consulting.
It must have been hilarious.
I would love to have the recording of that meeting of how they were pretending to be men.
And then they look around and they go, okay, how about we just look at some of our actual heterosexual male Democrats and we'll use them as a model?
And they're like, yes, yes.
Who do we have? James Carville.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I mean, it must have been hilarious.
That's all I'm saying. You can imagine it.
Anyway. I wasn't really following the congressional races.
So according to the Hill, the Senate race will be close in the sense of who's controlling the Senate when we're done.
But the Hill thinks that it's leaning GOP. So if things went the way we expect, Republicans would have control of the Senate.
Now, is there a wild card involved here?
Of course there is. Because when the Hill says it's leaning Republican, They also are believing their own polls.
So if Trump were to win only as much as the polls suggest he will, then it's going to be close, but the GOP might have a slight edge.
But what happens if Trump dominates the election?
Just kills. Well, usually that drags along a lot of undercard people like senators and representatives.
So if the polling is bullshit, And the actual results are Trump just does a Reagan and just controls the whole electoral college.
The Senate is going to go Republican.
I feel like that's a likely outcome.
And I also think it's likely that Trump will outperform.
So I'm going to say the greatest...
I'd say two to one.
I'll go two to one.
Republicans take the Senate.
Two to one odds. Then, there's the House.
It's kind of weird how often the House and the Senate change sides.
You would think it wouldn't happen that much, but it's kind of weird that it happens often.
So the House is currently Republican, but barely, might go slightly higher.
It might go slightly in that direction.
But, again, the wild card is Trump's performance.
So if Trump performs amazingly, then maybe even the House goes his way.
So there is some possibility.
I don't think it's...
I give it maybe a 55-60% chance.
That the Republicans end up having control of the courts, the Senate, the House, and the presidency?
It's possible.
60% chance.
And the 60% is entirely based on Trump overperforming.
If Trump just sort of, you know, barely squeaks in a victory, then, well, maybe not the House.
Right. So my prediction is Trump's dominant performance takes the House, takes the Senate, and then he can have his way with the courts.
That's my take.
MSNBC is worried about Trump presidency, and they say they're alarmed that they might be floating the idea of having Kash Patel as the Attorney General.
And he has, Kash Patel has apparently said that we'd go out and find conspirators, not just in the government, but in the media, the people who did bad things in 2020, allegedly, and put him in jail, going after him, I guess.
Now, I'm not in favor of lawfare, so I want to be really clear about that.
If Trump wins, and I see even one example, Even one example of them trying to jail a, let's say, a member of the media who's maybe biased, but just doing that biased media thing, I'm out.
I'm not going to fight this hard to get a Trump administration to protect the First Amendment and to protect our rights and let him do the same thing that we're trying to prevent.
That's not going to happen.
If they go full lawfare, I am so out and I'm going to be out, not violently, but assertively I will be out.
If they do that. Now, if they're putting people who really broke the law in jail, that's fine.
But you better bring the goods.
It better not look like lawfare to me.
It better not look like a bunch of, you know, bullshit Soros prosecutors.
I am nowhere near being okay with that, just to be clear.
So whether it's Kash Patel or anybody else, you better not.
You better not. I'm not cool with that.
You know, I wouldn't even want to be associated with anybody who had that point of view.
So maybe all you need is truth and labeling.
Imagine you had truth in labeling for the news organizations, and you came up with some objective standard.
So let's say the objective standard was the percentage of time that each network spends, let's say, criticizing one candidate while praising the other.
And let's just say you said, you know, if it's 60-40, Well, that's okay.
You might be trying to give the news, but you're a little bit biased.
Bias is not against the law, and you probably don't even need to label it.
But suppose, like MSNBC, it's 99% negative in one direction and 99% positive in the other direction.
Is that news?
That's not news.
It's not even close to news.
It's propaganda. So if the government did a truth in labeling where they said, if you're over, I'll pick a number, if you're over 80%, Negative to one side, you know, over the course of some extended period, you don't get to call yourself news.
You only get to call yourself propaganda.
Now, I'm not sure if my example of how to measure that is a good one, but let's say another measure would be the frequency that alternative views are showcased.
When I turn on CNN and they've got the panel discussion, they always include Scott Jennings.
And the other gentleman whose name I can't remember, the shaved head gentleman, he's pretty good as well.
And they do. They have complete time to give the opposing view.
Now, if I were to rate CNN, I would say biased, but news.
But news. Because they're showing both sides.
Maybe they're showing 60-40.
That's more just human.
But they're showing both sides.
If you switch to MSNBC, you don't see both sides.
That's more like a 99.1 situation.
Do you think that they should both be called news?
I don't think so.
Now, how about Fox News?
Fox News would be a little more interesting because if you take the five, for example, they always have the one Democrat, Jessica Tarlov or Harold Ford Jr.
And so you're always going to get On that opinion program, you know, an opposing view.
But it's very slanted.
You know, if you go to Hannity, you're not necessarily going to get it.
But to Hannity's credit, this has to be said, Hannity doesn't have a lot of opposing views, but he invites them all.
That counts. They choose not to go on, but he invites them.
He invites them. He says it publicly and he means it.
And sometimes they say yes and he puts them on.
So I don't feel the same about that.
As I do about somebody who doesn't invite anybody.
I mean, that's different.
So I think Fox News would be a little more nuanced because they do a better job of separating the news from the opinion.
And then when they do the opinion, they do actually try to get the other opinion on.
So CNN, Fox News, I would call them both news.
Very biased. But news.
MSNBC? Not even close.
Not even close.
It's not in the same universe as a news program.
And the fact, if we had truth in labeling, like we do with banks, like we do with products, like we do on labels on boxes, like we do with cigarettes, MSNBC should just be labeled.
I don't need to put anybody in jail.
I have no impulse for that whatsoever.
No jail. No.
Just label it. Label it what it is.
All right. Here's something I did the other day that I came to regret right away.
So, as you know, author, I may have his name read, Taheezy Coates.
I'm not intentionally mispronouncing his name.
I just didn't write it down, and it's a hard one to remember.
But you know who I'm talking about, right?
Can you give me his proper name in the comments?
And I'll say it correctly when I see it.
To Hazy Coates?
Is that close? Anyway.
He's going around, he's got a book, and it involves Israel and the Palestinians, and he says some things, and then people get really mad.
And I saw him say some things, and then I saw a woman who did a very long, very angry takedown.
But what I noticed is that the thing he said, the clip that she was responding to, her response didn't seem to be a response to what he said.
Now, I wasn't agreeing with what he said.
I simply, in the comments, said that your response to him doesn't address his point.
His point was that he could understand how if you plopped a young kid into the Palestinian situation, that they could become radicalized, which I completely agree with, because you could plop anybody into any situation, and they would turn into that culture.
If you took a baby and plopped it into the Hindu world, do you think they'd become a Hindu?
Probably. If you take a baby and you plop them into a Christian world, are they going to be a Christian?
Probably. Probably, right?
If you take a kid and you pop them into the Palestinian situation and they're propagandized the way they are and they see roadblocks that don't apply to the Israelis, they don't know the whole story, they don't know the history, they see that some things are happening to them that aren't happening to other people, they don't know the history, of course they would be radicalized.
And he said, you know, I'd like to think that I wouldn't be radicalized, but honestly, I might be.
I completely agree with him on that minor, minor point.
I don't know what else he's saying.
I'm not taking a side.
I'm just saying that this is a common sense point, that young people can be radicalized and socialized and culturalized without limit.
You can make anybody into anything.
Unfortunately, anybody can turn into anything.
And so the response was more things about he doesn't understand the history, he doesn't understand that Israel is just protecting itself, he doesn't understand the rights that they have, and I was just pointing out that while all of those things might well be true, They don't have anything to do with his point, that if you put somebody in that situation, they could get radicalized pretty easily.
So I thought, well, wouldn't it be interesting for me, just to be useful, to say, well, I don't think your response is addressing his narrow little point he was making.
How do you think that went for me?
Oh my fucking God, did I get attacked by Jew supporters and Israelis, I guess.
Oh my God, it's the worst I've been attacked in, I don't know, a year at least.
And none of it was rational.
Because all that mattered is they didn't like his opinion on other stuff.
And so if I were to say anything that would be, in their view, supportive, you know, I must die, basically.
They didn't say die.
But wow!
The amount of hate that I got for simply pointing out that two people were in a different conversation, that's all I said.
You're just not in the same conversation.
And it was ugly.
So... I immediately just deleted it.
And I realized, you know what?
I really don't give a shit.
I don't give a shit at all.
I should, maybe.
But honestly, I don't.
Because the world's a big place.
And there are people suffering and doing terrible things all over the place.
To each other.
You know, reciprocating.
Sometimes they have reasons. Sometimes they don't.
I can't fix the whole world.
So I guess my take is that, you know what?
If you're going to be a complete asshole to me, simply for making a point that two people were on different subjects, I am so out.
So Israel, you could go fuck yourself with all of your supporters, because if even just making a common little point about the conversation...
Is going to make me completely attacked.
And remember, the ADLs already called me a Holocaust supporter, which of course is not true.
I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, guys.
Can you give me a little break?
So, I'm out.
Now, of course, Israel's an ally, so I'm in favor of treating allies like allies.
But I'm not in your conversation anymore.
I am out. I'm out.
If you're worried that the Palestinian protesters are going too far and it's bad for you, I agree with you.
And I'm out. I agree with you.
But apparently I can't talk on this topic because you're going to attack me.
So if you're going to attack me, I'm so fucking out, right?
You're on your own now. On your own.
So if you can fix that, maybe I'll get back in the conversation.
But if all you have is hate for anybody who has any point of view on anything on this topic, you can have your own points of view and you're welcome to it and I'm out.
So don't look for any support from me, publicly.
Privately, of course, I'll have my opinions.
But publicly? You're on your own, Israel.
All right. Now, of course, Israel, my haters will interpret that as I just became a Palestinian terrorist, which is my point.
That's my point. So maybe clean up that situation and you can get a little more support.
All right. That's all I got for now.
I'm going to go talk to the locals' people privately.
I heard James Carville did quite a screed, but I haven't heard it yet.
I'll go listen to Carville's rant.
It sounds like it's going to be good.
All right, everybody. Let's hope that the war in Israel and Iran doesn't kill the United States, and we'll get back to work.
