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, Dr. Jordan Peterson's Re-Education, CPBAOntario, Closed-Caption Glasses, Perplexity Search Engine, Fenbendazole Ivermectin, Google Nuclear Power, Anti-Trump NY Lawfare, Venezuelan Gangs Aurora CO, Tim Walz, Anti-Trump Hoaxes, James Carville, Kamala, Trump, Detroit Mail-In Ballots, CNN Harry Enten, Geraldo Rivera, Pathetic Kamala Policies, 2020 USPS Ballot Truckloads, AI War-Drones, 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
Yes. Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and there's no better time.
If you'd like to take your experience up to levels, That even Tim Walsh will be clapping like a seal for in a moment when I go, when I hit play.
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker, gels or stein, a kentine, 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now. Go.
So good. The only thing that could make this day better would be Tim Walsh clapping like a seal.
See if we can make that happen.
Thank you. Thank you.
Yeah, here we go. All right.
Cringy. It's a little bit cringy, but we like it.
If you'd like to know how to do the Tim Walls, you have to lean back.
You've got to put your elbows together, and you've got to clap like a seal.
Lean back, elbows together.
And if you'd like a lesson on pointing, the pointing is very important.
It's your non-pointing hand.
It has to be limp and soft.
Your pointy hand is fully mobile.
But the non-pointy hand, you want to be a little bit like this.
Yep. And the bowing.
The Tim Walsh bowing.
And the open palms.
Like he's surprised when he sees people.
Every time he goes to a crowd, he sees some people he's surprised.
If you're only listening to this and missing all of my amazing impressions, oh, I'm so sorry for you.
It must be so sad sitting there with audio and no visual when I am so visual.
Speaking of which, if you need...
To find merchandise for Coffee with Scott Adams that features, yes, my bald head on shirts and hoodies and mugs, just go to one of your favorite search engines and search for CWSA for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Merchandise to buy, it'll pop right up.
Here's some security tips for men, courtesy of Joshua Steinman.
You should follow him on X, Joshua Steinman.
And apparently...
The following thing has happened in at least one intelligence security meeting.
Somebody looked at the men in the room and said, I'm paraphrasing, but said, there's nobody here who's more than a 5 and a 10.
If somebody wants to date you who's a 10, it's a spy.
So apparently one of the problems with the dating apps is that men who can't really pull very many beautiful women are still getting beautiful women.
If they work in some kind of secure military or intelligence job, it turns out that there will be a very nice Chinese woman who would be very happy to be your girlfriend.
And maybe you could have long conversations about what you do at work.
So, here's how you know you're dating a spy.
Your spy is twice as good looking as you.
Now, it gets complicated if you're also rich.
Because then you can't tell.
All right. This is the funniest story of the day.
And I laughed until I cried this morning.
I was sitting at my desk just crying with laughter.
Now, I hope this is as funny to you as it is to me.
Now, it's funny because it's real.
Now, here's the background.
You might know that Jordan Peterson, Was in some trouble with something called the Ontario College of Psychologists.
Now, he's a Canadian, and this is a Canadian entity that has some kind of control over the licensing of Canadian psychologists.
And if you want to remain in good standing in your profession, you've got to be good with this organization.
And this organization ruled that Dr.
Jordan Peterson needed to be re-educated.
Because of his social media posts were so, so inappropriate for someone in their profession that they needed to either take away his very license to practice or have him re-educated by a social media psychologist expert.
There are a lot of those.
I don't know. But he had to be re-educated.
So the first thing that Dr.
Jordan Peterson did was he tried to, I believe he tried to fight the process.
You know, he challenged the process, and that didn't work.
So now he's a victim of the process, and he eventually decided that he would, in fact, accept the re-education process.
Now, let me just set this up for you.
It's Dr. Jordan Peterson The most famous and possibly most capable person who's ever existed in this plane of existence for this domain of knowledge and whatnot.
And now Canada's task is to find somebody who's smarter or more knowledgeable On the topics of how to communicate in the context of being a psychologist and a social media person.
That's right. They're going to find somebody who's better than Jordan Peterson in his chosen field in which he's literally the most famous and capable person you've ever seen in your life in any field.
And at the same time, better at social media and communicating.
There's nobody better at social media than communicating.
So what do you think happened?
Well, it turns out in the entire nation of Canada, there were zero volunteers.
For this job.
There's nobody in Canada who takes the fucking job.
Nobody in Canada wants to be so stupid that you would embarrass yourself and have your entire professional life destroyed by teaching Jordan Peterson how to be Jordan Peterson.
Like, how in the world do you even do that?
But it gets better. It gets better.
I'm going to read to you what Jordan Peterson wrote when he had some clarifying questions about the process.
This is so deliciously fun.
I can't even stand it.
Hold on. I can't read.
I'm tearing up.
All right. So this is from Dr.
Jordan Peterson. Let's see.
He said... So he has some questions for the college about how the qualifications of the, quote, social media expert would be determined.
So he asked this, quote, by what standards...
I'm not going to be able to get through this, because he writes it like he's being serious.
And he is being serious, but it's hard to take you seriously.
He goes, by what standards do you accredit your social media experts?
Is that a regulated profession?
Are these experts also versed in the complexities of clinical psychology?
How else can they improve the professional activities of a psychological practitioner?
Is there any concrete, published, and peer-reviewed evidence that the tender lesson they purport to provide actually produce an improvement in the behavior of those they educate?
By what objective criteria are you going to measure my improvement?
In that regard, are there standardized tests for...
Are there standardized tests of such progression?
How are those standards established if they exist?
Oh my God.
Nobody in the entire country of Canada was willing to take the bait.
I would like to now give you my impression of every person in Canada who may have once thought they were qualified for the job of educating Dr.
Jordan Peterson. I now give you my impression.
This is me doing an impression.
You can't tell if you're listening on audio, but it's really hilarious.
It's getting better. It's funnier.
Every minute's getting a little bit funnier.
And scene.
Oh my goodness.
So, I sure hope that Canada saves us by educating Dr.
Jordan Peterson because What if he just keeps going out there doing what he's doing?
Just think of all the harm he's causing to the world, if not your own family.
Oh, God, please educate him.
Okay. If you could have written a script of a movie about that situation and you didn't know how the movie would end and you couldn't come up with a good ending, There could be no better ending than having nobody in the entire country of Canada willing to take the job.
You can't get better than that.
I'm sorry. If he had won his appeals and had an overturn, eh, boring.
If he had taken a class and somebody gave it to him, ugh, icky.
Boring. But having nobody in the country capable of giving him a lesson, You can't beat that.
You can't beat that.
That's as good as it gets.
So maybe our luck is changing.
What do you think? Well, here's some more good news.
I got a whole bunch of good news today.
You're going to have so much good news today, you're going to be tired of it.
You'll be exhausted with the good news.
Here's some more. I saw a video of a young woman who was deaf.
And she was trying out some new glasses that allow captions to appear on the glasses just for the wearer, so that when she's out and listening to things, she can get closed captions on personal conversations, as well as movies and anything else.
And, you know, they're kind of dorky looking, so you'd know that they were not normal glasses.
But... They look like they could be any design you want, eventually.
The first ones look a little dorky, but way better than not being able to hear in public, I saw it.
And watching her tearfully put them on and being able to see sound in the sense of a caption was just one of the most touching things.
Now, just imagine, this is a real product.
I don't know what company made it.
I didn't see that in the video.
But just think about that.
What would a golden age look like?
Well, one way it would look like is that the deaf would be able to see sound.
I mean, if you're going to say, what's the golden age look like?
I'd put that in there.
I would also love to see wokeness destroyed under its own weight.
You know, sort of like the Dr.
Jordan Peterson story, where you just let it play out.
Instead of fixing it or opposing it, you just let it play out.
I've taught you the trick of embracing the thing that you don't like.
Often, if there's somebody who has a terrible idea in your company or your organization or the government, if you simply follow the rules and embrace it, it'll fall apart on its own.
And it looks like that's what Peterson did after first challenging it.
Anyway, the CEO of Rumble says that Google is burying their search results for Don Bongino's show.
And that appears to be the case.
Now, of course, they're competing.
They're competing with Rumble, so you can imagine why they do it.
But given that YouTube has such a dominant position, And given that Google has such a dominant position, you do think that this might be some kind of a competitive problem.
I don't know if it triggers any antitrust triggers or not.
It triggers a trigger.
Can you trigger a trigger?
A little redundant.
But here is my advice.
There is a competitor to Google.
And if you don't like how Google and YouTube that they own, if you don't like how they're treating Rumble, you could use an app called Perplexity.
Now, I told you that I tried it the other day.
For, I don't know, weeks and weeks, people have been saying to me almost every day, Somebody says, you gotta try Perplexity.
And I honestly just got sick of hearing it.
Because I thought, I don't really need another app in my life.
But I tried it.
I thought, you know, I'll just see what's going on here.
And so I tried it.
And if you use the Perplexity app for five minutes, there's a good chance you will never use Google again.
Because when I use Google, I get a bunch of sponsored ads, and then I get a bunch of things I don't trust, and it just doesn't look like it works anymore to me.
But I do get a better result within perplexity, but perplexity has its own little story going on right now.
And I didn't know it was backed by Jeff Bezos.
So Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder, is one of the backers of perplexity, and suddenly I understand why the interface is so good.
I can't say enough about how amazing Amazon is as a product.
Do you ever have the feeling that you go on Amazon, you buy something, and it happens so seamlessly And the entire process, including delivery, and even if you have to return something, they've made it dead easy, that Amazon is like one of the ninth wonder of the world.
If you think of the complexity in that product and the fact that it works so well by one click.
Seriously? One click?
And I've got something on my door?
So when I think what's the best user interface design, I always think Amazon.
So if anybody's watching from Amazon, you guys are the best.
The best interface people Completely.
For, what, 20 years or however long Amazon's been around?
Unbelievably high level of capability.
Unbelievable. Just mind-blowing quality of technical and user interface design.
So, when I see Jeff Bezos is backing this perplexity app, and when I turn it on, I love the interface.
I go, oh, well that makes sense.
I can't imagine Jeff Bezos backing a search engine that had a bad interface.
He is all about the customer experience.
If you've ever heard Bezos give an interview, if you ask what's the number one thing that makes Amazon work, he'll tell you it's the obsessive focus On the customer experience.
And he's willing to, and he did, you know, lose money in a cash sense for however many years because he wasn't focusing on cash.
He was focusing on the customer experience.
And boy, did he succeed.
In the customer experience, boy did he succeed.
I mean, nothing's perfect, but wow.
And so it seems that some of that magic is going over to perplexity.
If you use it once, it'll be hard not to use it forever.
Honestly, it's that good.
However, somebody asked me, but is it full of wokeness?
Yes. Yeah, it can't be not full of wokeness, because it's searching based on what's in the real world, and the real world is full of wokeness.
Now, I did a test this morning.
In which I asked it, I did the, you could call it the Gell-Mann amnesia test.
So Gell-Mann is the physicist who famously noticed that when a story was about something he knew, he could tell the story was fake or just wrong.
And if it was something he didn't know, he couldn't tell the difference, so he thought it was probably right.
So I asked both Perplexity and Google a story about myself in which I can guarantee I know the correct story because literally it's myself.
And they both got it wrong.
They both had the wrong context, the wrong frame for it.
And it was important.
One of the most important things about me.
I don't need to get into it today.
But completely wrong.
It was the most fundamental thing that somebody would mention if they talked about me.
Wrong. Wrong to the point of being close to the opposite of right.
You know, it wasn't just sort of misleading.
It was about as bad as it could have been.
And it's both of them, because they're both reading public information and stuff like that.
I asked a Perplexity, a question about me, a separate question about me before I did this one, and used as its source, Gawker.
Gawker. Now, if you know anything about the media outlet, Gawker is like, let's see...
If it were possible for a piece of shit to itself shit, so that the turd itself could defecate and create like a sub-turd, that's what Gawker is.
Gawker is so far from any kind of independent, useful source.
It's like a turd of a turd.
It's like two levels away from being useful.
And they used it as the only source to answer a question about me.
Literally, my political enemy is used as a source.
So, no. So, let me be as clear as possible.
The search results from any search engine are pretty close to useless at this point in the world, if it has to do with people.
If it has to do with maybe a fact, you know, is Starbucks open on Columbus Day that I call Indigenous Day because I'm not a racist like you?
Well, yeah, it does that great.
But as soon as it's a story about any human being, it's completely fucked up.
Yeah, so there's no such thing as searching accurately for information about people.
You should just give up on that.
That's never going to happen. Anyway, the Wall Street Journal also says perplexity is getting...
Getting in some legal trouble with the New York Times because it looks like the Times says that they're summarizing the Times stories without permission or something like that.
I did ask perplexity if it could see the contents of my books because if Jeff Bezos is backing a search engine, the first question I have is, uh, do you have access to the contents of my books?
Now, I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, I kind of like it, you know, because my books are non, most of them are non-fiction.
So I would love if somebody could just Google like the main idea in my book and it would pop up.
But you can't do that.
That would be useful.
And even though I maybe wouldn't like it as an author, it would certainly be useful.
But it looks like books are kind of walled off.
So it says, so it can answer questions about what people said about my books in the public domain, but it can't actually say, in this chapter, you said that.
Well, here's a new medical breakthrough that might be gigantic.
Apparently, if you mix Zempik with this other technology, according to Newsmax Health, you can get rid of the need for insulin if you're a diabetic.
If you have type 2 diabetes, you can completely get rid of insulin.
Now, this is a very small trial, only 14 people, but 12 of them no longer needed insulin.
If you get 12 out of 14 who don't need insulin when you're done, you could say, I need a bigger trial, and you're right.
But, holy, what?
12 out of 14 don't need insulin?
Now, here's something that you need to know about new medical procedures.
Can I educate you?
Some of you are young, so you've not had many medical procedures.
But let me explain one thing you need to know.
If there is a breakthrough medical procedure, it will require one of the following things.
Number one, you will lose all of your hair.
It depends on the medical breakthrough.
It's not every time you lose all of your hair, but that's a common one.
Another one is, this will totally cure your problem, but you'll never have sex again or be interested in it.
It'll totally cure your other problem, though.
The other thing that they'll do is sometimes they'll say, this will totally fix your problem, but it will require shoving a large object way up your ass.
That's the other one. So generally speaking, it's either going to make you too tired to function, you're going to lose your hair, you'll lose your dick, or something really large will be shoved way up your ass.
However, if you're willing to put up with those four things, they can cure just about anything.
And so this new thing that gets you out of your need for insulin involves sticking...
Something way up your ass, I think, and then zapping it electrically in your, something in your inner guts.
So it's an endoscope.
Now, I think it could mean it goes down your throat, but given that it's shooting the top of your intestines, I think it's going up your butt.
However, it's only once.
It's only once. I don't know if they put you to sleep or you just enjoy the experience.
But imagine if you could go into the doctor's office.
Maybe they put you to sleep.
Maybe they don't. I don't know.
They zap you for a few minutes.
There's no recovery.
There's no recovery. You just walk out.
And the Ozempic, I assume, is just so you don't overeat.
And then you're done.
Is this possible?
Is it possible that type 2 diabetes just got fixed with a five-minute procedure?
It's possible. Now, I'm not going to say that this is real.
You know, 14 people is not nearly enough.
You don't know the side effects.
You know, you got to do the big test.
But maybe.
But maybe. All right, here's another one.
The first peer-reviewed Protocol on cancer using ivermectin and another kind of antiviral thing called fenbendazole.
And there's one like it that's similar.
So Dr.
Makis says he's already seeing incredible successes with these repurposed drugs.
He's using it in his practice.
And he says ivermectin targets cancer cells by disrupting their mitochondrial function, just the way you'd expect it to, I suppose, leading to cell death.
Of the cancer. It also blocks key energy pathways, blah, blah, blah.
So it's got several ways it can work, I guess.
And this fenbendazole and mebendazole, they're both antiparasitic drugs.
Oh, I should have said antiparasitic.
So these are three antiparasitic drugs, ivermectin and then these other two.
And they've been found to halt cancer cell growth, interfere with glucose metabolism, trigger apoptosis in some preclinical trials.
And he says, remarkably, three patients with stage 4 geniturinary cancers were treated with high doses of this fenbenazole, 1,000 milligrams three times a week, for several months and experienced complete remission.
Complete remission.
Now, this is well short of a clinical trial, but today's theme is the golden age.
Is it possible that cancer just got cured with existing drugs that have low or no side effects?
Is type 2 diabetes cured?
Is Ozempic curing obesity?
Is RFK Jr.
going to fix our food supply within a couple of years?
Are we on the edge of curing cancer?
Did we just shoot a gigantic fucking rocket into the air and catch it with two loving arms in a gigantic mechanized device as we're preparing to go to Mars?
Are these all things happening?
Did the polls just turn?
And did we find that Kamala Harris is unlikely to win, and instead the pirate ship of amazing people might come into power?
Is it possible that our doom loop of overspending would Would be cured by the only person we trust to do it, which is Elon Musk.
And he's all ramping up.
He's already ramping up in case Trump wins.
And he would be in charge of reducing or increasing the efficiency of the government by reducing the waste.
And that would basically put us back on the path to fiscal confidence.
I hate to get you all excited, but everything is going our way.
Here's some more. Google just made a deal to buy the first private mini nuclear reactor.
So there's a company called California Keros Power, and apparently they haven't made any yet, I don't think, but they're going to make them.
And by 2030, they'll have at least one and by 2035, maybe some more.
And so our biggest companies, the ones that you can trust to push our government for approval, if you and I decided to build a nuclear power plant, we would run up against the government's bureaucracy and we wouldn't be able to raise money and we wouldn't be able to get anything done in the government.
So basically, it just couldn't happen.
But what if you're Google?
If you're Google, you tell the government what to do.
If you're Google, you don't need money because you have it.
If you're Google, you just change the whole world, change your search results, make everybody suddenly like nuclear.
If you went to Google and you checked their search results about the downside of nuclear energy, Do you think it says as many negative things about nuclear energy risks as it used to?
I don't know, but I'd be real surprised.
So keep in mind, Google is who tells people what to think, literally.
Google results tell people what to think.
And we've seen that it can change your election results, etc.
If Google is building its own or buying its own nuclear energy plant, what will Google, who tells people what to think, tell them what to think about nuclear power?
Best thing ever.
Not only best thing ever, but required for survival.
You're going to need it for AI, and if you don't have AI, your country's going to be defeated by the countries that do.
So it's not only a good idea, it's essential.
Golden age. If Google is all in, America's all in.
There is no such thing as America disagreeing with Google, because Google tells America what to think.
That's just the way it works.
Now, The media, if it wanted to disagree, could put up a good fight.
So if the media wanted to disagree with Google and say, no, we think this nuclear power is a bad idea, well, they'd be going up against Google.
Do you think they want to do that?
Nope. How about, do they want to go up against Microsoft, who is also looking for its own nuclear energy plant?
Nope. Do they want to go up against Oracle?
Well, Oracle's a little different, but they don't.
So our most important companies have just told the rest of America, nuclear energy is not just good, it's essential, it's coming fast, and we can't get enough of it.
Do you remember in 2015, 2016, really all through the first years of the Trump administration, almost every day, I came on social media and said, everybody who thinks these nuclear energy things are a bad idea.
You're thinking of the old technology.
You don't know that the new technologies are safe.
They figured out how to store the waste and even reuse it in some cases.
Everything's solved. We need nuclear.
You better go fast. Here it is.
Golden Age. Yeah.
It wouldn't be the golden age unless you saw all the big American companies go down hard in favor of nuclear energy.
It's how hard they're going at it that's the thing.
It's not that they, oh, we're mildly interested in it.
No, they're committed. They're all in.
The biggest companies, the most powerful, guaranteed, it's coming.
Now I'm going to give you another prediction that goes like this.
You can predict the outcome of any nation in the world based on their nuclear program.
That's it. If you look at the United States, we started late.
I wish we'd started earlier, but we're really good, fast followers.
So I don't think it's going to hurt us too much that we didn't do something 10 years ago, because that would have been 10 years ago's technology.
If we're starting to go hard today...
With many nuclear plants and Gen 4 in some cases, and the best technology that we have, and getting rid of maybe some regulations as appropriate.
Lots of experimenting with nuclear fuels that are better, etc.
And to its credit, the Energy Department in America, let me say this unambiguously.
So over two administrations, the Department of Energy in the United States has been quite pro-nuclear power.
And has done very, as far as I can tell, really important work in making it possible to test newer nuclear processes.
So if you think it's just like another bureaucracy, the Department of Energy, they might be superstars.
They seem to have quietly done, as far as I can tell, A whole bunch of correct things in the last several years across two administrations.
And that counts. That counts.
Because it means it's administration robust.
It's not going to be destroyed by getting the wrong president in.
It's still going to look good no matter who's in.
So good job on the Department of Energy.
At least pushing nuclear stuff.
But if you look at Great Britain, they're about ready to phase out the last of their nuclear energy.
It doesn't look like they're going to go hard to get new ones.
And any country in Europe that you see phasing out their nuclear power, I would say you're seeing the end of them as an important country.
I think Britain doesn't have a chance of really surviving into the modern era without nuclear power.
So if that's the way they're going, you're seeing the end of an empire.
If that's what they want, that's what they want.
Anyway, did you know that the appeals court, unless they've already ruled, I don't think they have, they were looking into the case of the half a billion dollars or whatever it was that Trump was supposed to pay because he allegedly defrauded banks by allegedly overvaluing the price of his or the value of his assets.
Now, what did I tell you on day one of that story?
On day one of that story, I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, the people in the media are idiots and they don't know anything about business and everything you're seeing about this story is based on idiots not knowing anything about business.
Because if you're not an idiot and you know about business, you knew that there was nothing wrong with that story.
In other words, you knew that there was no reason that there should have been a legal process against Trump.
Did he overvalue his assets?
Doesn't matter. That's what I told you.
Because I was a banker.
If you're a banker, and literally I was a lending officer.
I was approving loans for lenders.
I was actually not the lending officer.
I was in the back office that approved the loans made by the lending officer.
So I was sort of, I don't want to say superior to them, but I had to make sure it was okay.
So I had to know what a loan is and how it works and whether they can repay.
I had to know as much or more than the lenders to do my job.
And here's what I know.
The bank doesn't take your word for anything.
That's what I knew. In the normal course of things, your lender tells you a bunch of lies, and then you say, can you back that up?
And if they can't, you go, okay, well, that was a lie.
And when they can, you rely on the document, not what they said.
There is no scenario in which a bank ever, ever, Relies on what a borrower says.
Ever. It's never happened.
Never should happen. Never can happen.
Never will happen. And yet they're pretending that the Trump situation was the one time that somebody relied on the statements of the borrower.
No. They have a whole process in which they go out and they check the value of things on their own because they have to because that's their job.
And so the banks were happy with the loans because they checked it out.
Trump has always paid back his loans, so he's good to do business with.
They made money. He made money.
Nobody even once concerned themselves with the fact that there was a big difference between what the banks thought was the value and what Trump said was the value.
It had no impact in the real world.
And the systems in the real world, the banking loaning systems, guaranteed that it wouldn't be a problem.
Guaranteed. And of course, Trump would know that.
He wouldn't be trying to get away with something because he would know it the same as the banks.
Everybody in business knows that nobody relies on your impression of your assets value.
Everybody knows that.
So now the appellate court is sitting there just excoriating the attorneys who brought this case and won.
They actually won. In the most absurd case, they won.
Nobody was damaged.
Nobody had a complaint.
And the people who were allegedly damaged would be happy to do business with them again because they just made money and had a good experience.
So the appellate judges, who are not obviously Soros-picked people, are just saying, has this ever happened in the history of the world?
That you brought a case where there were no victims and everybody was happy and everybody understood the process and everybody understood the process, gave them no risk whatsoever in this transaction.
And the lawyers are just blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They don't have nothing. So I don't think it's been ruled on yet, but I don't think there's any doubt how it will be ruled.
If you're judging from what questions are being asked and the comments of the appellate court, Trump's going to get his half-billion back.
I don't think he paid it, but yeah, I think that just goes away.
I would love to see it go away before Election Day.
Because the number of Democrat idiots, idiots, who challenged me on social media that this was a horrible crime and Trump should be in jail for it, or at least pay half a billion dollars for it, will any of them come back and say, oh, you know, it turns out that being a lending officer might give you some experience and knowledge about being a lending officer?
Yes, it does.
Turns out it does. I've told you many times that understanding economics, and I put banking under that category, and persuasion are the two most predictive skills.
If you understand everything about money, and I've got a background in economics and MBA and lots of business experience, and you understand persuasion, You can often predict the future better than chance.
So that's how I predicted that Trump would win in 2016.
It's also how I predicted that the appellate courts, if they were honest, would throw this out while laughing at it.
So watch this pattern.
The pattern is that people understand money and business, and that people understand persuasion Are really good at predicting.
If you see somebody who knows both of those things, that's what I call a talent stack, where you've intelligently combined things that work well together, that person is going to guess the future better than other people.
It's just those two skills are future-oriented skills.
That's how they work. Anyway, so that's more good news.
New York Post is reporting that there's a Brooklyn-based company that manages some apartments in the suburbs of Denver, and they say that the fake news is fake news and that these Venezuelan gangs have, in fact, taken over their apartments.
Now, taken over might be a phrase with some ambiguity to it, but let's just say they can't get rid of them.
And if they want to beat up one of their employees, apparently they do.
And they don't necessarily pay rent.
And so, for all practical purposes, quote, gangs have taken control of several of our properties in Aurora, Colorado.
Can we put this to rest?
Are we done?
About the question of whether it's true?
The company that owns the building says they're taking over.
And not one, multiple buildings.
And this is just one management company who's saying on the record, saying in public, showing you a picture of their employee who was beat to shit by the gang for, I think, trying to expel them or something.
Can we agree that the news was always fake when it said that this was fake?
That the gangs have, in fact, taken over the buildings.
Can we now say it's true?
Or is there some made-up Brooklyn-based company?
If there's really a Brooklyn-based company that owns buildings, and they say that the gangs are controlling them, not the people whose job it is to control them, aren't we done arguing whether it's real?
I think we're done.
And then if you know what is real, then you can deal with it.
Pretending it wasn't real was the problem.
It's not that you can't know how to expel people from a building for doing illegal things if you have to.
Here's a story you never heard.
This is on the George account on X. Did you know that years ago when Nelson Mandela got out of prison, He wanted to arrange a trip to the United States.
And for whatever reason, the government of the United States couldn't arrange appropriate transportation.
I don't know what's beyond that.
So Donald Trump offered his private plane.
So Donald Trump, on his own dime, sent his private jet to carry Nelson Mandela to the United States.
And today, Kamala Harris will be calling him a racist again because they made up some stuff.
I'll tell you, he might be the most misunderstood human being in the world.
And it's very consistent.
You've heard a lot of anecdotes about him paying off mortgages and helping people in trouble and stopping his car when somebody was being mugged and flying Nelson Mandela.
Somebody said that he attended Michael Jackson's trial every day because Michael Jackson was friends with his family.
The Trump kids used to hang out with Michael Jackson to play video games and shit.
They were buddies. They lived in the same building in the Trump Tower, at least for a while.
So it's just amazing what kind of caricature the news will create of somebody.
I'd like to circle back to social media.
I mentioned this without details a few times, that there is a horrible My best current updated information is it's all made up.
It looks like it's all made up.
There's only one individual who is pushing it.
It's not somebody who has credibility.
It's not being picked up by any other entity, either pro or anti-Waltz.
Nobody's touching it.
I'm going to call it fake.
So if you see online a story, and again, I don't even want to give the details because I think it's terribly unfair to Walz.
He does give me a creepy vibe, and that's a fact.
So I'll say that because it's a fact about how he makes me feel.
But it's not a fact about anything he's done.
If you're talking about specific, you know, inappropriate acts of some kind, you're really going to have to bring me some proof.
I'm not going to buy that based on a vibe.
So be careful.
Be careful about that. Tim Walz, just be careful about what you see on social media.
All right. How many hoaxes are there about Trump today?
Let's see. Do we have...
There's a hoax that Trump was going to use the military against his enemies.
Of course, that's just some weird thing taken into context.
I saw...
Did you see Jake Tapper talking to James Carville last night?
Now, here again...
I'm not going to make a claim of fact because I don't know the fact.
I'll make a claim of how I'm responding to something.
I watched it and Carville looked obviously drunk.
And the things he said didn't make a big of a fucking sense.
It looked like just a really drunk guy talking.
And so I don't know if he was drunk.
I just know that he sure acted drunk.
And here's one of the things he said.
That Trump isn't hiding it anymore that he's a Nazi.
What? What are you talking about?
And he said it's because Trump's going to do a rally in Madison Square Garden and therefore, obviously, Nazi.
What? What?
Trump does rallies all the time, as do all politicians.
Why would Trump's one rally...
Be a Hitler rally.
Well, that's what Jake Tapper asked Carville because it's not obvious to him either.
Jake Tapper had the same impression, apparently.
What exactly are you seeing about this Madison Square Garden rally?
And he says, well, in 1939, some Nazis had a rally in that building.
Now, I don't even think it's the same building.
I believe the building has been rebuilt like three times since then.
But I would like to point out that building's been used before.
Does Carville drink so much that he thinks only Nazis use that building?
It's a sort of a public building.
I believe that sports teams do things in there.
Maybe some of your favorite comedians have them stand up there.
How in the world Do you drink so much that you go on CNN and say that having a rally in a public building where everybody has rallies and events is proof?
It's not just like an indication, but it's like, and then that's proof.
That's proof he's a Nazi.
That is some batshit crazy stuff right there.
And then his other evidence was that Trump said he wanted to use the military against his enemies, which you don't even have to research that to know that didn't happen.
That's so dumb that if you spend five minutes following politics, you go, that didn't happen.
That's some weird anti-context thing.
Of course it is. Some weird anti-context thing.
And there were two more that were just like crazy ones.
They sound like desperation.
I think it's pretty obvious that the Harris team knows that they're in a doom loop.
You know, they're circling the drain at this point in their campaign.
So they're, I mean, they're just flailing.
Like, oh, well, maybe the building he's in is a Nazi building?
Can we go with that?
Can we go with the building's a Nazi building?
Yeah. Well, how about you go after his economic policies?
Well, that would be bad because the public likes Trump's economic policy.
Well, you could go after his policies about the Ukraine war in the Middle East.
No, because people like him better on that.
Well, okay. So not the economics and not war.
But how about the border yet?
Oh, no, we can't go after Trump and the border because they like him best.
What do we got?
Is he going to visit any real estate in the next few weeks?
Let's check. He'll be in this building called Madison Square Garden.
Perfect. We'll say it's a Nazi facility.
Because that's all they have.
Imagine sitting around and thinking...
Where will we put our limited resources today?
Because everything is limited.
We'll put our limited resources into this new hoax about using the military and the hoax about this building being where only Nazis gather.
That is a lot of giving up right there.
If you could come up with different words for we surrender, it would look like that.
Oh, I get it. You're surrendering now.
So are you done with the race?
No, we're going to take it to the election day.
But it sounds like you're giving up.
No, we're fighting as hard as we can about real estate being Nazi indications.
No, you're not. No, you're not fighting anymore.
You have given up.
The economic collapse is today.
Today is the middle of February.
Today's the day that we all knew that the fake polls would start to true up.
We all knew that she couldn't keep this going.
We all knew that if she came out of her closet and spoke to real people, she would be destroyed.
And now she's trying to make a case that Trump is the one hiding.
So Kamala is saying in her speeches that Trump is not doing any interviews and refused to do a debate with her.
Now, obviously, doing another debate doesn't help Trump.
I mean, maybe something could go wrong, but there's nothing left to go right.
And here's the thing.
Trump has been talking to podcasters.
Kamala Harris says he's not doing interviews with the major media.
Why would he do an interview with the major media who is literally just basically the Kamala Harris campaign?
She's really saying, can you do an interview with the fake news who basically is an extension of my campaign?
If you don't do an interview with the fake news that will only use your quotes out of context and edit you to make you look stupid, the same way they edited me to make me look smart.
If you don't do the dumbest thing you could ever do as a politician, Talk to the main media who's going to malign you and make you look like you're some kind of a Nazi at Madison Square Garden.
If you don't do that, you must be weak and unconfident.
Okay, here's what's really happening.
Trump has realized that if he goes on Joe Rogan, which he might do soon, or on any of these podcasts that have huge male audiences, that he is scooping up male support like a fucking vacuum cleaner on ants.
Every time he goes on a podcast, he's not being accused of being a racist.
He's showing himself in his very most relaxed, basic, favorable light.
And he can go from one to the other, get gigantic audiences that you'll never get of young men on any of these big platforms.
He'll never get You know, the bad treatment.
And it's a 100% winning strategy, especially if he closes it out with Joe Rogan and it gets better.
There is a rumor, not confirmed, not confirmed, that both Trump and Harris at different times will do Joe Rogan before the election.
Are you having the same feeling about that that I am?
Kamala Harris has only done interviews with friendlies.
Now, she's going to do one with Brett Baer on Fox News, but he would be the friendliest on Fox News.
Now, friendly, meaning that he's not an opinion person.
And he does a great, great job of avoiding opinion.
It's got to be the hardest job in the world.
Imagine how hard it would be To do what Brett Baer does, talk about the news on Fox News and not, you know, just bias it because all of your co-workers are opinion people.
So he does a great job of that.
I'm always impressed when I see him work.
So that's the safest thing she could do.
But I think Brett Baer is going to tear her apart.
And not because he's biased, but because she has some things to answer for that she has not answered for.
And I don't think that Brad Bear is going to let her just talk over him and run out the clock.
I think he's going to make her answer.
And she's going to look like an idiot because we've seen her work enough.
And I don't say that lightly.
She seems like an idiot.
And that's a separate question.
But imagine them on Joe Rogan.
Imagine Joe Rogan asking anything he wants to Trump.
How do you think that'll go?
Pretty well. Pretty well.
Now imagine, and by the way, I would expect that Joe Rogan would ask both of them hard questions.
I think Rogan would not want to do a softball interview with Trump.
I think he'd want to come with some fun, because it is entertainment, but he's going to come with some hard questions.
I think Rogan would make him explain January 6th in the way nobody's ever done it.
I'm just guessing. But I think he would hold them to some high standards.
That's what I suspect.
Because he wouldn't be afraid of them.
That's what you need.
So Rogan would not be afraid to ask the hard question and put him in the spot.
And, you know, that's not the same for everybody else.
But he would destroy Kamala Harris just by asking questions.
All he'd have to do is say, people wonder about this.
Give me an answer. No, that's not the answer to the question.
It should be destroyed.
Anyway, I also saw that Harris was talking about Trump not releasing his medical records.
Apparently she released her medical records now.
Trump hasn't since 2023, I guess.
But Trump has asked that Kamala Harris take a cognitive test.
I would like to double down on that by saying she should also take a drug test.
A drug test.
So Kamala Harris tells us that her doctor gave her a...
Yeah. That the doctor gave her a clean bill of health.
Did he? I don't remember seeing the drug test.
Did you? Did you see the cognitive test?
I didn't. So Kamala Harris has not tested the two things that we have a question about.
When I look at her in public, I do not say, oh, she looks like somebody who would be a health risk in the future.
I don't say that. I'm not even really super interested in what her doctor says about her body because it looks like her body's fine.
She's young enough, vital enough.
She's been doing a full campaign.
There's nothing about the campaign that suggests her body doesn't work.
I'm fine with that.
She has a good body and superior, superior in body to Trump.
Trump's got a little extra weight, although it looks like he's losing weight and Trump's far older.
So if she wants to compete on who's got a better body, yeah, yeah, I'll give that to her.
I'll give her the win on body.
But it's not her body that runs the country.
It's her brain.
And if I don't know what drugs she's ingesting, while it looks like she is, and I don't know her cognitive ability, when I can't explain why she's acting so much dumber than she used to act, I kind of need to know those answers.
I'm very curious about whether she's had a hit to her cognitive ability because it looks like it.
I don't know why.
But it sure looks like it.
Something's going on there.
So she's pushing that.
And she was pushing it.
I was watching the rally.
And she slipped from politician mode into bitch wife mode.
And I guess there's no nicer way to say it.
Politician mode is most of what she says and most of what she has said.
You know, like, I will give you this policy.
Yeah, politician. But when she was talking about the health differences, she slipped into bitch wife, like just nagging, just the vibe.
And oh my God, did it turn me off.
I hate to sound too sexist, but the truth is that both men and women Have a mode that if they use that mode, it's a turnoff to somebody, right?
If Trump gets a little too braggy, women just go, I'm out.
What are you doing?
I cannot listen to one more second of you bragging about yourself, right?
That's the male version. The female version is if you get that attitude.
Oh, he doesn't want to give us his health records.
I can't do an impression of it.
But, oh my God, when either of them get out in a political mode and get into that mode, total turnoff.
Total turnoff. All right.
Is it too soon to say we know the 2024 election is rigged?
The Amuse account points out that Detroit reports that 40% of the mail-in ballots have already been returned.
Really? So this is on a long list of cities in Detroit.
And Detroit, the place that you'd expect to be the worst managed, biggest place that there would be a problem, seems to have lapped the other cities in how many ballots have been returned early.
So the other cities are in that 26% to 38% range.
But the star...
It's exactly the city you'd expect to be the number one recipient of mail-in ballots if the cheat was on.
It's already obvious, people.
Now, I don't have a factual basis to say that cheating is going on and here it is, but already we have one statistic that That would make me not trust the election if the result were Harris won.
Already. If you're asking me, do I accept the election of 2020?
No, I'm out.
Or 2024? I'm out.
I'm already out.
I don't trust the result already.
So I've already seen enough about this election that I don't trust it.
Now, if Trump wins, I'm going to embrace it like crazy, like I didn't see any problems.
And I'm not even going to pretend to be, you know, consistent.
Because I'm going to assume that he managed to beat the margin of cheating.
I won't know that, but it will be my working assumption.
So, yes, there's something strange going in in Detroit.
And I'm hoping that somebody's going to ask somebody this question this week.
And the question is, Kamala Harris, And by the way, this would be a good question for Brett Baer, and it would be a good question even better for Joe Rogan.
Kamala Harris, if the election result shows that Trump wins, and you see that there are some historically out-of-balance results, in other words, there's some areas that voted for him in numbers that couldn't possibly be true based on historical patterns, would you accept and certify the result Based on what you're seeing.
Well, no, no, get back to the point.
If you see obvious things that are out of whack, will you accept the election?
Well, in 2020, well, not talking about 2020, get back to the question.
Will you accept it if it looks out of whack to you?
Well, it's not going to look anawak.
No, that's not the question.
If it looks anawak, like Republicans say 2020 looked anawak, if it just looks anawak, are you going to accept it?
Well, you...
And there's your election.
There's your election.
If she can't answer that question, and she can't, it's their biggest claim.
That he won't leave office and blah, blah, blah.
All right, here's some more warning signs.
Oh, by the way, Christopher Ruffo has found that one of Harris's books, she copied five passages, which we call plagiarism.
New York Times tried to slap him down because the New York Times wants her to win, in my opinion.
So they tried to minimize it by saying, oh, they just thought there were like five little areas, you know, five little areas that were copied.
Nothing. Nothing. They admitted it was plagiarism, but then they said that noticing the plagiarism is racist.
Yeah. So that's the New York Times.
That would be the standard bearer of news, is that if you notice somebody plagiarized, and you prove it, and you show the sections so nobody can doubt your claims, you, my friends, are being a racist, according to the New York Times.
All right. Great job, Christopher Ruffo.
Well, more on the Kamala collapse.
Harry Enten at CNN said that there are a lot of warning signs now going off.
He says that if the GOP is ahead in party identification, pretty much they're guaranteed to win.
Now, party identification means that you signed up to be a Republican or you signed up to be a Democrat.
Generally speaking, Democrats have more people signed up.
And when they have more people signed up, by a goodly amount, they win.
Anytime it's close, Republicans win.
But right now, Republicans are ahead.
So Republicans, this is according to Harry Enten, CNN. Republicans right now are doing even better than the average when they win.
So think about that.
So the average number of people who identify as Republicans will give you a Republican win if it's the average.
It's above that.
These signs are pointing to a landslide.
They're pretty clearly pointing to a landslide.
Now, what happens if all these signs are pointing toward Trump, but in the last hours of the election counting, he loses?
Are you going to accept that election?
I'm not. Let me say it as clearly as possible.
If all of these signs are pointing toward a win, and at the last minute there's a bunch of mail-in votes that counted, I'm not accepting the election.
Let me say that as clearly as I can and publicly.
This is a public statement.
If all the indicators, or many of them, indicate a strong win by Trump, And in the last minute, the mail-in votes look suspicious.
I do not accept that result.
I want to make that clear.
You're going to have to, the results are going to have to match the signals.
If on election day the signals are all, you know, they've changed and they're all glaring that, you know, based on historical patterns, Harris is going to win, and then she does win, I'm not going to question, you know, whether any specific votes were in line or out of line, even if something is found but is smallish.
I'm going to say, you know, everything indicated she was going to win.
Let's just move on.
But it's got to work both ways.
If everything's indicating that Trump is going to win and then the bellwethers go weird and the last-minute counting goes weird, nope, no.
That's a hard no on accepting that result.
All right. Rasmussen is asking people, are you better off than you were before Biden was in office?
And by a 16-point margin, most voters say no.
When you've got that kind of a result, It is nearly impossible for the incumbent to win.
Here again, another glaring sign that Trump's going to win.
So Trump is ahead on the three biggest issues.
Then abortion is its own thing.
But the three biggest issues, he's well ahead, which is the wars, the economy, and the border.
He's ahead on, are you better off?
And party identification he's had.
And the polls say he's had, depending on which polls, and they haven't all caught up to the current situation yet, but he's had in like six out of seven swing states.
Now, let's say things stay the same.
And we go into the election and these are the things we know.
And then he loses by 10 million votes.
You can accept that.
I think it depends how those votes come in and what it looks like.
Like, if it looked like it was organic, maybe.
Maybe. But...
All right.
Geraldo just said he's endorsing...
So Geraldo Rivera is going to endorse the Harris.
And that's because of January 6th.
And the reason that Geraldo says he cannot endorse Trump, even though they've been personal friends for a long time, is that Trump did not acknowledge that he lost in 2020.
Can you believe that?
That that's his reason.
He went public with it, with a long post on it.
It's because Trump won't accept that he lost in 2020.
And that's the one reason, that's the unacceptable reason.
So, I responded to Geraldo, and people like my response so much, I think I will read it to you.
Oh, and Geraldo said that if you accept Trump's statements that he won in 2020, that makes you part of what they call the big lie.
So Democrats branded January 6th and the claim that 2020 was rigged as the big lie.
Now, the big lie is sort of trying to make you think of Nazism because the Nazis try to push the big lie.
So that comes from Nazism.
So Geraldo wants to know that Trump would be...
A big old terrible person for his lie.
And if you were to accept his lie, you're part of the Nazi-like people who would accept the big lie.
Okay? So here's what I said in a long post to Geraldo that people liked a lot.
I said, Geraldo, no one knows who won in 2020 or any other prior elections.
Our system is designed intentionally to not be fully auditable.
We know the design is intentional because that's how design works.
If a design persists for decades, despite the ability to change it, then the design is intentional.
Did JFK win fair and square?
Historians disagree. You can know for sure that no court has ruled the 2020 election was invalid, but you also know courts are not the tool for that job.
How would they know if an election got hacked without detection?
After years of the press demonizing Trump as the next Hitler, every thinking person knows the incentive to cheat him out of the victory in 2020 was through the roof.
We also know state actors can hack any system, usually without detection.
Sometimes it requires an insider, which is no hurdle for state actors, including our own.
We also know that if someone found a non-electronic way to cheat, we would not necessarily catch it, and it appears the mail-in ballot situation is easily gamed.
Whenever a system can be gamed, and the incentives to do so are sky-high, we observe that such gaming happens in every domain, every time.
Geraldo, I can't enter the dreamscape in which every fucking thing in our country is corrupt and broken except our election systems.
Speaking as a hypnotist and a long-time observer of your usually well-found opinions, this opinion does not seem to be derived from reason.
So that's my take.
It is not derived from reason.
Whatever is driving this, It's not because he thought it through.
Now, most of us are not operating from reason.
We just rationalize after the fact.
But sometimes it's a little more obvious than others.
All right. Here's some...
And I told you that Harris has a new plan for black men because she's losing with black men.
Not losing totally, but she's losing support from black men.
She wants to give a million forgivable loans up to $20,000.
What would you call a plan to give $20,000 loans to people who don't have to pay it back?
Do you know how much theft there's gonna be in loans that you don't have to pay back?
Do you know how fast I would apply for a loan I didn't have to pay back?
Well, you still have to say that it's a loan for a business.
Oh, yeah, totally.
I'm going to start a business.
What's your business?
I'm going to sell...
I'll probably...
I'll make jewelry in my house.
All right. That's the business.
When are you going to do it? Well, as soon as I get to $20,000.
All right. Can you pay it back?
Doesn't matter. It's a loan I don't have to pay back.
Oh, that's right. We said you don't have to pay it back.
All right. So you say you're going to do a business and you want $20,000.
All right. Here's your $20,000.
And then we check later.
How's your business going? Oh, well, Well, I just spent the money on stuff.
I didn't really start a business.
Oh, well, you're not supposed to do that.
I know. But, you know, when you said I don't have to pay it back, that was really telling me to just steal it.
No, no. We said we want you to start a business.
I know. But what I heard, what I heard was you're not going to be checking very carefully.
And I can just say I started a business and it didn't work out.
I just spent your money and kept it all.
You know, good luck. It's basically just giving a whole bunch of criminals $20,000 because they asked for it.
You don't have to live on this planet for very fucking long before you know that this is nothing but an invitation for fraud.
You don't have to be some kind of an expert to see this one.
I refer you to everything that happened during the pandemic if you're wondering if this will be gamed.
Yeah, yeah, it's going to be gamed.
Then what else? She's going to do education and mentorship for black men.
I told you that that seems like a good idea.
More mentorship's good.
But why are you limiting it to black men?
Because you're a racist?
This is racist, right?
If the government says we're going to do something and you're not allowed to get any whitey, If anything the government says involves not for you, whitey, then that's racist.
You should just put that right in there.
It's not for you, whitey.
Then they got the protect crypto investments so black men know their money is safe.
How fucking stupid do you think we all are?
Because there's some special magic that's happening to black men.
Are you so racist that you think black men uniquely cannot protect themselves from crypto race?
What the fuck do you think is wrong with black men that they alone, the only ones, can't figure out how to handle crypto?
Could you be more condescending?
Could you be?
This is horrible.
This is the only thing I've ever seen that's racist against everybody.
It's racist against anybody who's not included, but it's also racist against the people included.
What do you think? Black people somehow magically are the only ones who can't get a wallet and They can't join Coinbase.
They don't know how to buy some crypto and protect it.
I mean, it's pretty hard to protect the crypto, but this is ridiculous.
Then there's the National Health Initiative to focus on illnesses that disproportionately impact Black men.
I think that would make sense, but only in the context that we should be looking to fix everybody's problem.
So if there's somebody whose problem that is underserved, yeah, yeah, let's do more of it.
But if there's anybody who also has problems that are underserved, why are you only helping black men?
Why are only black men being helped with their category of underserved health problems?
Yes, we should help them.
Yes, we should do everything.
But nobody else?
Purely racist. And then the one that's the craziest is that they legalize recreational marijuana to create opportunities for black men to become drug dealers.
So apparently there are some black men that are not drug dealers, but the Harris campaign thinks that that needs to change.
They'll make it legal, so it'll be a legal drug.
But they'd really like to push men into the drug-dealing business, just, you know, legally.
This sounds like parody, doesn't it?
It doesn't even sound like anybody who had ever lived in this country came up with these ideas.
It just sounds like a joke.
It's pathetic. The word pathetic just describes everything coming out of the Harris campaign right now.
You could say that what Trump does is scary or inappropriate or his tweets are too mean and all that stuff.
That's true. It's all true.
But you wouldn't use the word pathetic, would you?
Like if you look at Trump's lining up, you know, he's got Musk that will look into the government waste.
He's got, you know, RFK Jr.
who's going to look into her food supply and maybe her meds.
Serious, serious, important stuff.
And then this.
Pathetic. You know how the Democrats want to keep pushing these departments of disinformation?
And you can't kill them.
You can't get rid of the disinformation because they're making them as fast as you can try to kill them.
I think Trump should promote creating the Department of Hoax Debunking.
Not disinformation.
The Department of Hoax Debunking.
And they'll use it to debunk all of the hoaxes.
Now, it would have to do both sides.
Because there are plenty of hoaxes on both sides.
But the Democrats do work on a creating hoax model.
They're just doing it all the time.
I think when it happens for Republicans, it's usually some grassroots troll that got a little too much attention.
Like the Tim Walz accusation.
That would be like a hoax.
But again, it comes from an individual.
And if he gets a lot of attention, it keeps going.
What am I seeing here in the comments?
Response needed. Okay, I don't know what that's about.
Anyway, the Department of Hoax debunking.
This would be a case where You would embrace the disinformation world and say, I'd like to double embrace it.
And when I'm president, we're going to go really hard at disinformation.
And we're going to include NBC in the list, CBS, ABC, CNN, although CNN's moving toward the middle, and MSNBC. And I would say that we're going to declare that their reporting is mostly hoaxes.
And it's going to be officially in the books as a hoax entity.
Now, do you think that the Democrats like their disinformation organizations now?
Not as much.
Because their entire point is they think it will only be used against their enemies.
If Trump embraced the disinformation networks and said, these are great, But we need to make sure they're operating correctly.
So make sure they cover all of the hoaxes and that they identify the networks that are the promoters of the hoaxes.
So you can maybe guess the next one without help.
Oh, it came from a hoax entity.
I get it. I don't have to pay attention to that one.
Yeah. The minute that Trump embraces the hoax slash disinformation process, they're going to have to dismantle it.
Because they thought it only went one way.
It doesn't.
Anyway, so here are some of the hoaxes I forgot to mention.
There's a hoax that Nazis attended an Eric Trump boat rally.
There's a hoax that Trump spaced out on stage for 30 minutes.
I think there was somebody injured in the audience, so he had to take a pause, and he stayed on stage.
I think they ended up not continuing after a while.
So that was just a hoax, and all the news is hoaxes.
Let's see what else is happening.
Do you know the story about the...
I've talked about the ghost trucks, I'll call them.
The trucks that allegedly were filled with fake ballots from some specific postal service place.
There was a whistleblower who said he had fake ballots in his truck.
But we can't find the trucks.
And now, according to a Rasmussen account, quote, imagine having to fight the U.S. Postal Service for years in federal courts just for the names of who paid the trucking companies.
Did you know that?
Did you know? That somebody's trying to figure out who paid the trucking companies that allegedly had fake ballots on it, and it's taken two years in federal courts unsuccessfully.
Is there some reason we can't know who paid the trucking companies that a whistleblower said had fake ballots on it?
And you're going to trust the next election?
Now, here's what I hope.
If we know that this kind of process happened once, or at least there's an allegation that happened once, then can the Republican observers make sure that they're observing so they could catch it should it happen again?
Now, if it happened again, I imagine it wouldn't look the same.
If there was any bad behavior before, they wouldn't know they needed to switch it up.
But it would still have the same element to it.
There would still be trucks delivering things that were full of things that shouldn't be delivered.
So can you catch that?
It depends where the observers are.
And some of them are, you know, are going to be kept out of certain places.
So we'll see. We shall see.
Well, Ukraine has souped up its drone success rate.
They used to be down around 10% because the Russians were good at jamming drones.
So they kept sending these drones and they got jammed and maybe 1 in 10 would hit a target.
But now Ukraine has added AI to their drones so that they can fly without GPS, which means they can get to their location, they can do their own looking around, and the jamming is applicable to the GPS. So I think if you take that out of the mix, you can make it somewhat autonomous.
And then the hit rate is up to 80%.
So now 80% of the drones are killing people.
That's pretty amazing.
And then there's some information suggesting that the Ukrainian leadership is open to the trading some land for peace situation.
Now, of course, there are people who debunk that story and say, no, no, no, we're not even considering trading land for peace.
But that's the better negotiating position.
You want to start from the position that, my God, no, I'm giving you nothing, in case you have to later give them something.
All right, here's my update on Israel and Palestine and the Palestinians.
I told you yesterday that I tried to get involved in a conversation online, and I was just trying to clarify that the two parties were not on the same topic.
I wasn't even taking a side, just saying, oh, you're not on the same topic.
And I got just totally attacked for people assuming I'm on one side or the other.
And so here's what I've realized.
I've told you before that lying is a bad thing.
And you'd all agree with that, right?
Lying's a bad thing.
But there are some specific domains in which lying is not only acceptable, it's preferred.
It's preferred. One of those domains is when people ask you about your sex life.
You have the right to lie about your sex life.
If you're still in the closet and that's your preference, I'm not saying it should be your preference.
I'm not involved in your personal life.
But if you want to tell somebody you're not bisexual, but you are, fine.
That's a perfectly good use of a lie.
I am 100% on your side.
If somebody wants to get in your sex business and you just want to make them go away by lying, yes.
Absolutely. Lie all you want about your sex life.
There's another area in which lying is not just okay.
It's advised.
It's advised.
And that would be self-defense.
So let's say the terrorists capture you and they say, do you have any guns in the house?
You say, no, no, no.
I hate guns.
I'm anti-gun. And then maybe you got a chance to get close enough to your hidden handgun that you can, you know, shoot them.
So there are situations in which it's dangerous to tell the truth.
In those cases, yes, lie.
Lying is not just okay, it's advised.
Very advised, right?
So in self-defense, you can lie as much as you want.
Now this brings us back to Israel and the Palestinian situation.
What do the Israelis believe they are doing?
Defending themselves.
What do the Palestinians believe they're doing?
Defending themselves.
Now, October 7th was an offensive act, but their take on what they were doing, their interpretation, not mine, not mine, I'm not involved, their interpretation would be it's part of a larger defensive, get your land back as they see it.
Now, if you've got a situation where both entities, and this is kind of weird, normally there's an attacking entity and a defensive entity.
Take the war in Ukraine.
In that case, Russia more clearly is the aggressor, and Ukraine, most of us think, is on the defense, right?
So that would be the normal situation for a war.
There's one attacking and one defending.
But the weird thing about Israel and the Palestinian situation is that because of their complicated past, they both claim to be in a defensive mode.
Now, when you're in a defensive mode, as I just explained, lying is not just okay, because you're defending yourself.
There's no rules in defense.
It's advised.
It's not just okay, it's recommended.
If you're defending yourself, right?
If you're defending yourself, it's recommended.
Because you should use every tool.
You should use lying, you should use bums, you should use whatever.
Whatever it takes. There's no rules in self-defense.
So, When I, as a tourist, blunder into this conversation between two entities that are in a defensive posture, And then I try to insert something that I think is maybe a truth that both of them could agree on.
I am wasting my fucking time.
Because the only thing you know for sure is that neither side should be interested in the truth.
Now, what will happen five minutes after I'm done?
I will go to my DMs and several people who are Jewish and friends of mine will say, but you know, you know, I hear what you're saying, Scott.
But you know, Israelis, they do have the better argument.
And I'm going to say, I don't care.
Because if you're not in it, you should not trust anything that either side says, because they both have a free pass.
Under their assumptions of what's true, they have a free pass.
They have a free pass to lie about everything, as long as they're in a defensive posture.
So if Israel's lying about everything, and I'm not saying they are, that is not my claim.
I'm saying they have a right to lie about everything.
So do the Palestinians, under their interpretation of what's happening.
Now, what I'm not going to do is give you my interpretation of what's happening because it all looks stupid to me.
Because you can just pick some period and pick some interpretation and you can come up with anything you want.
So it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.
All that matters is who has the power to get what they want.
At the moment, Israel has power to get what they want.
And they're allies.
And we should treat them like allies.
And if they do things that we would do, and they do, it's hard to judge somebody for doing something exactly like what you would do.
So I don't. So I'm not going to judge either side.
I'll leave that to people who believe that in a contest between two groups who consider themselves to be on defense, that you can believe anything that's coming out of the war zone.
If you believe anything that's coming out of a war zone between two people who are presenting themselves as on the defense, don't do that.
Don't do that. So, now, do I have a preference of who wins?
Yes. I have a preference of who wins, because in my world, if you would call me a non-believer, let's call me a non-believer.
I don't call myself an atheist, because that feels too certain.
I'm simply not accepting popular belief systems.
Who is more likely to be on my side in that situation?
Jews! Yeah.
Jews are not tough on people who have different opinions.
At least, you know, the people in the United States and people I'm likely to ever have any interaction with.
So, if the Jewish powers gained power and got into a better situation, I say, oh, okay.
I don't see any problem with that.
I've had tremendously good financial business dealings with many Jewish business people.
Pretty much all great.
I would just keep doing that.
But what happens if the Islamic world grows and starts to encroach on my world?
Well, then I'm in a lot of trouble.
So if you're asking me, who do I want to win?
Israel. Israel.
Who do I want to dominate?
Well, I want the Jews to be in a superior position.
Absolutely. No question about it.
And it's because of self-defense.
Because my greatest...
Ability to remain free and unbothered is to not promote a side that would want to crush me if they had the power to do so.
So, I have no ambiguity about what side I want to win.
I just don't believe anything that either of them say.
That's my current stand.
Nor should you. Nor should you.
All right, and that's all I got for today.
And I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
I must have gone way over.
My longest one ever.
All right, you on YouTube and Nix and Rumble, thanks for joining.
