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, Climate Change, EU vs. X, Contagious Cat Parasites, Toxoplasma Gondi, Bret Baier Kamala Interview, Angry Wife Doom Loop, Testy Kamala, Byron Donalds, Senate Border Bill Misinformation, Elon Musk, Andrew Schulz Cancelled, Insurrection Barbie, USPS Ballot Transportation, 2024 Election Integrity, Intentional Election System Design, Palmer Luckey Anduril Drones, AI-Powered Kamikaze Drones, Alcohol Consumption Increase, 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'll bet you've never had a better time in your whole 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 is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Oh, so good.
Wow.
Well, we will, of course, be talking about the interview with Brett Baer and Kamala Harris, but I'll let a few more people flow in here before we get to that.
A couple other items.
According to the Daily Mail, an evil, that's their word, an evil super gang, an evil super gang, has seized four apartment complexes in major Texas City and a new terrifying show of strength.
Of course, it's the Venezuelan gang.
Apparently they're pretty good at what they do.
Now, do you believe this?
Do you believe that four apartment complexes have been taken over by the gangs?
Well, let's watch the mainstream news today.
Tell us it didn't happen.
Oh, well, you mean the minor incidents?
Oh, there might have been some minor incidents.
I don't even know what you're talking about with apartments being taken over.
That's crazy talk.
Well, we'll see.
Meanwhile, the UC San Diego introduced a new requirement for graduation.
No matter what your major is, you have to take at least one class to teach you climate change bullshit.
So the question is...
Do you think that there could be money made for somebody to deprogram college students?
And I mean that literally.
Suppose you were a parent and you paid to send your kid to this school and you found out that they had been propagandized for all kinds of wokeness and bullshit.
Would you ever say, you know what?
You're going to have to take one more class.
It's not going to be forever.
Just one more class.
And that class will be to deprogram you from all the ridiculous bullshit that they put in your heads.
And maybe you can remember some things that are good for jobs.
Meanwhile, the Climate Depot reports that there's no change in the warming rate since the 70s.
And now there's no warming surge.
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean that.
There's no warming surge since the 70s, which would suggest that despite putting massive amounts of CO2 in the air, things just went the way they were going.
Nothing really changed.
Is that believable?
Well, I don't believe any science data, so the answer is none of it's credible, but it's not credible in either direction.
The European Union has declared war on the United States.
They don't say it in those words, but the European Union, the EU, has warned X that the Union may calculate potential fines against it Based on revenue from other Elon Musk businesses, according to Bloomberg.
That's right.
So the European Union may assess fines on the X platform that are based on the income of entirely different companies that are just also owned by Musk.
Just let that settle in.
That is not...
A business transaction.
That is war on America.
That's war on America.
You just declared war on major American industries.
The European Union just declared war on America.
If this story is real, that's war.
And we should respond as aggressively as possible with sanctions, tariffs, I don't know, whatever the fuck you can do to the European Union.
But no, no, you fucking assholes.
You don't get to come after an American company because you don't like another American company.
That's coming after America.
That's not coming after Musk.
If you come after his other companies, you're coming after fucking America.
And we should respond aggressively.
Now, obviously, the Harris administration won't.
But if you're going to wait for Trump, good fucking luck.
Why don't you wait for Trump?
Because if he sees that you're sanctioning unrelated companies, except for connection to one person, you're fucked.
I don't know what he's going to do to you, but he's not going to let it go.
So maybe you should think about it now before we have to fuck with you.
Because this is war.
This is fucking war.
If you come after American companies for bullshit, it's war.
So, it's enough of that.
Do you remember when people were trying to cancel X over all the anti-Semitism?
Well, there's a recent study that shows that TikTok has 10 times as much, Instagram probably has 5 times as much compared to X. Is that data correct?
I don't know.
I don't believe any data.
But I never believed the data that anti-Semitism was worse on X. Now, of course, whoever gets to decide what is anti-Semitism...
Is the big question here.
So one reason I don't believe the data is that one person's idea of what is anti-Semitic is really different than another person's idea of what is anti-Semitic.
So let's agree that the entire study is probably bullshit, but I don't believe that X is worse than anybody else on anti-Semitism.
You've heard this before, but it's more relevant than ever.
According to SciPost, you know that cats have this parasite quite often.
Toxoplasma gandhi.
And humans get it quite easily.
So you can get a little parasite from your cat.
And if you get that parasite, the science is suggesting it makes you anxious.
So you'd have anxiety.
Okay?
Does this have any connection to the real world?
Let's see.
We observe that cat ladies seem to be batshit crazy.
And I mean that seriously, not as a joke.
There's something wrong with the cat ladies, right?
Now, it could be just single women have different opinions than any other demographic group.
That wouldn't be unusual.
Nothing unusual about that.
But it doesn't look like that, does it?
You know, a lot of it is team play and just preferences about abortion and we all understand that, right?
If you're young and abortion is a bigger issue in your life, you can see why you'd be a Democrat.
Makes sense.
But I think that we should take this seriously.
And I think we should study to see if the people who have this parasite are voting differently or have higher anxiety about Trump.
Now, remember that the play that the Democrats are using is to say Trump is the dangerous dictator, blah, blah, blah, which is literally playing on people's anxieties.
It's not playing on their reasonable mind, their logical mind, their knowledge of facts, or even their preferences.
It's really just scaring them.
Now, if it works, It could be a combination of good messaging that's scary, plus this parasite.
And it might actually be a difference.
No joke, I think this is important enough that we need to understand it better.
Because if our entire election system is based on cat parasites, we need to rethink our system.
And it might be.
Given that elections are always close, we might be in a system where we think that we're voting and we're in some kind of republic, and the entire system is being run by fucking cat parasites.
That is completely possible.
Completely possible.
I mean, I wouldn't place a giant bet on it, but it's at least 20% possible that the country is run by cat parasites.
Actually, literally, cat parasites running the country.
So there's that.
Well, let's talk about the Kamala, the train wreck Kamala.
That's the number one trending thing on X, train wreck Kamala.
So she had, if you didn't hear, a conversation with Brett Baer on Fox News.
And to say that it didn't go well, Would be the understatement of the decade.
In my opinion, summarizing it, I've never seen a worse interview.
I've never seen a candidate collapse that hard, except for Joe Biden in his last debate.
This was Kamala Harris's Joe Biden debate.
This was the moment where everybody in the country who watched it said to themselves silently, even if they don't say it out loud, oh, I see why they were keeping her from the public.
Remember, that's what you said about Biden.
When Biden collapsed in his final debate, you said to yourself, wait a minute, did all the people around him know that this was going to happen?
Yes, they did.
Did everybody know he had dementia?
Yes, they did.
Did everybody know that's the reason they were keeping him from the public?
Of course they did.
And then they were doing the same thing with Kamala Harris.
And then we saw, when she talked to somebody who asked tough questions, not a friendly, that there's a reason she was kept from the public.
She can't do this.
She's an idiot.
It turns out...
And there's no other way to put it.
She's the lowest IQ person we've ever seen, at least in my lifetime, running for president.
She is not anywhere near smart enough to do the job.
Now, that's not something I say because she's a woman.
It's not because of a person of color.
Obama, I think, was brilliant.
Hillary Clinton, evil but brilliant.
And I can, you know, if you want me to, I can go on all day naming brilliant people who are either black or persons of color or women.
Plenty of them.
Got lots of them, right?
She's not one.
People.
She's a fucking idiot.
She's a fucking idiot.
That's the only story.
If you're talking about the policies, you're on the wrong playbook.
We have somebody who's almost president who doesn't have anywhere near the intellectual heft that we need.
She doesn't look emotionally fit.
She doesn't look intellectually fit.
She didn't look even prepared.
It was an absolute fucking train wreck.
What did Rob Reiner say about it?
Looking good.
We'll get to that.
Well, you may have heard this became quite viral.
David Sachs referred to the common lyrics, doom loop.
The doom loop is that the longer they kept her away from the public, the lower her polls would go because people would say, hey, we need to hear from you.
So that would hurt her in the polls.
But if she went the other way and started doing interviews, she's so bad at it, her polls would go down.
What are you going to do if the polls are down?
Well, you better what?
Hide and the polls go down or keep talking and the polls go down.
That's your Kamala Harris doom loop, and it's getting a lot of traction because people are using that frame to understand what's going on.
I added to the frame that this is Joe Biden's final debate.
This was the reveal, right?
Now, the reason I'm doing that is what?
Because I want you to think of this at the same time you think of Joe Biden's final debate as the moment we all saw what the real story is.
Likewise, the doom loop gives you structure so that you're all thinking about it in a productive way.
Yes, she can't do an interview.
She does not have the capability to do the basic thing that a president does.
You could throw a dart In Congress, and whoever it hit, no violence please, don't actually throw a dart.
But whoever it hit, unless it was Kamala Harris, probably would be okay.
I believe you could randomly pick any member of Congress or the Senate and say, hey, I know you're unprepared, but could you do some interviews and be a presidential candidate?
Anybody, anybody could have walked into that situation and performed better.
Maybe not A +, without little practice, but everybody could have been a B+. Everybody we've elected has at least B-plus capability.
She doesn't.
She's somewhere in the D minus, oh my god, what am I watching capability.
It is a fucking train wreck, people.
And if you don't see it, you're watching the news.
Well, the betting markets obviously saw it.
So Trump went to a commanding, gigantic lead in the poly markets, 61 to 39 odds of winning.
So yes, the people who are betting their actual money saw a train wreck.
If you're listening to somebody who says it all went fine because she went into the belly of the beast and came out and Trump is hiding from the press, no, that's not what happened.
Nobody's putting their money on that point of view.
All right, so lots more about this.
Number one, Bret Baier had no real chance of having a serious conversation with a serious person.
So if you're going to ask me, how did Bret Baier do?
I would say he failed completely.
Now, but let me also say, Bret Baier is the best in the business.
He's actually the best, like number one of any network, of anybody doing a job like his.
He's number one, in my opinion.
And so his capability is 100%.
So I'm going to try to put two things together that you say don't go together.
He failed completely, in my opinion.
Complete failure.
He's the best in the business.
There was no chance.
The setup, by his nature, he had no chance.
By the way, one of the things you learn in media training, if you know you're going into an unfriendly or potentially unfriendly interview, you make sure that it's as short as possible.
And part of that is that you game the system so that you show up late, which she did, and then you say, I got to leave early.
I don't know if she did that, but that's part of it.
You make sure that the actual time on camera is compressed and compressed because, you know, hey, what about that lighting?
Hey, you know, I need some makeup on.
Just a minute.
Oh, I'm almost ready.
So you want to compress, compress, compress, which she did.
Now, I'm going to give the Kamala team an A-plus in media handling, because compressing the time from, I think it was like 30 minutes down to maybe 20 or less, was really good.
It's good in a weasel way that, you know, if you're dealing with an unfriendly press, you want as little as possible.
So that was strangely very, very effective in a, you know, in an evil way, but very effective.
So she also came in and decided she would talk over Brett Baer, not answer his questions, and just use the time to say some bullshit about Trump.
Brett Baer thought he was going to ask questions and get responses and maybe have follow-ups.
Nothing like that happened.
And there's nothing that Brett Baer could have done differently that would have changed it.
Because she came in with a plan to just filibuster and use up all the time and talk over them and make sure nobody heard the questions.
You can't do anything about that.
The only thing you could do is cut it short and say, look, we spend five minutes here and it doesn't seem to be that you're willing to have a real interview.
Should we just cut it short?
And then she would get all mad and huffed and puffed and walked out and then nobody would ever talk to Fox News again ever.
Is that a winning play?
Nope.
Nope.
He did not have a play where he could just cut it off.
Did he have a play where he could settle her down in any way?
Is there anything he could have done to get her to be a legitimate interview?
Nope.
Nope, because that was her decision, and her decision was to be not a legitimate interview person.
So there wasn't anything he could do under the strict guidelines that he's an employee of Fox News.
He had a certain set of time.
He had other deadlines for other shows and stuff like that.
It had to be prepped in time for the time they said it was going to be on.
So within the constraints he was working in, he didn't have anything.
He just had nothing to work with.
It was a complete failure, and only if you compare it to what he presumably wanted to do, which is have a really interesting conversation where you'd learn something and you'd know her policy is better when you're done.
But still, The event, as an event that tells the viewers what they need to know, completely successful.
Completely successful.
Because Brett Baer, it turns out, didn't need to ask any smart questions with any follow-ups.
He just had to put her on the air, and she fell apart.
Oh, completely.
Absolute destruction.
I've never seen a worse interview.
And I was actually spending quite a bit of time thinking, if I've ever seen anything that bad, I'm nothing close.
So, were the viewers served?
Yes.
Yes.
So I'm going to say, Fox News, this is weird.
A+. A+. You got her to come on the air.
You gave her all the rope that she wanted and then she hung herself on the air.
Now the fact that you didn't get to do it the way you hoped you would do it in a more professional way, that's not bad on you.
That is not bad on Bret Baier.
Brett Baer brought his whole game, which is excellent.
He just didn't have an opportunity to use it.
But instead, the audience got to see something really useful, which is watching her as an intellectual midget fall apart.
All right, so let's see.
The things that bothered me were, Harris went on about...
Trump saying that he would use the military against his domestic enemies.
But she said so many things that I was waiting for him to break in and say, well, you know, that's a little out of context.
He didn't say he was going to use the military to get rid of his domestic enemies, but he didn't have time because it was just one crazy thing after another talking over him.
So I did feel as it was happening, I was feeling he was letting me down because I wanted him to stop and say that that didn't happen.
But he also wasn't there to be in a debate, as somebody else said.
He was an interviewer, not a debater.
So, you know, how far do you go in fact-checking versus do you get to the next question?
Now, that's where that 20 minutes thing comes in.
That's why it's important.
If he had enough time to do, let's say, a Joe Rogan-sized interview, He would have stopped her and said, okay, you said this about the military.
Let me read the quote so people can hear it in the right context.
By the way, that's the way Brett Baer does it.
That's why he's the best in the business.
It would be easy for him to say that's not true.
She didn't say that.
He doesn't do that.
He says, can you run the clip that you're talking about?
So we can see what he said in his own words.
And then just let it stand there.
That's the way he does it.
And that's the right way to do it.
So she also got visibly upset.
Now, sadly, not everybody who gets upset does it in the same way.
There are lots of ways to get upset.
You've seen interview guests get upset and then make it work to their advantage, haven't you?
You've probably seen, I can't think of a specific example, but I'll bet you've seen Trump get angry with an interviewer and then he just turns on him.
And then just dresses him down in sort of ordinary, firm language, like a father talking to a teenager.
And he can turn that into a positive.
But his face doesn't change much.
You feel like he just comes...
This is Trump.
You feel like Trump comes into a situation with an unfriendly interviewer who goes a little too far in the unfriendly, and then he just says, now we're done with that.
Let me tell you what people need to know about your fake news, the fake stories, your fake questions, and here's what's true.
And then he just, you know, gives it to him with both barrels.
That works.
That works.
Now, Kamala Harris and any woman who is running for high office could also do that.
You know, if you had the right person, they could do that.
But Kamala Harris went the angry wife direction, which is the doom loop of all doom loops.
Her face went into that face that every man has seen at least once.
And you never want to see that in your life if you're a man.
I don't know how it plays with women.
I have no idea.
But the face that she was presenting, you know, when she was losing her cool, is the face that nobody wants to see from a girlfriend or a wife or an ex-wife.
It looked like ex-wife, you know, if the divorce didn't work out.
Ex-wife.
By the way, I'm not ever talking about my own exes.
My own exes are awesome.
I have only good things to say about them.
But you all understand what I'm talking about.
There is such a thing as bad exes.
And wow, did she come across.
Now, for a while, I thought to myself, is this just me?
And then I go on X and I see men just saying, men, do you want to look at that?
No man's going to want to vote for that.
Every man sees what's going on.
I mean, men were kind of unified and being horrified at that.
Presentation.
So angry wife mode, I don't think that's going to look.
So here's one person on X. Eric Doherty, a user on X, had this to say with four bullet points.
Here are the four bullet points to sum up the entire interview.
The look, the tone, the finger wagging.
Yeah, men aren't voting for this.
I love that because that's the fewest number of words to completely sum up the situation.
The look, the tone, the finger wagging.
Yeah, men aren't voting for this.
So maybe she could go on Charlemagne the God again.
Maybe that'll help.
Oh my God, it's pathetic.
At one point, Harris was getting in it with Brett, and they're going back and forth.
And she said something stupid, I can't remember, but it was something that everybody in the audience said, what?
That sounds stupid.
And then she said it again, and I said, don't say that twice.
It sounds stupid.
I can't remember what it was.
And then she follows up with, you and I both know what I'm talking about, to Brett.
And Brett calmly says, I actually don't know what you're talking about.
That stood out for me.
I actually don't know what you're talking about.
Now, that's the one that brought it all the way back to spouses.
I mean, this just sounds like a husband and a wife, and the wife is some kind of narcissistic, drug-addled bitch.
Anyway, so here are some of Kamala's blabber points.
A lot of it was just blather.
I have been clear.
Whenever there's something she hasn't been clear about, such as a policy, she clears it up by saying she's been clear.
I've been clear.
I've been clear.
And by the way, I don't know if you heard me say it, but I've been clear.
I've been clear.
I've been clear.
Now, here's some more political advice.
If you're going to borrow a phrase from somebody who has it as almost their catchphrase, you don't want to borrow a catchphrase from the second biggest fucking moron in the world, Corinna Jean-Pierre.
She's the one in the spokesperson who always does the...
He's been clear.
I've been very clear.
I've been very clear to every single question.
Don't borrow the biggest moron's catchphrase.
Think of all the people who have catchphrases and all the people in the world.
There's 8 billion people, 8 billion people that you could copy.
Don't copy the biggest fucking idiot in the world.
Oh, well, I've been very clear.
I've been very clear.
I like how she's handling this.
I feel like if I did that, I could get as good a result as cringe on Pierre, who recently got promoted.
So that's obviously working.
So I'm going to go with that.
I've been clear.
I've been so clear.
Oh, my clarinet.
My clarity is beyond clear.
Yep.
Then asked about her differences of opinion before she became vice president and how she had a bunch of radical-sounding things that she's not promoting when she's vice president and not promoting as she's running for president.
And when asked to explain how she went from the opposite view to her current view, just so we know if she really changed to her current view, Or is she just saying it to get elected?
And maybe later she'll change her mind and then you'll be surprised.
Then you'll say, well, I shouldn't be surprised.
She said for 50 fucking years that this is what she wanted to do.
And then she told us she was lying when she ran for office and that she still wants to do it effectively by saying, well, her answer was, I will follow the law.
Now, how do you hear that?
I will follow the law.
Here's how I hear it.
The current law is not what I want.
If I get the right people in Congress, I will aggressively help them change the law to what I always wanted it to be before I ran for vice president.
Once they've changed the law to some racist piece of shit law that she wants, then I'm going to follow that law.
So, it's the worst answer you could ever give.
I'm going to follow the law.
Because at the very least, it sounds stupid and weak and pathetic.
In the best case scenario, she's trying to screw you and she's telling you in advance.
There's no good way to interpret that.
You're either an idiot or you've got a plan to screw the country.
Pick one.
And then even Trump was mocking her untrue social because most of the answers to any question was orange man bad.
So Trump actually posted that, that most of her answers were orange man bad.
Alright, well, when you see Harris performing this poorly, and you know that she was chosen by the smartest people in the Democrat Party, and you know that before that, Joe Biden was running, And he is and was laughably pathetic.
Why would the Democrats go from one laughingly pathetic candidate to a second laughingly pathetic candidate?
Well, it feels like if this were a sport, you know, this were professional basketball, it would feel like they're playing for a better draft pick.
Now, if that doesn't make sense to you, if you don't follow sports, professional teams such as the NBA, if they get to pick every year, they get to pick the best young people coming in at college or not always college, but the order in which they get to pick is based on how poorly they did the year before.
So if you're not doing well, During the season, and you know you won't make it into the playoffs, it's better to lose more games than to win because half of the season's gone, you can't make it up.
So you might as well sort of pull back a little bit, lose more games, be the worst one in the league, and then when you get to pick, you get LeBron James because he comes up in the draft.
I mean, let's say a young LeBron James.
So it almost feels like this weird situation where the Democrats are not playing to win.
They're doing such an insanely obviously stupid job that you think, oh, I get it, you're playing for the next draft pick.
But there is no draft pick.
There's no draft pick.
So J.D. Vance is pointing out that Harris once again refused to name a single policy difference between her and Joe Biden.
And does that sound like a new way forward?
So the thing that people seem to be picking up on the most is that she's talking about this new way and turning the page, but she doesn't say what she would be doing different from Biden because she's not clever enough to do that.
How easy would it be for a smart person to explain why their policies will be different than their boss?
I feel like anybody with a reasonably high IQ could pull that off Perfectly.
I'll give you an example.
Scott, you're running for president.
You were the vice president for years.
But, you know, if you're going to turn the page and do new things, can you tell us what was happening before that you're going to do differently?
I would say, well, yes, I've introduced several new plans.
And they say, well, why didn't you do that before?
And I'd say, well, I think we all know, everybody watching knows that the vice president isn't the one who's usually introducing plans.
It's more about following the vision of the president.
And I've done that.
But on top of that, in addition to now having the freedom as a candidate to promote some ideas that I think would be great.
Now, they're all things that, of course, we've discussed internally in one way or another.
But if I become president, my views will get a little more prominent look, and that's what I like.
And situations change as well.
So we didn't have a war when we started.
We have one now.
So obviously policies change because situations change.
So some of it is because the situation has changed, Brett.
And some of it is because now I've got the spotlight and I can introduce a few ideas that I think it's time for.
He says, why didn't you do it before?
I say, well, I remind you again, as vice president, you're more about supporting the boss.
And I think he did a great job on the things he did.
And now I've got some ideas that I think are worth surfacing.
And the timing and the situation are a little more conducive to it.
So this would be the right time.
And I remind you that even if Joe Biden had stayed in office and won a second term, his second term would also introduce new ideas.
There would be adjustments and tweaks to things we've done.
So the normal course of things that the vice president stays a little quiet when vice president.
But as I emerge, you'd like to get a little bit more of a flavor of my preferences.
I'm trying to do that for the public.
It'll be the same philosophically as Biden, but we'll be reacting to new information on the ground, in some cases, new funding.
If we get funding, we can do things we couldn't do before.
And so if you think about it, every administration is different from the one before, and we all expect that, Brett.
Now compare that to whatever the hell she said.
We have to stop pretending that That we're dealing with some kind of a policy difference.
We're talking about an idiot.
We're on the verge of electing an idiot.
And we all see it.
This is not politics as normal.
This is idiot time.
And if we don't figure out a way to stop the DEI idiot train at the top job, well, maybe we deserve what we get.
Maybe we deserve it.
Well, what did the press say about it?
CNN, NPR, and The Guardian?
And let's see, a bunch of other outlets all said it was a testy interview.
Testy.
Is that a word you hear a lot?
Or does that sound like a word that everybody in the press was informed to use because it doesn't sound like train wreck?
Oh my God, it was a train wreck.
Say it was testy because that'll make her sound tough.
She was testy because you don't want to say she acted like a crazy bitch because that's what it felt like.
You want to say she was testy.
So everybody's going to say it's testy.
Even Newsmax said it was testy, but I don't think they got the memo.
And Elon Musk was mocking the news for always saying the same thing.
All right.
I saw a post by somebody named Tiffany Fong.
Now, you don't need to know who Tiffany is.
She's just a person with an opinion on social media.
And on X, she posted this.
She said, I don't actually consider myself radically right or radically left.
I just think Kamala Harris is stupid, and I am voting for Donald Trump.
How many views do you think she got for that?
76 million.
Now, to be fair, Elon Musk reposted her with a comment.
But she got 76 million people who agreed with the statement that Kamala Harris is stupid.
Not that she has policies I don't like.
That she's stupid.
76 million views.
So...
All right.
One of the big mysteries that I have, and I mean this seriously, I'm trying to figure out, has Kamala Harris always been this stupid, or is there something that happened?
Like actually, literally, did something happen?
Is she on some kind of weird medication?
Did she have a head injury?
Is there some medical problem that wasn't disclosed by her doctor?
Is she on some kind of drugs?
What exactly is going on?
How did she get all the way to the, you know, the doorway to the presidency?
By being so stupid that you wouldn't hire her for any job.
Imagine that she came in to interview with you.
You're the boss.
And Kamala Harris comes in to interview for any job.
For any job.
Could be a server in a restaurant.
Could be a lawyer in your law firm.
Could be a doctor, administrator in a hospital.
Any job.
Would you hire that?
Based on what you saw, would you hire her for anything?
And the answer is, I don't think so.
I can't think of any job that that personality would fit to.
And so I asked myself, how did you get all the way here?
Was that all DEI? Was that all identity?
And even I, who have been a big critic of DEI, I can't believe you could get all the way here.
Just on that?
Maybe some luck too, but really?
I don't know.
So this is a genuine question.
I have actual curiosity, like not just political, not just trying to make a point, because I've already made the point she's an idiot.
Did it change?
Did something happen?
Because remember, I was thinking that she would be a formidable candidate back in 2018 based on seeing her operate in public.
But where was that?
Where was that person I saw in 2018?
Because she looked completely capable, but maybe it was such managed appearances I couldn't tell the difference.
I'm actually curious.
I don't know.
Well, let's talk about somebody who's unusually smart.
Byron Donalds.
He was talking about the border bill.
And unlike Brett Baer and unlike Kamala Harris, when the border bill that failed comes up, Byron Donalds can give you 10 reasons it failed off the top of his head, and they're all correct.
Number one, a codified catch and release.
Two, let in 1.8 million illegals.
Three, funded sanctuary cities.
Four, funded NGOs moving illegals.
Five, gave lawyers to illegals.
Six, work permits to illegals.
Seven, nothing to deport the illegals.
Eight, no immediate wall funds.
Nine, weak asylum screening.
Ten, $60 billion to Ukraine.
Now, may I suggest, if you want to see a brilliant guy who is brilliant every time he's in public, watch Byron Donalds.
Byron Donalds is so freaking smart that every time I see him, I walk away with the same thought.
It doesn't even matter what the topic is.
I walk away with the same thought.
Well, there's a future president.
Right?
If you've watched him in public, when he was done, you had the thought that not only what he said was super capable, like really smart, but then you also said, what would stop that guy from being president?
And the answer is nothing.
I mean, nothing I know of, so everybody has to be vetted, but that is smart.
So you watch J.D. Vance, and you say, okay, that's really smart.
You watch Barack Obama.
Very smart, even if he'd disagree, but very smart.
Bill Clinton?
Super smart.
Hillary Clinton?
Super smart.
Lots of smart people in the world.
Kamala Harris is not one of them.
And when you watch Trump, it's brilliant in a way that's only Trump.
We've got to stop acting like this is political, people.
There is an IQ minimum for a president, and we need to act like that's real, because there is.
You've got to be at least a little bit smart in that job.
Anyway, I saw somebody else say this before I did, and then I felt bad because I thought it was so brilliant that I was going to say it first, but then I think a few other people said exactly the same thing before I did.
So to those people who said it before I did, I salute you, but I'm going to say it too.
I think the odds of Harris going on and Joe Rogan are close to zero now.
Now, some people said, ah, no, he's a friendly guy.
So even though maybe he would not necessarily vote for her, he's a friendly interviewer, a friendly personality, a good guy.
It would be casual.
She'd look fine.
Oh, no.
There's no way that her team went home happy last night and said, well, that worked out so well, I can't wait till you're on Joe Rogan.
I don't think they had that thought.
Because the biggest thing that she did to...
Well, let me say this.
The reason Brett Baer was helpless is that he had to work with a limited timeline, which Joe Rogan doesn't.
He had to start at a certain time and finish at a certain time, which Joe Rogan doesn't.
It had to be limited to a certain amount of time.
Joe Rogan doesn't need to do that.
But also, Brett Baer had to bring a certain level of professionalism that would represent his employer.
Because his employer needs to be able to get, sometimes, a Democrat to come on the air.
If it's a complete beat-down and it's unprofessional, then they just say, well, just look at that unprofessional thing, so that's why we don't go on the air.
But Joe Rogan...
Literally, you know, is a commentator for MMA fighting, a stand-up comedian, and number one or number two podcaster in the entire world.
He can just keep talking.
And he doesn't have to follow any of her rules, and he doesn't have to follow any of Brett Baer's Fox News rules that, you know, requires a certain specific kind of professionalism.
But Rogan would not be bound by that.
Now, I'm not saying that Joe Rogan would, you know, like, tear her apart and, you know, turn into some different personality.
He's not going to turn into, you know, Bill O'Reilly overnight or something.
But Just letting her talk and making sure that when she was done that she, you know, he points out she did or did not address the question.
It would be the end of her.
So I think that she's going to have Hillary Clinton kill one of her closest friends around the day that she has the Ryogan thing scheduled so that she can say, well, I definitely would love to be there, but my best friend tragically died in a street murder, not from a Venezuelan gang.
Probably from some Republicans, she would say.
Another question is, Why she didn't do things with the border sooner, when we know that the first thing they did was open the border, and then people got killed.
She basically said that she wants to close the border now because people will get killed if she doesn't.
But she didn't think it before, and she can't explain why she was okay with people getting killed by the people coming into the border.
Not many of them are dangerous.
So let me say, just so I say it every once in a while, I don't believe as a percentage that the migrants are dangerous.
But...
1% of the number of people coming in would be a gigantic crime wave.
I mean, that would be a lot of crime if 1% of them happened to have a criminal impulse.
So she basically botched every single, well, everything.
Anyway, so let's talk about some other things.
Some of the state's most well-connected Democrats apparently are worried about the Pennsylvania operation.
I did not write down where I got that story from.
So, sorry about that.
But there's a report that Kamala Harris' ground game in Pennsylvania is sort of chaotic and a mess.
And that's, people say, is going to be the key state.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk says he's going to have about half a dozen public events in Pennsylvania just to help Trump.
And that's amazing.
It's amazing.
It's going to be hard for Democrats to ignore that Musk is throwing himself into the election at the complete risk of destruction.
Musk is all in in a way that nobody's ever been so all in before.
You know, one of the things that Musk famously did is he bet everything on Tesla, and then he bet everything again, I think, on SpaceX.
So he likes to bet everything.
He's one of these bet everything guys.
And going all in on Trump is really betting everything.
Because if he loses, I feel like the Democrats are just going to pick him apart with lawfare, and he's got to know that.
Anyway, here's what else is going on.
Thank you.
Here's some of the comments from Morning Joe.
So, as you know, I only watch MSNBC because it's hilarious.
Once you realize they're not a real news network and they're not trying to be, they're just a propaganda network, that is funny because the people just seem so ridiculous.
So Morning Joe said, quote, the host, he was talking about Brad Bear, the host's constant rude interruptions.
We're designed to distract from the issues and facts that Trump and his acolytes try and twist and distort every day.
Well, Brett Baer is like the most professional, polite person.
He just sort of wanted her to answer his questions and not talk about unrelated things.
So that was funny.
Rob Reiner says, quote, If you saw Kamala Harris on Fox News, you saw the 47th President of the United States.
As you know, Rob Reiner is the poor man's Mark Cuban.
And then there's Alyssa Farrah Griffin.
She said that she's a Democrat supporter.
She said there will be loyal Fox News viewing women who will walk away from a Harris interview thinking, I don't agree with her much, but she's not dumb like Trump told me, and she's tough despite what he said.
She says it matters around the edges in a tight race.
Okay, Alyssa Farah Griffin.
I haven't done a poll, but I'm willing to bet there are zero Trump-supporting women who changed their mind because of that.
I think the number is zero.
Maybe actually zero.
Okay.
And then somebody named Matt Walton.
Also, an ex said, Today on Fox, Harris gets grilled and had an adversarial hostile interview none like one Trump has ever experienced.
Wait, what?
Trump has never had an adversarial hostile interview?
Trump?
He's never had an adversarial hostile interview?
He had the Bloomberg interview literally that same day.
Bloomberg was a hostile interview, same day.
The same day he says he doesn't do it.
He's like, it was one of the biggest news events is that he had a hostile interview that same day.
And then Matt says, Trump has a town hall of pre-screened Trump-supporting women with nothing but praise for him.
Okay, I'll give you the town halls are bullshit.
Doesn't matter who's doing it.
And they said, Harris won over more voters than Trump today, VFI. Did she?
Did she?
I don't know.
All right.
Brad Wilcox on X. He was talking about a YouGov survey.
They did a survey asking people if they thought that there were too many people in the United States, as in, is the birth rate too high or is the birth rate too low?
And according to women, liberals, and younger adults, they were far more likely to say the birth rate is too high rather than too low.
Now, the correct answer is that our current birth rate would destroy the entire United States because we're below replacement level and we wouldn't be able to pay off older people's retirements.
We would basically be dumb as a country.
So the people who are so dumb that they think the problem is the opposite of the problem, Our problem is too few people.
By far, that's our problem.
It's an existential problem.
It's one of the biggest, by far, one of the biggest problems for the future.
But yet women, liberals, and younger adults think it's the opposite.
Women, liberals, and younger adults.
What do they all have in common?
Women, liberals, and younger adults.
Calculating, calculating, asking AI. Oh yeah, they're usually Democrats.
Imagine being a Democrat and believing that there are too many humans being born in the United States.
You're an idiot.
There's no nice way to put this.
You're stupid.
But the thing is that so is Harris.
And it makes me worry that there are so many stupid people who are women liberals and younger adults.
And by the way, I'm not saying all women or all younger people or even liberals are idiots.
Clearly not the case.
But there is a dominant number of women liberals and younger adults voting Democrat.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the dumbest people are on the same side?
No, it's not a coincidence.
The dumbest people are always on the same side.
You know, I've told you this story about for a brief period, I joined Mensa back in the 80s, early 80s.
And I thought, oh, wouldn't it be interesting to have like debates with people who literally are in the top 2% of IQ? And so I'd host some events at my place, and I would bring up topics to have debates, and we couldn't get into any debates.
Do you know why we couldn't get into any debates?
Nobody disagreed on anything.
True story.
I had so many people in a room that the entire floor was filled with people sitting on the floor.
So the room was just a fire hazard of density of people literally who had passed an IQ test to be considered geniuses.
And when I tried to get them into a debate on anything, they wouldn't do it because they all agreed on everything.
Didn't matter the topic.
Now, I don't think it was an accident.
Do you think you could randomly put together a room full of people who would agree on everything?
It happened.
It was the most shocking thing I've ever experienced.
I was like, really?
Every time I say something, you understand it.
You know when you have an argument with dumb people?
You know how they misinterpret you?
So you'll say something like, I'm in favor of funding the police.
And then the dumb person has no argument for that.
So they'll say, well, apparently you're in favor of shooting black people.
And you'll say, what?
No, no, I'm in favor of funding the police.
Nothing like that.
And they'll say, oh, but funding the police is really, I mean, really, you're in favor of shooting black people.
I mean, just say it.
Just say it.
Just admit it.
You're a racist.
You're in favor of shooting black people.
Just say it.
Now, that's an argument between a smart person and a dumb person.
If you have the same discussion with all smart people, People would say, yeah, that's probably a good idea.
We should look at the rate of funding, make sure we have a good police.
And that's the end of the discussion.
People don't just automatically take you out of context and pretend you're having a different discussion so they have something to talk about.
And they don't say it's about fairness, because fairness, I always say, is invented so idiots could have debates.
There's no such thing as fairness.
There's just what people can get away with, and that's it.
And all smart people know that, so they don't debate it.
Anyway, do you know comedian Andrew Schultz and he has this podcast that Trump was on and it went really well.
Trump did so well on the podcast with Andrew Schultz and his other hosts that it made a lot of news and People were pretty entertained by it, etc.
And apparently that was not good for Andrew Schultz's business model, because he's a stand-up comedian.
And three hours after that, one of his shows got cancelled.
And there's some indication...
He used the plural.
So he said, they're cancelling my shows, plural.
So he's getting cancelled.
For having Trump on the show and being favorable to him.
Now, you know what's ironic about this?
Ironic.
Maybe not ironic.
Wrong word.
When I got canceled, Andrew Schultz mocked me on his podcast for getting canceled.
He believes that I got canceled because of what I said.
Andrew Schultz Just had a big dose of reality shoved up his stupid fucking asshole ass.
He's an asshole.
And he just learned that I didn't get canceled for what I said.
I got canceled for being a Trump supporter who happened to also talk in public.
He just got canceled for being a Trump supporter.
He didn't get canceled for what he said.
Did he?
Nobody is suggesting that what he said is why he's getting canceled.
He got canceled for being a Trump supporter.
And Andrew Schultz, you fucking asshole.
Now you know what's going on.
Welcome to the real world, Andrew.
You asshole.
So, I hope you see this.
It's personal.
It's personal.
All right.
And of course, Insurrection Barbie, who's a popular accountant on X, wants to talk about the idea that Kamala Harris says that Trump's going to go after his enemies if he's in office, and he'll use the government to go after his enemies.
And she gives these counterexamples.
They put Bannon in prison.
They put Navarro in prison.
They're trying to bankrupt Gateway Pundit.
They indicted the CFO of Epoch Times.
They're investigating Elon Musk.
They're trying to put Donald Trump in prison.
They're trying to disbar Jeff Clark.
They disbarred John Eastman and debanked him.
They arrested the doctor who blew the whistle that a Texas hospital was illegally performing But Donald Trump is going to weaponize the government.
Nicely done.
Insurrection, Barbie.
And I ask you again, I'll just pick a random person on X. Do you think that Insurrection Barbie, I don't know who it is, do you think Insurrection Barbie could have done a better interview for President of the United States than Kamala Harris?
Well, I just read one post from Insurrection Barbie and every one of you know the answer to the question.
Yeah.
Clearly, there's more understanding and honesty and intelligence in this one post.
Well, Rasmussen continues to entertain me by asking once again, About the post office allegedly transporting millions of counterfeit ballots in the last election.
And as Rasmussen reports says, still zero legacy media coverage of these federal court cases implicating a federal agency in transporting millions of counterfeit 2020 election ballots, then hiding the paperwork for years, despite the Department of Justice ordering them to turn it over.
Now, I can see why the legacy media wouldn't cover a story that maybe doesn't have enough evidence.
But there are people who signed affidavits, multiple people, who just say, you know, we can find out if what we saw is real or not just by showing us some paperwork.
And then the court rules that they must show the paperwork.
And then the post office just doesn't.
They just don't.
And that's the end of it.
So that's what's going on.
James O'Keefe gets another big hit for his OMG Network undercover interview with a senior meta engineer who said very clearly and out loud that That anti-Kamala Harris posts are automatically demoted on the meta, meaning Facebook and Instagram, I assume, platforms.
So, now we know that meta, according to the engineer who works there, is biasing what people see to change the effects of the election, obviously.
At the same time, all right, so we've got...
We've got trucks full of counterfeit ballots, allegedly, that the government won't, or at least the post office, won't let us see.
We've got Facebook, which is now confirmed by an insider who's involved in it, that they game the system.
And, of course, Facebook would be one of the most important elements of our electoral educational system, you know, things that tell us what's happening.
We also found out that...
Arizona voters, a lot of them, hundreds of them, voted with mentioning their residents to be abortion clinics, strip clubs, and high schools, and the Cardinals Training Center.
So Breitbart News is reporting.
That the voter rolls in Arizona are not accurate.
If you follow social media like I do, you know that every single day there's another state that's being accused of having voter rolls that look to be intentionally fake.
They look to be.
So that would be an allegation, not a fact.
And then you've got the RNC is suing Detroit.
for deleting dropbox surveillance so there was a question about a dropbox but there was surveillance there so the republicans had asked some time ago can we see the surveillance and then we'll see if there's any trouble at that dropbox as was reported there might be And they did it with two weeks to go before the video would automatically delete.
Because, you know, a security video usually has a set time and then it tapes over itself so you don't run out of room.
So they just held on to that for two weeks and it auto-deleted.
So we never saw it.
All they did was drag their feet.
Just like the story of the post office trucks and where did they deliver the ballots, they just dragged their feet.
If you drag it long enough, things change.
Elections happen.
People forget.
Things get automatically deleted.
So, oh, isn't that terrific?
That looks guilty as hell.
So, so far the things we know about the upcoming election is that the voter rolls are allegedly massively fake, which would suggest massive illegal voting by people claiming to be the people on the voter rolls, but we know that they're dead or out of state.
We know that Google is biased.
That's been reported before and hiding search results that are unfriendly to their team.
We know that Meta is biased because of OMG's recent excellent work.
We know that the trucks with ballots, these would be allegedly excess ballots blanks that are printed and then shipped to bad guys to fill out.
Now, there's allegations of that.
There's firsthand reports of it.
There are eyewitnesses, people who are under oath.
We know that the overseas ballot situation, no ID is required, and that reportedly way more ballots have been sent overseas than there are actually people overseas.
So that would be an obvious case where we assume major fraud is coming.
We know that our voting machines in many states have the same password, and it was available to anybody who knew how to look at it.
And it's the same password for years.
And we know that hackers seem to be able to hack every one of our voting machines.
And if they did it right, nobody would ever know what happened.
And we know that our media liars are covering up everything by telling the public, and this would be the stupid public, not the smart public, but the stupid public, they're saying that the courts haven't found any problems with the past elections, therefore there are none.
That is stupid.
That's something that a Kamala Harris might say, because she's stupid and that's stupid.
Smart people would say, the courts are the wrong tools.
It's like saying, I can't eat an anvil.
It's true.
It's just not the right topic.
It is true that the courts didn't find anything.
It's also true they're not the tool that you would use to find anything.
And they prefer to work as hard as they can, the courts, they will work as hard as they can to not be involved in an election, because the courts don't want to determine the election.
And I appreciate that impulse, actually.
But it does make them not the right tool.
And if they're not the right tool, what is?
Well, we have an election system that can't be fully audited, and there's no tool to find out if anything went wrong.
Under those situations, when you've got something that has a sky-high importance, people think they will be rounded up and killed if the wrong president gets in office.
People actually think that.
They'll be rounded up and killed.
Other people think the country will turn into a socialist cesspool and we're all dead the other way.
Now under those conditions, when you have an election where you can't audit it, There seem to be a dozen different ways you could cheat it without getting caught.
There is no mechanism, because the courts don't do this, they're the wrong tool, no mechanism to catch it.
Under those conditions, how often can you accurately predict that the system will be gamed and rigged?
The answer is 100% of the time.
100% every time in any situation, election or not, that has the qualities that somebody could gain a lot and there's no way to catch them.
If you could gain a lot and there's no way to catch you, you're gonna cheat.
Somebody will, right?
The third thing you need is lots of people involved.
Because if you put me in that situation, I would likely say, well, I'm not gonna cheat.
I don't need to.
I just don't need to.
But if you put somebody else in that situation and they thought their life was on the line, Yeah, of course they'll cheat.
Of course they would.
So you only need to have a lot of people involved, and then you can guarantee that cheating happens.
If you were to design a system to instead of try to give a good result, you're going to design it for the purpose of making sure somebody cheated, you would do it the way it is.
It is designed to guarantee cheating.
Right?
It's designed.
Intentionally, and left that way for decades with minor changes that don't really change the big picture.
It's designed for cheating.
If you don't understand that, you probably watch regular news.
It's designed for cheating.
It's not designed to prevent it.
It's definitely not designed to catch it after the fact.
There's no tool to catch it.
All they have to do is say that the Democrats won and then drag their feet.
Well, yeah, there's a...
Oh, we ran out of time.
But maybe if you check the video...
Oh, the video, it got deleted.
Oh, God.
I wish we'd collected that before 30 days had passed.
Dumb.
Oh, look at me.
I'm dumb.
Oh, sorry.
Sorry.
Accident.
So that's where we're at.
How bad is it?
Well, also according to Breitbart, there are more Americans that are leaning Republican than Democrat by a seven-point margin.
Now, that would be a complete reversal with recent history.
Democrats have always outnumbered Republicans, and here if you include the independents, you're taking the leaners, because most independents are heavy leaners, one way or another.
So if you look at the heavy leaners, there are at the moment substantially By seven points, that's a lot.
More Republicans.
What does that tell you about the election?
One thing.
If it's true that there are seven points more Republicans, Trump has a landslide coming.
He would win the popular vote by millions.
And unless something illegal happened in the swing states, he'd probably take six out of seven, maybe all of them.
So that's almost guaranteed simply by the fact that there are so many more registered Republicans and that that's a brand new situation.
You don't even need to look at the polls.
You don't need to look at the betting.
The only thing you have to look at is the number of voters.
Now, that's not always the case.
If the Republicans were fewer than the Democrats, then some things can happen where you get the national vote, it goes Democrat like Hillary, but the swing states go Trump because, you know, you just played them better.
But if you have more by seven points, More Republican voters?
That guarantees a fair election is a landslide.
It just wouldn't go any other way.
So now we have a guarantee that if it's fair, Trump wins in a landslide.
What if he doesn't?
I don't know.
I worry that what's really happening here is a setup to put the last complainers in jail.
Because people are going to flip out.
If the numbers stay the way they look and then suddenly there's some surprise Kamala Harris victory, people are going to flip out.
I don't think the Democrats have the balls to do what they're going to need to do to take power.
Because if they try to do this and they don't get away with it, they're going to jail.
The only way that they can beat this is with crime.
And Trump has been very clear, you're going to jail.
Now, they can complain all day long about he's trying to use the military after his enemies.
But there's one sentence that you may have heard before.
I think I heard this from a Democrat.
See if you've ever heard this before.
Nobody's above the law.
That's going to come back and bite them in the ass.
Well, meanwhile, a company called Anduril, Lucky Palmer's company, Anduril makes military defense stuff.
So they're like a startup that's inventing new military devices and assets and stuff.
And one of them is a kamikaze drone.
Now you know Kamikaze drones exist, of course.
But this one has got a pretty good payload and it can hover and it's got AI and I think it can beat jamming.
So, it's sort of a super weapon.
And I wouldn't be surprised if Andrew Rill becomes maybe one of the biggest defense companies in the country in three to five years.
Because we're going to go apeshit on drones.
And if Lucky Palmer has found a way to make the drones in a place that's not one of our enemies, I don't know where he's making them.
Maybe Mexico?
I don't even know if there are enough Americans who can make stuff anymore.
But I'd love to know the answer to Lucky.
Get back to me, Lucky.
I've met Lucky once, so I can use his first name, I think.
Lucky, can you send me a message on DM and let me know where you manufacture?
I'd love to know if that's in America.
All right.
Harris was asked about reparations on that interview.
Oh, no.
She was asked about it on Charlemagne the God.
And She said, there's no question about that, and I've been very clear.
She always says I've been very clear when she hasn't been very clear.
But I don't care what her opinion is.
Let me give you mine.
Reparations are theft, and that's the way I would think of it.
So I would treat it as theft.
And it's because black people do not have magical and special problems.
Is there a legacy of slavery that has rippled through time and given a systemic disadvantage to Black Americans?
Yes.
Yes.
Looks like it to me.
To me, it looks commonsensically obviously true.
Do Black Americans have a number of structural disadvantages?
Yes.
Yes, they do.
Now, how do you connect that to me having to pay for it?
What?
Why am I paying for it?
Because I don't know if you know this, but I got some problems.
I got problems.
What's wrong with my problems?
Can I have like special ones where people have to pay me?
No.
I hear the argument that people who are not me did things to people who are not you, and that caused the ripple through time that's affecting you.
I don't care.
I don't care.
I shouldn't care.
Nor should you be especially concerned about my problems that you don't even know what they are.
How about we help everybody who has a problem with what their specific problem is?
How about if you're black and you don't have some job skills that you need, maybe we help you get some job skills.
But how about if you're white?
We do the same thing.
How about if we stop talking about this dumbass, stupid legacy of 200 years ago, like that should drive us today?
I don't care.
I'm not interested in your slavery legacy.
It's real.
Your argument's true.
It's not relevant to me.
And I don't want it to have anything to do with my life.
Because you're not exactly jumping in to solve my magic and special problems either.
So I'm pretty sure that I would rather be a well-educated, tall, black, young man than whatever the hell I am right now.
So how about you pay me some reparations if you got born lucky and I didn't?
So, reparations is theft.
It's not about what's right or wrong.
And if you try to steal my money, I'm going to make it as hard as possible for you to do that.
Surprisingly, fermented black garlic extract could fight prostate cancer, according to NoRidge.
That's weird.
So it's actually been studied, and that you can slow down the inflammation.
So this brings me back to this whole inflammation thing.
Is cancer mostly inflammation?
Obviously, it's not equal to.
But do people get cancer if they don't have inflammation?
Or does the inflammation happen first, and then it creates a field in which any kind of cancer is more likely?
I feel like our food supply or Something is just causing us to have inflammation all the time everywhere, and that just invites every other kind of problem.
So I feel like there's a root cause that needs to be addressed.
I don't know if it relates specifically to this topic, but the physical inflammation problem is a big one.
I don't know if we've wrapped our heads around how big that problem is.
I think RFK Jr.
is going to be good on that.
Did you know that the alcohol drinking rate in the U.S. is the highest since the 70s?
How is that possible?
I'll tell you, this is one of those situations where the data and my anecdotal observations are completely opposite.
My observation is that drinking is way down, like way down.
If you ask me, I was wondering how alcohol companies were surviving.
I would have said it's down 20%.
But it's up.
And I guess it's been going up every year since the 70s.
Now, I don't know if they're just measuring total dollars.
Oh, maybe that's it.
Maybe they're just measuring total dollars.
Because if you add inflation and then you add more people in the population, yeah, maybe that covers up the fact that there are more people quitting.
But I've got a question whether that's real.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, are my main points today.
I remind you that that little calendar you see over my shoulder there, the Dilbert 2025 calendar, it's back!
So you can buy it pre-sale right now, and it would help me.
So just for my personal situation, it would help me if you pre-order it.
Then we know how many to make, and then we don't run short by Christmas.
So the sooner you get in, the more likely you get yours by Christmas.
And they're going to start printing pretty soon, I think.
So you should see them rolling out in the next few weeks.
And it's the most important thing you can do to support my podcasting.
And the reprint of my book, you can barely see it, but it's beyond Dilbert's little body there, is Winn Bigley teaches you the persuasion tricks that Trump used in 2016 with a little bit of update through the summer.
And you can learn how to be a persuader yourself.
And I'm going to go talk to, by the way, that book gets great reviews if you haven't heard about it.
It's one that will change your life.
The non-fiction books I write are designed to change your life substantially.
So those who have read Had Have Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, you learned about systems over goals, you learned about talent stacks, you learned that following your passion might be a bad idea, and a number of Good ideas on taking micro steps toward your goals.
And that book influenced an entire generation of self-help books.
So it's the OG. So that one changed a lot of lives, and I hear about it every day.
People who lost 80 pounds, stopped drinking, got a promotion.
You know, made millions of dollars just using the concepts in the book.
And Winn-Bigley had a similar response in that people learned persuasion and then used it in their life and their personal life and changed their lives.
And then Reframe Your Brain, my most recent book, is about how to change how you're thinking about things and people report amazing results.
So I will say this as a fact, not just marketing.
Right?
Now, I do marketing, where I try to tell you the best, you know, the best explanation of something.
But this is a fact.
If you were to say, I'm just going to try this thing.
I'm going to read three of Adam's books, Had Have Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
That one also was a second edition.
Win Bigly and Reframe Your Brain.
Your life would be improved in ways that you can't even believe.
And I mean that as a helpful fact, not just by my book.
I have enough money.
I'm fine.
I don't need your extra money.
The reason that I went from cartooning to books that I thought would help change people's lives is because that's what I want to do.
What I want to do is change your life and make it better.
That's the satisfaction I'm pursuing.
So this is marketing, I guess.
It's marketing, I guess.
Now, if I told you the Dilbert calendar would change your life, no, that's not going to change your life.
That's just fun.
If you want some fun, get the calendar.
By the way, it's two-sided this time.
So you get the naughty one on the back.
Don't worry, it's not too naughty.
It's PG-13.
But I'm telling you that those three books, I guarantee you, Would change your life in ways that you'd be so mad you didn't do it earlier.
So that's all I've got.
I'm going to talk to the locals people alone because you're special.
