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, Corporate Nuclear Power, Violent Crime Statistics, Elon Musk, Rule of Law Importance, Perplexity AI Search Engine, Argentina Gang Aurora CO, DEA Telemedicine Opposition, Household Narcan, Opioid Overdose Deaths, Starlink Speed Increase, North Korea Mercenaries, Trump Charisma, Bill Clinton Charisma, Kamala Charisma, Fraudulent Border Bill, Charlamagne Tha God, Defining Fascism, Kamala Prosecutor Record, Legacy Media Decline, Democrat Mental Health Crisis, Mark Halperin, Kamala Opinions Black Men, Understanding Tariffs, ActBlue, Election System Overview, 4 Existential Threats, Elon Musk, 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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure there's never been a better time in your life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker, gel, sistein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Oh.
Pure delight. Well, according to a NASA filmmaker...
And by the way, if you want to know things about space and science and the universe, you should talk to a NASA filmmaker.
So make your own judgment about the credibility of this story.
But somebody named Holland says that some astronomers have identified clear evidence of transmissions from another world, and they can announce the discovery of Any month now.
So any moment we're going to find out that aliens are real and they are in space and sending us messages.
Or not.
Or not. By the way, I've got a new hypothesis about the moon.
Did you know that some people speculate the moon is hollow and might actually be an alien spaceship?
Because it turns out there's a whole bunch of stuff about our moon that is not typical for a moon.
It's too big.
Its orbit is too close to a circle.
Not exact, but it's too close.
The spots where the meteors have hit it are all the same depth, as if it has some kind of hard shell underneath the dust.
You know, a whole bunch of weird things about it that don't make sense.
Oh, the density of the moon is way out of whack with its size, which also suggests it might be hollow.
Now, I'm not going to say I believe all of that.
However, I did find out that the, did you know this, that the biggest crater on the moon is on the dark side.
Did you know that? There's this enormous crater on the dark side.
All right, here's my hypothesis.
That the aliens that we see today are coming from the moon, inside the moon base.
So they've been there for 13,000 years.
And not only that, but the reason the dark side of the moon has a gigantic crater...
And here I'm adding this for recreational speculation, is because the people who are in that spaceship were instrumental in guiding the evolution and the, let's say, the advancement of humankind from our earliest days, say, 13,000 years ago in the younger, driest period.
And at one point, they saved the planet from...
A meteor strike by moving the moon, which was really their spaceship, which was impenetrable, in the path of the meteor.
So they basically took a meteor out to stop the Earth from being destroyed because it was the thing they were nurturing.
How about that?
I'm not saying there's any evidence for that.
I'm just saying, wouldn't it be cool if the moon were hollow, full of aliens?
They've been here for tens of thousands of years, guiding human evolution.
That's the reason all of our myths have these aliens who are in space.
And they saved the world at least once with their advanced technology.
And they're sending out UAPs that look like orbs.
And the reason that we can't figure out where they're coming from Is it coming from the moon?
Inside the moon?
Yeah. Maybe.
Well, in other news, the following companies appear to be buying or creating their own nuclear energy.
So companies have now announced they're going to go nuclear, meaning that for their own products, they need nuclear power, is, I believe, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle.
Now, I could use a fact check on that, but I think all four companies have now announced that they're getting in the nuclear power business directly or indirectly in the sense that they need it to be paired with their products because AI needs a whole bunch of electricity.
Crazy, crazy amount.
And I'd like to tell you that the movement of these major companies toward nuclear energy is the beginning of the golden age.
Now you can see the tumblers falling into place all over.
Nuclear power becoming not just something to talk about and something to argue about, not something that divides the country, but in fact a huge uniting factor, which is the biggest factor of the future in our success.
I would argue that the countries that do the best over time Are the ones with the best energy situation.
Now you also need some luck and some geography and population and stuff to be on your side.
But generally speaking in the modern world, whoever has the most energy is going to be the winner of everything.
Economics, wars, everything else.
So by having our best and brightest going hard into that nuclear domain, It really does signal the beginning of something so amazing that I don't even know that we can completely grasp where we're heading.
Because if you add AI and robots to almost unlimited electricity, what's left?
You're pretty close to solving all of your problems at that point.
And we seem to have a clear path to getting there.
The biggest problem would be getting in our own way.
Government regulations.
Do you know what would solve that?
Trump and Elon Musk.
The only things that could keep us from dominating the world in nuclear energy and therefore keeping our place as America as a standard for what a country should be is probably a lot of regulations.
And we are just a few weeks away, we hope, from putting in place everything we need to get to the golden age.
And if you don't think it's the golden age, then you don't know that the Dilbert 2025 calendar that you see over my shoulder there is already available for pre-sale.
Yeah. Last year, no, no Dilbert calendar.
But this year, it's back.
But you can only get it at the link at Dilbert.com.
You cannot get it on Amazon or any bookstore or any other site.
At Amazon.com, you'll see the link to the sales.
It's the only place you can get it.
Also, my update of my book, Win Bigly, is out now.
That's on Amazon, so you can get that the normal way.
And it's an update on persuasion.
If you really want to understand how Trump can bring the golden age, which he is, you want to read Winn-Bigley, second edition.
All right. Apparently, the FBI just updated its crime statistics.
It has reversed from crime was down to crime is up three weeks before the election.
Do you hear that? That's a tumbler falling into place.
Now the tumbler is sort of a lock or a combination safe.
The tumblers are the internal connections or the internal little gears and mechanisms.
So that just fell into place.
So it looks like we've got some nuclear power in our future, maybe some aliens discovered in space, the Dilbert calendar for 2025, and crime statistics have been corrected, which should have the effect of giving us a President Trump and all the solutions we need.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk announced that tomorrow night through Monday he's going to be giving a series of talks about Throughout Pennsylvania, they're free.
You just have to sign something that says you like the First and Second Amendment, I guess.
Now, Elon Musk is taking time off from running the most important companies in America, well, in some sense, and he's all in.
This is what going all in looks like.
When the richest man in the world who's got the most on the line The biggest risk, one of the most capable people, 200 million followers.
When he tells you, we're not going to lose Pennsylvania, because he's going to make sure personally, click.
Did he hear that?
That's another Tumblr.
Just fell into place.
Well, there's a Nobel Economics Prize was awarded, and don't say the...
The Nobel Prize in Economics.
Please, people. Please.
No, it's called the Nobel Economics Prize.
It is not the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Slightly different in ways that don't make any difference to anybody.
But if you'd like to be an NPC... You should always point that out when anybody mentions the topic of the Nobel Economics Prize.
So if I mention swimming, the NPCs should say it's the best form of exercise.
If I mention a new form of food, the NPCs must, you must, you're programmed to say, soil and green, it's soil and green.
If somebody suggests building a new and better form of housing, the NPCs must, you're programmed to do it, Say, I will not live in a tiny house, even though tiny houses are not the topic.
Those are the ways to be an NPC. So just remember, Nobel Economics Prize starts screaming, there is no Nobel Economic Prize or Nobel Prize.
Anyway, so it was awarded for research into why countries succeed or fail.
And the bottom line was that societies with a poor rule of law and institutions that exploit the population do not generate growth or change for the better.
Now, you probably know what I'm going to say.
You could have just asked me.
I mean, it would have saved a lot of time.
And I would not have even required any kind of Nobel economics prize, which you call the Nobel Prize for economics incorrectly.
No, you could have just asked me, hey, Scott, what makes a country fail?
And I'd say, well, how about if all the institutions in the country are corrupt?
Really? So, if all the institutions in the country are working against the population, you're saying that that would make you less successful?
And I'd say, I know.
I know. You could study it, but I'm pretty sure that's going to be what's going to come out of that, is that your institutions are all broken.
But, here's the fun part.
Why are they broken?
Oh, turns out somebody's going to have to do a little extra work and maybe get themselves a much better Nobel Economics Prize if they can figure out what exactly causes some societies to have a poor rule of law.
Is there any correlation between countries that have a good rule of law and countries that have a poor rule of law?
Yeah, you're not allowed to ask that question.
Next. Why do some people thrive when others fall behind, such science says?
Did you know that our happiness is influenced only if there are people around us who are doing worse?
If you're hanging out with people who are all doing better than you, what happens?
You're unhappy. Because you're like, why am I not doing as good as everybody else?
And it turns out that you need a few people who are doing worse than you, or you won't be happy.
So they did a study on that.
People, people.
You didn't need to do that study.
Just ask.
Just ask me next time.
Yes, you can't be happy if everybody around you is doing better.
You didn't really need to do that study.
You could have just asked me.
Save you a lot of time.
Well, you know, I've been talking about the app Perplexity, which is sort of a replacement for Google Search, but way better user interface.
And New York Times was suing them for using the New York Times content in some way that they thought was inappropriate.
The Wall Street Journal has joined that fight, also going after them.
So this is a pretty interesting fight.
So you got Jeff Bezos, who's backing perplexity, but he's up against the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
Who's missing? Let's see, the biggest newspapers.
Biggest newspapers.
You got the Wall Street Journal.
You got the New York Times.
What's that other big newspaper that's often mentioned in the news?
Oh, the Washington Post.
The Washington Post would be rounding out the big three.
But the Washington Post is not suing perplexity.
I wonder why.
What do perplexity and the Washington Post...
Oh, that's right.
Bezos owns both of them.
It seems to me that if the Washington Post covers all the big stories and it's real news, that if you were the person who owned both of them or had influence over both of them, you could just use the Washington Post because it covers all the same news, right? Unless you think the Washington Post is fake news, and then you wouldn't use it as your single source.
But it is better to have multiple sources than single sources.
I joke. I kid.
And I don't know how that's going to turn out.
It would be hard to predict because it's all the billionaires fighting each other.
Anyway, how many of you saw the video clips of Martha Radich talking to JD Vance on the question of the problems from the Venezuelan gangs and the apartment buildings?
Yesterday, I sat on the show.
That JD pulled a clever move on her.
And I said that Raditz said that there were, you know, several reports of instances of problems at apartments.
And JD Vance kind of altered that into saying that there were several apartments taken over, which is not what Raditz said.
She said there were incidents that had been handled.
And then JD said...
Do you hear what you're saying?
You're saying it's not a problem if several apartments have been taken over.
And then I said, aha, that was a clever move, because she didn't say several apartments had been taken over.
She said that there were several instances at apartments, several apartments.
And I said, that's different.
And then you said, Scott, you got that story completely wrong, and I saw it with my own eyes.
Correct? Am I correct so far that I got it wrong when I said that J.D. Vance was pulling a clever one, you know, linguistically, and that really he was just saying what she said, and there was no cleverness.
He was just, you know, he was right and she was wrong, but there was no clever linguistic thing involved.
So yesterday, one of you sent it to me and said, here it is, to prove that you got it wrong.
And then I watched it and I thought, no, that's what I said.
That's what I said. That's not wrong.
And then the person who sent it said, well, I'm looking right at it and listening to it too.
It's wrong. And then I looked at it and said, no, I'm right.
So how can that be?
Do you know what the answer is?
It's a Rupar.
You saw a fake edit.
They did exactly to Radich, I guess the Republicans, did to Radich exactly what was done to Trump on a number of occasions.
There are two famous hoaxes where there was a little bit of ambiguity, but the ambiguity was completely solved if you waited to the last statement.
In the fine people hoax, Trump's last statement was, but I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the racists.
If you take that out, it leaves the ambiguity that, well, maybe he was.
But he was very clear in saying not.
When the hoax about the drinking bleach happened, And everybody said, he's not talking about light as a disinfectant.
That's because the edit took out his setup that he was talking about light and then also took out his closing statement where he clarified he was talking about light.
If you take them out, the ambiguity remains and you can interpret it the wrong way.
I believe the last thing that Radich said was, we're talking about a handful of incidents.
So that was the clarifier at the end that got cut off.
So instead of apartments taking over, she was always talking about incidents, which was across several apartments, but never, not once, did Radich acknowledge that several apartments had been taken over by gangs.
J.D. Vance... Added sort of the takeover part, but then when Radich went to give the final clarification of, but we're only talking about a handful of incidents, that part got cut off.
So you don't know that in the end she was clarifying that we're not talking about apartment takeovers.
And by the way, she was just quoting the local officials.
So she's just saying, they say it's just incidents.
Now, in my opinion...
I'm 100% right.
And that JD Vance was very clever in trying to take a handful of incidents across several apartments and turn it into several apartment complexes have been taken over by gangs.
I don't know what really happened, by the way.
If it's true that several gangs took over several apartments, then JD's reframe is 100% accurate.
However... They were not talking about the same thing.
That's my only point.
So I'm not talking about what's true.
That's a different topic.
I don't know what's true.
I'm saying that one was claiming that there were incidents, and another was claiming that several apartments were completely taken over by gangs.
Not the same topic.
That's my only point.
Now, if you're disagreeing with me violently right now, and I know you are, you have to go find the full video.
If you see the one that's on social media, they clip out the clarifiers.
So that's what's happening.
All right. There are some bipartisan lawmaker-type people trying to extend telemedicine.
Now, you might know this story, because I'm part of it.
When the pandemic happened, President Trump put out the word through his extensive network of supporters and people that if they had any ideas for executive orders that would just be a good idea during this pandemic, that he was open to suggestions.
So I heard of this and I said, oh, I got one.
We need to make telemedicine available across state lines because currently it's limited.
You'd have to be a doctor in that state to provide phone service to somebody.
And I said, let's just get rid of that because people won't be able to go to the doctor in person as much.
And so my suggestion made it into the system.
And within hours, I got feedback that it was accepted.
And I think Just days later, President Trump signed it.
Now, I like to use this example.
I've got several examples like this, where people always say, well, one person can never make a difference.
Yes, they can. They totally can.
One person can absolutely make a difference.
Now, unfortunately, it got reversed.
Because after the pandemic was over, there were various monetary and licensing entities that wanted things back the old way.
So it kind of drifted back the old way.
And now there are some bipartisan.
Bipartisan is the most important part of the story.
Because there's no real reason, in terms of the public good, why you shouldn't allow telemedicine to flourish.
There's just no reason, especially with AI and everything else.
So, you might say, who exactly is against it?
Well, it turns out that the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, wants to limit what kind of prescriptions can be given over the phone.
Because they worry that this will become like an illegal way for doctors to easily prescribe illegal, you know, like painkillers and stuff like that, Adderall, things that they want to really control.
And I think that there are, I would say two things.
Number one, is it true that telemedicine would increase The likelihood there would be fake prescriptions, which would be very deadly.
My answer is, probably.
Probably. And then I say, does that...
Is that enough of a problem to prevent doctors from operating across state lines?
To which I say, I don't think so.
I think I'd much rather have doctors operating across state lines.
Much rather. Because whatever it is that they're doing over the phone to make these prescriptions, how would it not be also bad in person?
Well, I suppose if there's a bad actor...
Then the bad actor could reach more people more easily.
So that would be valid.
But I think freedom requires that we take that chance.
And I don't think the DEA should be in the business of doctoring.
If the doctors said it's a bad idea, I would listen to their reasons.
And doctors might not love it because it would increase their competition and lower their wages.
But if they have a reason that has something to do with the public, I would listen to the doctors.
I'm not sure that I want the DEA, even if they're right, and I think they might be right, it would increase the abuse.
But I still think the doctors need to make that call.
And in this case, the bipartisan folks who are trying to get it done.
I don't think I wrote down the names of the bipartisan groups, but The Hill is reporting on this, by the way.
Joseph Choi. Did you know, this I did not expect, according to ABC Action News 6, that opioid overdose antidotes rose 43% from 2020 to 2022.
Now, that means if somebody is passed out and ready to die from an overdose of fentanyl or some other opioid, you give them the, what's it called, the I forget what it's called.
You all know what it is.
What's that called? What's the name of the antidote for fentanyl?
Nexam, Lamamine, Narcan.
There we go. Narcan, thank you.
I'm really bad at medical names.
Narcan. So Narcan, I believe, is now over-the-counter.
So I would recommend, and I have recommended this before, that every household should have two.
Now, the reason that I'm saying two is Is because I'm told reliably, good sources, that it's not rare that you need the second dose.
So the one Narcan, sometimes, maybe 20% of the time, it's a healthy number of times, isn't enough.
So you just need that second one right there.
Now, I would say that in your neighborhood, you should be organized.
You should be on a WhatsApp group for your neighborhood.
If you're not already, you should get that going.
And then if somebody has a OD, you can just get on your app and say Narcan now.
Here's my address.
And there should be five neighbors who show up with it within a minute.
I mean, we could have that world.
It would take a lot of organizing.
But apparently it's worked so well that the overdose deaths slightly decreased.
Slightly decreased.
Now, a slight decrease doesn't excite me.
But it had been going up every year.
So good job, everybody, on the Narcan.
Good, good job.
This is one of those golden age situations where in many ways it looks like largely the public organized to make this happen.
So this is a case where the government can only do so much.
There's just so much. One of the things they could do is make it available over the counter.
And I think the government did that in enough states where it makes a difference.
So the government can get out of the way.
But when it comes to the overdose deaths, that's all they can do.
They can just get out of the way.
And nothing else, really.
It's got to be somebody that's standing within 20 feet of them or doesn't work.
Although the police and first responders have done a great job with the Narcan as well.
Apparently SpaceX...
Has plans to make Starlink up to 10 times faster.
There are a whole bunch of little tweaks they'd have to do.
It involves some satellites that only the big starship could take up because nothing else would be heavy enough.
And some changes in the altitude and some other tweaks.
But if they did that, they'd get a 10 times faster speed.
So they'd be up to gigabit per second and low latency.
Now, if you're not enough of a nerd to know what a big deal that is, That would mean that anybody anywhere could have really fast internet just with a phone.
If you're within, you know, you'd have to have the Starlink base station, of course.
But if you had the base station, you're good to go.
Just about anywhere.
Now, this change, take a while to get this change.
If you're looking at it from a business model perspective, I think I've told you that I'm strongly considering getting a Starlink base station as a backup.
So it wouldn't be my main one because I do a lot of live streaming and I like the fastest of the fast speeds.
So I wouldn't use it because I've got a faster ground speed and I use it for business, so it matters.
But if the power goes out, And I can power the base station with a portable generator, and the internet itself is still alive in any sense.
It could be an amazing emergency backup system.
So I'm strongly considering getting it as a backup, but if they go to gigabit per second, which again is not right away, Then I would really look at it seriously as my only system.
So that's a gigantic deal.
I remind you that I'm an investor in Tesla, but not SpaceX.
All right. North Korea is getting active in a way that looks puzzling and scary.
So there are two separate stories about North Korea.
And both of them have a similar bad vibe to them.
Number one, North Korea allegedly just blew up the railways between South and North Korea so that there's less chance of an invasion.
So it sounds like North Korea is concerned about war or is ready to start one with South Korea.
Now apparently the issue is Iran.
So it looks like North Korea wants to back Iran.
So if Iran gets attacked, they're warning that they would get into the fight with, I don't know who, South Korea?
Who exactly are they going to attack if Iran gets into war?
So I assume that's because of a trading relationship with Iran, I assume.
That's why they would do that.
So to me, it looks a little bluff-like.
Because, you know, North Korea's big on the bluster.
So it feels bluff-like.
I don't expect they're going to attack South Korea, and I don't expect South Korea's going to attack them.
But at the same time, a separate story.
Apparently Russia is using North Korean fighters to And they're organizing and training them.
They're called their Buriet Battalion.
So 3,000 North Koreans.
And I assume that means as mercenaries.
So just think about how bad off North Korea is economically.
Do you think that North Korea is going to start selling the young men as mercenaries?
Because it kind of looks like that.
Which... By the way, if you're in North Korea and you're starving to death, you may be taking a chance at living by being a mercenary.
I mean, it's not a very good chance, but it might be better than starving.
So I'm wondering if this is nothing but an economic decision by North Korea.
It could be that for economic reasons, they blew up the railway to make it look like a bigger threat so Iran would feel safer.
Maybe Iran said, we won't sell you something or we won't buy something unless you do this.
Maybe they're so starved for money that if they don't sell their young men as mercenaries, they can't keep afloat.
So the economic devastation in North Korea is now starting to influence world events in two different wars.
I didn't see that coming.
Now, of course, Trump has already said he can fix this.
And you know what's funny about that?
Trump can fix this.
You don't even have to wonder about it.
Do you think Trump could talk to Kim Jong-un and make sure that a war doesn't break out, that Kim Jong-un has something to do with it?
Yeah. I think he could.
I think he could. And largely because I think North Korea is operating from an economic point of distress.
So Trump could say, what do you need?
We'd love you to have a good economy.
We offered before we were going to help you.
And they might say, well, we're getting blackmailed in this one domain.
Now, it could be that China has enough control over North Korea that North Korea is just being a puppet and there's nothing you can do.
But I would certainly say that if we have one person in America who could solve North Korea causing trouble, who are you going to call?
Are you going to call Kamala Harris?
Is she your go-to for North Korea?
When Trump is the most famously successful North Korea diplomat of all time, like nobody's even close?
Click. There it is.
There's another Tumblr falling into place.
North Korea just said, Trump's your only hope.
North Korea. So you didn't see that coming, did you?
Meanwhile, Trump continues to read the room perfectly.
You know, as I've been advocating for a while that he should go to a black barbershop.
But it doesn't have to be a barbershop, obviously.
You know, maybe he wouldn't want to get a haircut.
But just going retail where they're just ordinary citizens.
And apparently next week he's going to officially work at McDonald's in Pennsylvania.
Now, how much do I love that?
You give me video of Trump just interacting with average people who go to McDonald's, the staff plus the people coming in to buy, and I can't get enough of that.
That's something he does so well that it's incredible.
By the way, I told the story of Bill Clinton going into, I think it was McDonald's, and he was confused with Joe Biden.
By the woman who was working the cash register.
But when she found out who he was, I didn't tell you this yesterday.
So first of all, just imagine the picture.
She's a black, maybe 20-ish year old woman.
And she finds out that it's Bill Clinton.
And she runs out from behind the cash register and fully embraces him, gives him a full-body hug, and then doesn't let go of him the entire time.
They're, like, taking pictures and stuff.
And, you know, Clinton's got his hands around her.
And I gotta tell you, this whole charisma thing, there's no replacement for it.
Bill Clinton has the charisma, still has it, 100 years old.
He's just got the charisma.
Like, the fact that somebody felt comfortable running out and giving a full embrace to this ex-president just because he walked in the door, it was kind of a lovely, like, sort of a beautiful moment just because it was so sincere.
Like, people don't hug.
They don't touch each other that much unless it's real.
So it was real in both directions.
So Clinton, to his credit, often called the first black president, boy, does he have a way.
He just has a way.
And you can't deny it.
You just had a way. Away with people.
And you could see why he would be a sex addict.
Because I think women just threw themselves at him.
I mean, maybe some he was a little too aggressive with.
That's another story. But I think Trump has the same golden touch.
And we've seen it a million times.
You give me Trump in the middle of ordinary working people, and you're just going to see magic.
It's like a guaranteed, smarter thing to do.
Now compare that to what Kamala Harris has planned.
Kamala Harris, as well as Trump, plans to go on Joe Rogan's show.
Okay, which one is a better campaign idea?
Trump goes to McDonald's, A++, or Kamala Harris goes to Joe Rogan.
Oh, no!
Now, it feels like a Hail Mary pass, because how in the world is that going to work out for Kamala Harris?
It's almost as if she doesn't have an idea what other people say about her or think about her, maybe has never seen a Joe Rogan podcast.
Now, others have said, you know, she'll be fine because Joe Rogan's, you know, going to be a gentle interviewer.
Yes and no.
Yes and no.
He will be gentle in the sense of being polite, and he will be gentle in the sense of not being a flaming, biased, you know, right-wing flamethrower.
Because he's not. That's not who he is.
But if you give me, you know, a two-hour conversation with a reasonable person who has reasonable questions and is willing to, you know, press to get an answer, and Kamala Harris, I think that can only go one way.
Really, really bad.
So, you know, here's your microcosm of the entire campaign.
Trump doing the smartest thing you'll ever see in a campaign and Harris doing something that I think is clearly a mistake.
Clearly a mistake.
When was the last time she did an interview and people said, oh, she nailed it.
That'll make her numbers go up.
She doesn't have that ability.
So Trump is going into a situation that is perfectly fit to his talents.
Harris will go into a situation which is a disaster area for her specific talents.
And she has talents, too.
I'm not saying she's untalented.
Just not that.
Definitely not that thing.
She gives good speeches. So do more of that if, you know, if I'm an advisor.
All right, what else?
Harris went on Charlemagne the God.
And... Charlemagne said, gave her a little pushback.
Said, doesn't the Biden administration have to take some blame for the border?
Though a lot of the blame?
Yeah, good for him.
He didn't just say a blame.
He said a lot of the blame. The first three years, you did a lot of things wrong.
Kamala Harris' answer was, don't you understand that as soon as we got in there, we proposed this border bill?
And then I guess she got away with that.
Now here's a problem with somebody like Charlemagne the God having access to the top political figures.
I take it from the exchange that Charlemagne doesn't know that that proposed border bill was a fraud.
So anybody listening to it just heard, you know, one of the strongest accusations against her, which was made exactly right by Charlemagne.
You've been there three years.
Everything fell apart under you.
Now, if you heard that, and that's all you heard, you'd be like, oh, yeah, that's terrible.
But if you let her go on and say, oh, this border bill, it was only the Republicans who said no, and you didn't realize that it was really a mass amnesty bill, And that it wouldn't have fixed anything.
It just would have guaranteed that a massive amount of people would come in, the opposite of what people want.
So if Charlemagne didn't know, and the indication is he didn't know, that her answer was a non-responsive answer, because it was a bullshit bill that nobody was going to pass, he's done a bad service to the country.
Now, does the regular news do a good service to the country?
No. You know, not if it's MSNBC. I would say that CNN, again, I'm going to give them credit.
Lately, they seem to be showing both sides of a lot of different topics.
And I just have to give them that.
You know, there's still a lot of bias, but everybody's, you know, all the networks have some bias.
But at least if you're going to show both sides, that counts.
If you're going to have access, because you're a celebrity and you've got a lot of pull, if you have access to the top politicians and you didn't know that the border bill was a fraud, you are doing a disservice to the country.
Because I don't even think Charlemagne will get what he wants.
Because Charlemagne wants the border to be secured, as do I, as do you.
And the person who is least likely to do it just got away with a massive, massive lie.
Effectively a lie. And he couldn't catch it.
That is a really dangerous situation.
So... I do like the public figures who are just public personalities like Charlemagne.
I do like them talking to the politicians because you get a different look.
But man, you've got to be careful if you get into the policy that deeply.
Maybe it's better if you're going to talk to a celebrity or somebody who's not that deeply into the news.
If you're going to talk to Jimmy Kimmel or something, You can talk about your favorite food.
I'm okay with that.
You know, what's your favorite band?
Fine, fine.
As long as we know this is for entertainment and just, you know, a different look at the personality, that's fine.
Anyway, and then they agreed, Charlemagne and Harris, that Trump was a fascist.
I would like Bret Baier When he talks to Kamala Harris, because that's agreed to, that's going to happen, I'd like to ask him to explain the definition of a fascist and then to explain why Trump fits that definition, but without using any hoaxes.
So when she says, well, he said he's going to be a dictator for...
Well, no, that was just hyperbole.
He just said one day.
That's not anything to do with fascism.
Well, but he also said he's going to use the military to take down his...
His enemies. Well, no, no, that's actually a hoax.
Here's what really happened.
But he said the fine people, well, no, no, that's a hoax.
But he said, well, no, that's a hoax.
So if he could do that, that would be a great service.
But, you know, this whole he's a fascist thing, Oh my God.
Nobody even knows what that word means.
It's still the leading word in politics.
Some people do know what it means, but they still pretend they don't when they use it.
Anyway, there's a study by Dylan Burroughs, RSBN, is writing about this, that RFK junior voters are mostly, not mostly, but they're moving toward Trump.
Or to say it better, there's a strong bias toward the, if they're going to move to one of the candidates, more of them are moving to Trump.
And it could be a big deal.
Could be a big deal.
I think a lot of people were parking their vote with RFK Jr.
so that they could stay in the conversations.
Do you know anybody who did that?
So for months and months, it wasn't that important what your opinion was because you weren't that close to the election.
So a lot of people...
In the YouTube comments, the all-caps lucky gal is yelling, you got it wrong, without any indication of what it is.
So we've got the all-caps drunken morning users, you got it all wrong!
Whatever it was, we don't even know what the topic was.
You got it all wrong. So let's get more drunken all-capitals screaming in the comments.
So let's put your stupidity at full force.
Bring it on. Anyway, speaking of CNN, they did a critical look at Kamala Harris's record as a prosecutor.
Now, just what I said.
So CNN, again, I'm going to give you credit.
You showed the negative side of a candidate, and they weren't too impressed, and talked about some controversial things that she did that I'm not too interested in.
I'm not going to discuss them.
But I will say that CNN gave her sort of a checkered mark for prosecutor work, and I don't think they had to.
Did they? Was there anything really pressing CNN to...
I won't call it a hit piece, but it was a negative piece on Harris.
Have you ever seen MSNBC run any package that was negative to the Democrat?
I don't think I've ever seen it.
Not even once. But CNN did.
CNN did. And I'm not sure Fox has ever done a negative on Trump.
Although there are lots of Fox personalities who have criticized them on individual things.
That's true. So I will give them that.
Anyway, that's good. CNN's Harry Enten, who also is doing a great job as an explainer of polls.
He seems completely unbiased in his presentation, which is impressive, actually.
He says that Trump is leading Harris by 17% with Hispanic men under 45.
Click. Tumblr's falling into place.
And he might be the best president since Nixon or something with black voters as a Republican candidate.
So it's all clicking in now.
But of course, there's a new poll, the Marist poll, inexplicably, or is it, showing that Harris is up five in the national poll, up five points over Trump.
Do you believe that? The last poll showed Harris was up two.
So this would suggest that Harris is not only doing better lately, according to this one poll, but a lot better.
Is that what you're seeing?
Now the Marist poll, some say, is a very credible poll.
Some say. So let's see how credible they were in 2016.
So at the end of September...
So that would be three weeks difference.
Three weeks difference.
They had Clinton leading Trump by seven points nationally.
What was the final?
The final was maybe three?
Does anybody remember Clinton did win the national vote, the popular vote?
Did she win it by three?
Anyway, the point is, don't believe any pollsters.
And I believe that Marist was chewed up by the end so that their final number before the election was actually pretty close to the actual election.
But their number just weeks before the election wasn't very close.
Now, have I told you a million times that in October is where everybody who wasn't close is, you know, it looks like maybe they're taking one last shot.
But if you think that by election day, Marist is going to have a poll that has Harris up by five, I'm telling you, you don't understand how things work.
On election day, Marist is not going to have a poll that says Harris is up by five.
That's not going to happen.
Surprise me.
Make me wrong. We'll see.
All right. Biden-Harris Department of Justice is suing a bunch of first responder groups in four states, Maryland, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, as for discriminating in the tests to become a first responder.
So they say that the basic math skills are discriminatory because it discriminates against black candidates.
And the fitness test discriminates against female applicants.
So, very unfair.
Did we lose all the comments from locals?
Let me reboot that.
I lost it on my end, so you may have lost it on your end as well.
Let's see. Can we make that work?
There's something different happening here.
All right. There we go.
Comments are back. If you're not getting comments on the Locals app, just reboot.
Anyway, so that's happening.
And apparently cash awards were paid to the black employees who failed the written test.
That's the punchline. So there were black candidates who took the written test and failed, and they just got paid for failing the test.
So... What are we doing?
What kind of world are we living in?
We're just giving people a big cash payment for failing a test.
Anyway. Trump went on a Bloomberg event where he talked in front of some big group and got interviewed on stage.
And the Bloomberg editor blasted Kamala Harris before he began for not accepting their invitation.
Now, keep in mind, these big media groups are these legacy dying dinosaur groups.
They need to fight to be seen as the place a top candidate must go to before you run for president.
I think the larger story here is that the big legacy press is not important.
So when you tell me that somebody didn't talk to Time magazine 20 years ago, I would say, well, that's a huge mistake.
You got to talk to Time magazine.
But in 2024, does it really matter if you talk to Time magazine?
In 2024, does it matter if you talk to Newsweek?
No. Does it matter if you talk to Bloomberg?
No. Not really.
Not really. But Trump did, which makes him look good, and then Bloomberg blasted Harris for not doing it.
But it's really not about Harris, is it?
If you ask me, Harris is smart to skip this event, because it wouldn't be one that she would excel at, so why do it?
But it would be good for Bloomberg because then they could say, we're important and we can get the big stuff and look at all our clicks.
So just think about that.
That was more about Bloomberg talking about Bloomberg and trying to survive as a dinosaur media.
But Trump did well in that eclipse I saw.
Mark Halperin, veteran, smart, political, what would you call it, analyst?
I'm not sure, advisor.
I'm not sure he has many hats.
But anyway, he was on Tucker Carlson.
And he says, he predicts that if Trump wins, it will be the psychological collapse in the Democratic Party will be the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.
And that it will be massive therapy and acting out, etc.
Again, you could have just asked anybody, obviously.
We saw what happened in 2016.
Do you think less of that's going to happen this time?
No, it will be a massive, massive mental health problem.
And it will be the people who don't understand where they are or what's happening.
Now, one of my best predictions of all time, maybe the best, was that when Trump entered the race in 2015, just think about when this was said.
I said that Trump, as a master persuader, as I call them, would change more than politics.
I said he would change how we even saw reality itself.
Anybody want to tell me that that was accurate?
Did Trump change how you saw reality itself?
Yes. And that's the reason that there would be a massive mental health crisis if he wins.
Because the reality...
Is so uneven, like we're not even living in the same planet anymore.
And that's new.
That happened since Trump came on board.
Yes, Halpern is completely correct here.
Halperin also had the story of how Nancy Pelosi allegedly got Biden out of the race.
So it was a combination of threatening to cut off all the fundraisers, because she could simply talk to the fundraisers and say, don't give him any more money, and he wouldn't really be able to run a race without the big checks.
And then said that she'd basically make sure people didn't endorse him, so he wouldn't get the big endorsements that you kind of depend on.
That would be a bad look.
But if he left, that they would celebrate his successes and call him George Washington and make him a superstar in history.
So that makes sense.
I mean, I don't know if that's 100% true, because, you know, it's people talking to people talking to people.
But it sure fits.
I mean, if it's not exactly true, it feels like it's probably mostly true.
Anyway, so let's do the list of things that Kamala Harris thinks that black men are unable to do.
Kamala Harris thinks that black men can't figure out how to get an ID. She thinks they don't understand the news about Trump being a fascist, so they gotta tell him.
She must think that they don't have priorities straight, because most people think the economy is the big priority, and Trump's the obvious choice there.
She says they need help with crypto, but only black people.
Only black men, actually.
So only black men need help with crypto.
That's pretty condescending.
And by the way, if you spent one minute in crypto, you know that that's not true.
Crypto is one of the most open, available to everybody thing you've ever seen in your life.
Do you know anybody who's black, who wants to get into crypto, who can't figure out how to do it, doesn't know who to ask?
Blacks are doing fine.
I mean, that's just, you know, anecdotally, my observation is it's a very egalitarian domain.
But Kamala Harris doesn't think so.
And she thinks that black men need affirmative action to get jobs to compete.
So if I were a black man, I would just hate this bitch.
Because she's just all about, you guys can't get ahead.
Why can't you get an ID? Why don't you understand crypto?
Why can't you get a job like everybody else?
I mean, this is seriously, seriously racist.
It's just racist.
How about you treat everybody as an individual?
And then there will be Black individuals who do great in all domains.
And there'll be white individuals who do great sometimes and don't do great other times.
How about we just treat them like people?
How about that? How about everybody who needs help with crypto gets it?
How about that? I'd like to spend part of today, by tradition, misunderstanding tariffs.
Would anybody like to join me in misunderstanding tariffs?
So let me explain what I think is true.
And then since we all disagree about everything, you'll tell me how I got it all wrong.
Here's what I think is true.
I posted this today.
I said, let's pretend Republicans and Democrats disagree on when to use tariffs.
So we have to pretend they disagree.
That's the first part of the conversation.
If you don't know that Democrats and Republicans completely agree, Including Trump.
They're all on the same page.
If you don't know that, then you can't do the pretend conversation where you pretend that there's a difference.
So the spoiler is, there's no disagreement.
There is no disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on when you should use a tariff and when you should not.
There never has been, and maybe there never will be.
Right? But we're going to pretend there is, because I guess that's what we do.
I guess we pretend there is a disagreement.
So, question number one.
Does Trump treat tariffs as if they are an income stream for America, as if the other country is paying a check to America and we're making money?
Does Trump describe tariffs As making money for America that's coming from other countries.
Does he do that? Because that would be incorrect, right?
Because the entity that pays the tariff is the American company or the American consumer.
But it would be Americans who are paying.
I guess it would be the American company.
And then that would be passed along.
But he does say that, right?
I watched him yesterday at the Bloomberg thing, and separate from what he thinks is true, separate from what he thinks is true, he does talk like he believes that.
And people do hear it like it's free money.
Now, hold that thought.
I'm going to circle back to it.
Hold the thought that Trump acts like it's free money coming from some outside source.
And it's not.
It's not. It's America paying America.
Now, here's the next question.
Will Trump use tariffs as a threat to negotiate better trade terms?
Well, yes. Yes, he will.
Trump will use the threat of tariffs to negotiate better terms.
Would Joe Biden do that?
Well, he has tariffs.
So, yes.
Yes, both sides believe that tariffs are a negotiation tool for international trade.
How do I know that?
Because both are doing it.
They're both doing it in a very big way.
So there's no question about whether they both think it's good for negotiating.
They're both doing it.
Next, do you think that because Trump acts like the tariff is just making free money, does that give him an advantage in negotiating or a disadvantage?
Is it a disadvantage because it's like not understanding it or something?
Or is it an advantage because whoever you're negotiating with thinks they're competing with free money?
Here's where it gets interesting.
And here's a persuasion lesson that goes deep.
This will be deeper than the surface stuff that you see about persuasion.
Oh, repetition is good.
That's good too. But I'm going to take you to a deeper level.
The best negotiating trick you could ever have is to be irrational in a way that the person you're dealing with thinks they can't fix.
That's what Trump does with negotiating and with tariffs.
Imagine you're the negotiator and you come in and say, hey, you don't put a tariff on me.
And Trump says, why not?
It's free money. Everybody loves free money.
I'll get reelected. I'll tell everybody you gave me a billion dollars.
They'll love me. I'll have everything I want and we'll have some free money.
And then the person negotiating says, that's not free money.
That's you telling an American company to pay extra taxes, basically.
It's a tariff, but it's like a tax.
And so, that's not true.
And then Trump says, it's free money.
I'm going to take the free money unless you give me the deal I want.
And then the person says, it's not free money.
It's not free money.
And then Trump says, all right, I'll take the free money.
So, fuck you. You know, you don't have a deal.
No, we need a deal.
We need a deal.
But you have to understand, I'm not competing against free money.
You're just taking money from Americans and giving it to Americans.
I'm not giving you the money.
And then Trump says, great, we don't have a deal.
No, but I need a deal.
I have to have a deal. Well, you better give me a hell of a deal because you're competing with free money.
I'm not competing with free money.
It's not free money.
I told everybody in America it's free money.
You're competing with free money.
And guess what?
They're competing with free money.
He just creates it out of nothing.
If the people negotiating with Trump believes that he believes that it's free money, which he couldn't possibly believe.
They're going to surrender because they need a deal and they don't know how to get past that hump.
Now, if you think I'm making this up, that this is a valid, well-understood negotiating point, I'm not making it up.
It's what I've talked and written about before.
I've used it. There was a negotiation.
Well, I'll tell you the negotiation.
At the end of one of my syndication license deals, not license, but syndication deals, the first one went for, I think, 15 years.
Now, at the end of 15 years, I had a lot of market power compared to my syndication company.
And so when it was time to renegotiate, I thought, whoa, I'm going to get a higher percentage and get a few extra things because it's been a little lopsided the other way for years.
And then I was told, oh, you may have forgotten that there was a clause in your contract that if you go to somebody else, you still have to pay your old company.
And I said, wait, what?
If I don't do business with you at all, and I go to your competitor and I'm only working with them, I still owe you money?
Yeah, that's what you signed 15 years ago.
I did? And I had to look at it.
And sure enough, what an idiot.
I mean, maybe I knew it at the time, but I didn't remember.
And so now they had me totally by the balls.
Totally by the balls.
Economically, it didn't make sense to go anywhere else.
It made sense to stay, because I could get a real good deal for staying.
But I said, If you keep that in there, that is so outrageous, I'm going to quit the business.
And they said, what?
You would never quit the business.
You're making millions of dollars per year, and you can't go to the competition without paying us.
So if you're not going to do that, you're definitely not going to quit the business.
And I said, apparently you don't know me.
This is so outrageous, I will quit the fucking business.
And you're going to have to explain to your partners why you lost your biggest cartoonist.
I'm out. Now, did I mean that?
No. Of course I didn't mean that.
I'm not going to give up millions of dollars for drawing silly little pictures every day.
The best job ever. But did I convince a very skilled negotiating professional that I was absolutely serious that I was going to do something that was batshit crazy?
Yes, I did. And did it work?
It did. I ended up staying with the company, but they gave me the terms that I wanted.
Later I left because there was a merger and blah, blah, blah.
But, yeah, this is a term.
Acting irrational is negotiating.
Now, this isn't the only entity.
This is not the only case you've seen Trump act irrational.
But it's an act.
You know, when he tells Kim Jong-un that it's going to be on a raining fire or whatever, I mean, it's just all part of the deal to act irrational.
You've got to act irrational.
Or else people will think they can keep negotiating.
That irrational wall is really, really powerful.
So I can't read Trump's mind, but in my head, I believe he does understand tariffs, and I do think that he knows how to negotiate.
And when you put understanding of tariffs together with knowing how to negotiate at the highest level, not just an ordinary negotiator, it looks like this.
It looks like people saying, why don't you understand?
And then he'll just continue to say what he says and things will work out.
New York Post says that the ActBlue organization that collects money to donate to Democrats, there's a GOP strategist whose name and address, I guess, got used for all the fake laundering of money.
So the accusation is that at Blue, they can't write, legally, they can't write big checks, gigantic checks.
So they have to pretend that they're getting lots of little checks from individuals, and then it can go to the politicians.
But if they...
So what they're doing is finding people who probably don't pay attention to politics at all, Taking their name and pretending that they give money every cycle, along with lots of other fake names.
And apparently, there are a number of reports that it's quite clear that this is just a money laundering organization, according to the allegations.
I say that lasts to stay enough trouble.
Anyway, speaking of Joe Rogan, he was saying the other day that you can't find a negative story about Kamala Harris on Google.
Now, That may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but not much.
So look at our system that we have.
So we've got the social media network is totally biased.
We've got ActBlue, which looks apparently corrupt.
We've got every state passing laws that appear to be only designed for ringing elections, such as you don't have to check the ID of people voting overseas, for example.
And It feels like the media is biased, the social media is biased, the funding is biased, and we think that the vote counting will all be fair.
Just hold that in your head.
How stupid do you have to be?
Let me just set it up.
If you knew for sure that the political funding was totally corrupt, the mainstream media was totally corrupt, and you knew that Google and social media, except for X maybe, is totally corrupt, You went through the pandemic and you saw that the medical community is totally corrupt because they have bosses.
By the way, anytime anybody has a boss, everything's corrupt because they just have to do what their boss says.
They can't do what they think is right.
So all of those things are totally corrupt, and we know that.
We also watch the lawfare being used against Trump, and even the appellate courts are puking on it.
We see the lawfare being used against Elon Musk, so we know that the Department of Justice is totally corrupt, right?
So the funding is corrupt, the mainstream media is corrupt, the social media is corrupt, What was the other thing I said?
Basically, the experts are corrupt.
So you have a world in which, with certainty, all the big organizations are corrupt.
And we're pretending the voting is going to work.
And, you know, that's fine.
Oh, the voting's good. No, it's not.
It's not even close.
You remember when Black Lives Matter, we thought it was real, and then we found out it's just a scam, and Antifa went away as soon as Biden was in office.
Scam. If everything you know about is a fraud, even the border bill, the border bill was just a fraud.
Every funding bill in Congress is just a fraud.
They're all just fraud.
But the elections are fine.
Yeah, the elections are fine.
Everything else is a fraud.
But not those elections.
Ladies and gentlemen, you would have to be so fucking stupid to think that any of our elections have been real in your lifetime.
Now, they might have been.
In some cases, the actual outcome may have matched what the majority of the voters wanted, but that would be a coincidence.
You have to understand that whatever gets somebody elected has nothing to do with the will of the people.
Sometimes it matches, but that's probably just an accident.
Do you ever wonder how a populist like Reagan could get elected if the deep state is running everything and they wouldn't want a populist in office?
Could have anything to do with the fact that Reagan said he would rebuild the military and spend massive amounts of money on the military-industrial complex.
And then he's the most popular president in two terms.
Because he spent the most on the military-industrial complex.
Do you think that's a coincidence?
Maybe everything is exactly what it looks like.
Completely corrupt. Anyway, Wall Street Journal says that 66 economists are more optimistic than not about the state of the economy.
Now, I did not read the article.
Do you know why? Even though I love things that economists say, and it seems like it'd be very important to know if 66 economists were leaning in a positive position.
Do you know why I did not read that article?
Because without reading it, I know the following.
There's not one of those 66 who knows any solution for a debt problem.
And the debt problem is terminal.
Meaning, if you don't fix it, you're dead, and nobody even has an idea how to fix it.
Do they? So if you're going to tell me 66 economists gave me an opinion about the economy, but didn't state you're all doomed because there's no way to pay off the debt, I'm not going to listen to them.
There's nothing they can tell me that matters except do you know how to pay off the debt?
If you know how and you're not telling us, well, you're a pretty messed up economist.
You should tell us if you know.
If you don't know how that could ever be fixed and you're still going in public saying things will be fine, what kind of a corrupt lying piece of shit are you?
No, everything won't be fine if you can't tell me there's some way, any way, that the debt can be paid off.
Now, I would like to dovetail from that point to the following point.
I believe that there are basically four existential threats to America.
Let's see if you agree.
Number one, the national debt.
Existential risk, meaning it could destroy America.
Maybe it wouldn't even be called America.
It would be so bad. World War III, let's say the Ukraine situation specifically, maybe Iran, turns into a bigger thing.
That could take out the whole world.
I mean, all it would take is one of those entities deciding to take out our power grid, and we're in big trouble.
The food supply is poisoned.
Seems to be killing us slowly and sometimes quickly.
And the open border.
If the border stays as open or even similarly open, we're kind of out of business.
Now, here's what's interesting about all four of them.
Kamala Harris has no plan for any of it.
And Trump has a solution for all four.
How am I supposed to ignore that?
Now, let me tell you the solutions.
The national debt, the only way, the only way you could even get a chance to address that is if you have something like an Elon Musk trying to make the government more efficient so he can take a trillion and a half dollars out of the spending.
Do you think anybody in the world could take a trillion and a half out of the spending?
Probably only Elon Musk.
Because you're not going to be able to go in and say, oh, everybody caught 10% will be fine.
They'll never work. You have to reinvent.
You're going to have to say, suppose we didn't have a government and we want to build one.
What would it look like?
How much would it cost?
He's got to go that deep.
He's got to go all the way to assume nothing exists.
What would it look like if you built it from scratch?
Short of that, there is no solution.
It's unsolvable.
Short of that. But he's the one person in the world who could do that.
And he's on Trump's team.
So the biggest risk in the country, there's only one group that has a plan, and it's actually feasible.
Like, you could actually imagine...
That Musk could make a deep enough change in the system that you would get a better government.
Here's the key. Very important.
You get a better government at 10% of the cost.
Have you ever seen him do anything like that?
Yeah, you're probably on X. He got 80% of the staff of X and made it way, in my opinion, 10 times better.
So yes, he can do that.
He did it with rockets.
He can do that.
How about the World War III? What do you think Kamala Harris is going to do about stopping war?
Same thing she and Biden have done so far, nothing.
They just like to sell them weapons and talk.
Do you think that Trump, uniquely among people, would be able to wrap up the Ukraine-Russian war?
Yes. I believe he could wrap that up and just make a deal.
Could Trump keep us from having a major war with Iran?
I think so.
I do think so.
So again, existential problem.
I don't see that Harris has anything that looks like a workable way to avoid that risk.
Number three, the food supply.
RFK Jr. could make a huge improvement in the food supply problem.
I don't see anybody else who could.
Nobody else who's interested.
But he's on Trump's team.
The open borders, Trump can fix it.
It's obvious that the Democrats, even if they pretend they care, it's only for the election.
So the four biggest things, national debt, World War III, food supply is poison, and the open borders.
Trump assembled exactly the right team, and of all the people in the world, he ended up with the best people to solve these problems.
Of all the people in the world.
Because Elon Musk isn't like, oh, he's one of the good ones.
No, he's Elon Musk.
There's only one. And there's only one RFK Jr., and you need all of that power.
You need all of that to make a dent in the problems of this size, but they can do it.
Now, I would say that we can also complain about education, the education system, but I have some questions about that.
Is our education broken everywhere, the education system, or is it almost entirely concentrated in primarily black schools where the population is primarily black?
Do we have... Do we have one school system that's in trouble or, in effect, two separate school systems?
One is neglected for whatever reasons and one is chugging along okay?
Because it feels like it's the latter, but we always treat it like an average.
But it's really just two systems.
One, a neglected, broken, underfunded, you know, poor teachers, every single thing wrong that you could have wrong with a school.
They tend to be concentrated in black population areas.
So I'm not sure that you could say education is broken.
I think you could say there's a pocket of education that's very broken, and you need to do something about that.
But I'm not sure it's just as broken everywhere.
If I look at the schools in my town, for example, they're good compared to schools.
I would also say that education needs to be completely overhauled.
Maybe AI will do that.
Maybe that'll fix a few things.
Anyway, the hoaxes are in full swing.
The hoax about Trump using the military, I think you should mock it.
I wouldn't even address it.
I'm not even sure anybody would take that seriously.
But I would love to see Trump talk to a citizen about the question of whether he would use the military to get rid of his enemies.
I don't want to see MSNBC just claim it and have a guest on to claim it.
I want to see Trump at McDonald's and somebody say, Mr.
Trump, they say you're going to use the military against your enemies, and just watch him mock it.
Say, I'm not going to use the military in the United States.
No, no.
I mean, if there's an emergency, you do it, but I'm not going to use it to take out my enemies.
That's not something that's going to happen.
Yeah, the US military is now authorized to kill Americans on US soil.
That's true. I don't know the context of that.
I hope the only context was they wanted to make sure if there was a terrorist who was an American citizen that you didn't have to treat them with kid gloves because they're an American.
You know, you could treat them as a terrorist once you realize they're just terrorists.
But I also worry that that could be extended and that maybe the point of it was for somebody to kill Trump and make it legal.
So I do worry about that.
Tim Walsh is continuing his knucklehead theme.
He was talking about J.D. Vance being a venture capitalist.
And he said, quote, I don't even know what a venture capitalist does most of the time.
I think it's funny that he's running for vice president on the strength of not knowing things.
Well, there's a lot of stuff I don't know.
I'm kind of a knucklehead. Sometimes I say the opposite of what I mean, and I don't even know what a venture capitalist does most of the time.
So I love how amazingly incompetent he is.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my podcast for today.
And I'm going to talk to the locals people privately because they're so awesome.
