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:
Florida Housing Market, Military-Grade Encryption, Yemen Houthis, Argentina Economic Miracle, Climate Change Fears, Brainwashing Importance, Politician Competence vs Caring, President Trump, Kamala Harris, Trump Bronx Barbershop, Elon Musk Election Integrity, Paper Ballots & Voter ID, Insurrection Barbie, Maren Morris, 2020 Election 4 Key Cities, Election Integrity Allegations, Trump Tariffs, Anti-America EU, "Enemy Within" Hoax, Jim Gaffigan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Today will be extra special for reasons that only some people know.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of human civilization.
If you'd like to take this experience which is already Pinning the needle in ways that you can't even believe.
If you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can believe with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice's dine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, that's right, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh.
It's going to every part of my mitochondria.
Thank you.
I send my coffee directly to my mitochondria.
I don't know if that's where it belongs, but it's just something I've been doing.
Well, meanwhile, the Florida housing market is crumbling, according to one report.
But then the very first comment I saw in the ex-post about it was, that's not true.
So if I told you that all data is fake, so either the Florida housing market is crumbling, or it's just fine because it's the best state.
So I've got both opinions there for you.
Well, here's my opinion, my opinion somewhere in the middle, which is here are three things you don't want to happen at the same time.
You don't want to have a state that has lots of hurricane expense because that's going to cause the second thing, which is incredibly high insurance, which is also going to be related to a third thing, Which is you have to move your entire house and maybe repair it once every two years, depending where you live in Florida.
How do senior citizens manage that?
Like, how is it that the one state that's famous for having the least mobile, you know, least capable humans are seniors, you know, with the most respected but least physically capable, is is in the place where we're pretty sure there's going to be two hurricanes a year that are going to get you pretty excited?
So I do wonder, if you combine the rising insurance costs, which would be tough on the people with fixed incomes especially, and then you add to it, hey grandpa, How many times do you want to pack up the station wagon and figure out another state to be in for a couple weeks?
Or live without electricity for a little while?
Now, I'm in California, so I expect the lights to go out any minute.
You know, in a forest fire to take everything.
So it's not like I'm bragging about my state or anything.
I just wonder...
If Florida is as sustainable as we hope it is.
It's got a lot going for it.
DeSantis is doing a great job, as far as I can tell.
And a lot of people love it.
They love the freedom.
But boy, I'd worry about the insurance cost mixed with senior citizens.
That's a bad one.
Anyway, according to something called futurity, let's call it, it could be pronounced many different ways.
It could be futurity, probably not though.
Maybe futurity, I'll go with that.
They say that diet and exercise can reverse liver damage.
Now, I would have to think that that would depend how much liver damage we're talking about and what kind.
But once again, I'm starting to get a hint that good diet and exercise is good for your health.
Now, I'm going to keep track of this for the rest of you, so you don't have to.
But just in case it turns out to be true, that exercise and eating right is good for your health in a whole variety of ways, I will get back to you.
Until then, don't do anything rash.
Don't assume it's true.
Just because 100% of every scientific study since the beginning of time has confirmed it, it might not be.
You never know.
Anyway, there's another report that Chinese scientists use their special quantum computers.
Yeah, you don't have one of those, do you?
Where's your quantum computer, losers?
No, I'm just kidding.
Nobody wants a quantum computer, unless you want to crack military-grade encryption, which, according to Tom's Hardware, which I guess is some kind of a site, they've They've cracked military-grade encryption.
Hmm.
Now, do you think that's true?
Put on your fake news filter.
There's a report from China that Chinese scientists have used quantum computers to crack military-grade encryption.
So if that were true, that would mean that China already...
Could have full access to every digital system in the United States military and everywhere else on earth already.
Here's the second part.
Get ready.
If that were true, do you think they would let you know about it?
Do you think that would just be in the news?
How could that possibly be true?
That would be the most secret thing of all secret things that ever needed to be secret in the history of secrets.
Even an alien landing in China and offering all of their technology would be slightly less secret than Than having their quantum computers already be able to unencrypt military encryption.
So I'm going to be a little skeptical whether they have that at some practical level where they can actually use it.
So I don't know what the real story is, but the most amazing part of the story would be if it were true that somehow it got out.
I feel like they would just slay the families of anybody who let that secret out.
I mean, what could be more secret than that?
Speaking of electronic warfare, we'll get to all the fun politics in a bit.
According to New Atlas, there's a new electronic warfare system that can make it look as though there are lots of jets and bombers coming your way when there aren't.
So in other words, they can fool the enemy radar electronically into thinking that there's something physical coming at them in a big wave.
Now, I'll tell you, when I read these stories, I can't tell how many of them matter.
Because if everything's just going to be swarms of AI drones, why would anybody use anything else?
You know, it might be mutually sure disaster or destruction, I mean.
But it seems like that's the weapon you'd use if you could make enough of them.
Because you couldn't really stop them.
And they're kind of cheap, you know, relatively speaking.
And you wouldn't want to irradiate anything if you didn't have to.
So it seems like swarms of drones would be the future.
But maybe that's cool too.
Meanwhile, U.S. bombers struck Yemen, several Houthi weapons depots and stuff.
And here's my question.
Why is the United States in charge of Yemen?
Now, I get that what we're doing is good for the whole world, and that's my point.
Isn't everybody in the world better off if the hooties are not blocking the shipping lanes?
So, shouldn't everyone be in on this in one way or another?
And if they're not, you know, maybe it does make sense that the United States is the world's police person, because who else is going to do it?
On the other hand, you could argue, That the Houthis wouldn't be mad, except for American-slash-Israel policies in the Middle East.
But I'm not going to get into that.
I'm just going to say that it seems like everybody who wants to pay lower prices would be in favor of the United States striking the Houthis.
And we should have more help on that.
Argentina, allegedly, is having a great miracle...
Revival, thanks to their new president, Javier Mile.
And they're saying it's now 10 months in a row in Argentina of a trade surplus, which would be miraculous because they were trade deficit until then.
And it's a $16 billion surplus since he took office.
But you know what's missing in the story is how he did any of that.
So, how do you tell me a story about the miraculous economic success without mentioning anything he did or any expert opinion as to why that worked or if it would work somewhere else?
So, I would like to be the first, well, maybe there are others, but I'm going to put down a little skeptical flag on the Argentina stories.
I feel like the Argentina miracle might be overblown.
Might be exaggerated because there's just something missing in the story.
You know, there's a dog not barking or there's a key that's not in the lock or there's a tumbler that didn't fit or something.
There's something about this Argentina thing that's a little too convenient, a little too perfect.
Can you really just change the president and then the whole economy changes overnight?
Really?
So I'm going to say there's something going on in Argentina that might be great, so I'm not going to criticize it at all.
I just think there might be maybe more to the story.
Is there a debt question?
Is there a corruption, competence question?
Are they faking the numbers?
Is the data even true?
We've got a lot of questions.
It's a little too fast.
A little too good too fast.
You know what I mean?
If you live in the real world long enough, you don't see this.
Let me put it this way.
For those of you who are over, I will randomly pick an age.
Over the age of 50.
And you've just observed how a real world works.
How fast anything happens in the real world.
And then you compare how you think anything happens in the real world To the miracle in Argentina.
And do you think 20 years from now, the historians will say, yeah, damn it, it was just that one guy.
All you needed was that one guy.
He did the right things and now everybody just borrowed those same techniques and the whole world is doing great now.
Because once he made it obvious that if you do those things, everything goes great and it goes great immediately, then everybody started doing it.
Do you think that's what it's going to look like in 20 years?
So here's one of those things where age is absolutely a different filter on everything.
If I were 25, I would buy this completely.
I would say, wow, you get the right guy in the office and good stuff happens.
If I were 25, at my current age, I'd say, nothing happens that way, ever.
So I've got questions.
An overwhelming majority of young Americans are worried about climate crisis, according to The Guardian.
So, and apparently it's both left and right-leaning kids.
So I don't see how you're going to get a lot of human reproduction.
So they don't have money, and they think that if they did have money and the American dream and they could buy homes and have happy lives and stuff, that their children would burn up in a fireball once they were gone.
Why exactly would anybody have any babies?
One of the things that we don't like to admit about our history in the United States is that the single biggest, well, except we had good geography and we had some luck, but a big part of the reason that the United States has worked for decades is that we do really good brainwashing.
You know, both on ourselves and internationally as well.
And part of the brainwashing was if you do these things, you get these outcomes and, you know, you really want to have a better toaster, even though you didn't really need a better toaster.
But hey, your neighbors have really good toasters and look at all these features.
Then you buy it and then the economy is good and then people have jobs and it's self-fulfilling.
So basically the engine of any country is Unless you have severe shortages, as long as you have resources, the engine of any country is the psychology.
And the CIA, who just managed our country to make us all patriotic and just assume...
I grew up watching Leave It to Beaver, and Father Knows Best.
And so I just assumed that what people do is they get married.
And in my, I'd say, 20s, I felt uncomfortable with the idea that I wasn't rushing to get married because I was so brainwashed that there's just one way to do it.
Now, I would argue that...
If the brainwashing goes away, you'd say, oh, that's great.
My mind is free.
Everything's good now because I'm a free thinker with less brainwashing.
I would argue the only reason you survived is because of the brainwashing.
And if you do too much free thinking, you're dead.
You pretty much need somebody brainwashing people in some stable, productive, useful way.
I like Trump.
Because when he brainwashes, to me, based on all my filters on life, he looks like he brainwashes in a way that's unambiguously good for you.
It might be bullshit, but if he tells you the economy is better than you thought, you're going to spend a little more and then the economy becomes better than you thought.
So it's all this really productive bullshit brainwashing that's just what I love.
I'm like, yeah, tell me some more of that bullshit.
I love it.
It's good for me.
So you don't really get a choice of the truth versus the lies.
You kind of get a choice of which brainwashing you prefer.
By nearly a two-to-one margin, according to Rasmussen, voters say that a candidate's competence matters more than caring.
Does that surprise you?
The voters, by a big margin, two to one, say they care about competence more than caring.
Because it seems to me that Kamala is pushing the caring thing pretty hard, and the data would say that she's pushing the wrong button, that she should be pushing the competence button, but she doesn't have a competence button.
If she had a competence button, the election probably wouldn't look like this.
But here's the even more interesting thing.
That the voters rated Trump slightly higher than Kamala on, what do you think I'm going to say now?
Competence or caring?
So Trump was rated higher on which?
Competence or caring?
Trick question, both.
Trump was rated higher on competence and caring.
How does he lose?
How is it even slightly possible that he could lose the election?
I mean, other than cheating.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
But if you're winning on both competence and caring, let's talk about the third thing we care about.
Orange man bad?
Like, what's the third thing you care about?
If you got your competence...
And you got your caring.
Now list the third thing you care about.
Nothing.
That's the whole package.
If he's leaning on both.
Now here's an interesting fact you might not know.
What would you call it with one word that would capture both competence and caring?
This will be a good test.
Give me one word.
That is a regular English word that is the definition of competence and caring put together.
If you put competence and caring, there's one word for that.
Charisma.
Charisma.
Now, slightly different definition for charisma, which is power and empathy.
So I'm saying competence and power are the same in this context.
And I'm saying that caring and empathy are the same.
Which means that charisma is literally what Trump seems to have more of, according to the voters.
Charisma.
Now, did Trump demonstrate any charisma lately?
Here's what charisma looks like.
Trump goes to that, what is that, Al Smith big dinner that the presidential candidates traditionally go to?
Kamala Harris does a recorded, she tries to do a comedy thing with somebody else doing the comedy, falls completely flat, complete disaster in a comedy context.
And she just looked like she was a fish underwater.
Trump gets up there with a bunch of jokes that were written, obviously, by his staff.
He reads the jokes, and as he's reading them, he's realizing that his jokes suck.
And so he starts making fun of his joke writers as well as the jokes, as well as the people in the jokes, because some people like the jokes.
And all of a sudden, it didn't even matter what the joke was.
He made it about just his personality.
And if he liked his personality, because he's bigger than life, then it was all good.
So he took the worst material in the world, the jokes, they were truly terrible, and he made the whole thing work.
Even looking like it wasn't working, he made that work.
Because he talked about it not working, and then that became the thing he was talking about.
Harris has all the production Hollywood people in the world putting together this nice little package so that there could be no awkwardness, no mistakes.
She wouldn't be revealed for having no sense of humor whatsoever because the other person in the video would be like adding the humor parts.
Completely failed.
So who had the charisma in that case?
Well, not exactly the definition of charisma, but he was the more interesting.
He was the star.
Let's say he was a celebrity.
He was a star, and Harris was not.
Then did you see that Trump visited a barbershop in New York City?
A black barbershop.
And you may remember...
That I had been recommending that Trump use his charisma on a retail level, you know, instead of talking to people who are professional talkers, talk to actual voters.
Because every time we saw him talking to anybody in any kind of on-the-street setting, it was a home run.
Am I right?
I like to use the frozen rope analogy.
It's a baseball term.
If somebody hits a line drive that's so hard it never goes down, it's like a frozen rope.
Every time Trump talks to a voter, it's a frozen rope.
I mean, he just clocks it, and you never see it go down.
And so the obvious thing would be, we'll do more of that.
But his super superpower, the superpower you just don't see in politicians, is his pirate ship.
And by pirate ship, what I mean is that he can assemble people from every walk of life.
And as long as they're sort of, you know, philosophically good Americans wanting to be, you know, on the side of doing good things, and usually also liking him, he loves you.
And you can tell, and then you love him back because you don't get a lot of love.
So he can go anywhere.
And if you don't see that he can go anywhere and get the same reaction, you're missing his magic.
The magic is it works everywhere.
Everybody can go to a friendly audience.
Even Kamala Harris' name incorrectly so many times, I'm starting to forget it.
But even she can go to the 19-year-old female group of whatever sorority and get a great reception.
That's not hard.
Trump can go anywhere, just anywhere, and he gets a great reception.
So he goes to the black barbershop, which is, of course, ratings gold.
And then, I don't know about you, but the only video I saw was from, it looked like viral videos from the people who were in the barbershop, the attendees.
And that's exactly what I wanted to say.
I didn't want to see ABC News camera, here is Trump, interacting with some voters.
I wanted to see the voters...
Take a picture of it with their own cameras in their hands and put it up on their social media and say, look what just happened to me.
I'm in a barber shop with Trump.
And that's what happened.
And it was amazing.
It was perfect.
And did you see...
If you watched even a second of it, and you should, did you see the comfort and love that was so easily being exchanged in that environment?
And it's every environment.
So, you know, hey, barbershop.
You're on the pirate ship.
Everybody wants on.
Get on.
There's a study that says that Campaign Music Matters, Mark Harvey, Writing about this, and where was that?
I didn't see where he was writing it, but I guess he's an associate professor and director of graduate business programs at the University of St.
Mary.
And he's studied this and says that it does make a difference, and you can measure it, and that associating music, such as when the candidates come out before a rally or something, makes a difference.
He could have asked me, and he probably could have asked you.
It does make a difference, but we don't realize how much, maybe.
It's more about, it's more dramatic than you think.
Because we're so tuned and trained by music that music puts us in a mode, you pair that mode with anything, and then you like the other thing.
You know, just always.
Anyway, so one of the questions that people are criticizing Kamala Harris for in the Bret Baier interview was that when did so one of the questions that people are criticizing Kamala Harris for in the Bret Baier interview was that when did Harris know that Biden was no longer capable of doing his job or running for president?
And that Harris just sort of avoids it.
At first he said, well, he's not running for president and blah, blah, he does a great job.
And basically just avoided the question awkwardly.
So, I wanted to take a whack because I like to, no, not in a Jeffrey Toobin way, but I'm going to take a try at being Kamala Harris and answering that question.
So, I'm doing this in the context of persuasion training and communication in general.
So, do you think that a more capable candidate could answer the question Why didn't you say something sooner about Biden if everybody knew that he was failing?
So here's me.
If I were Kamala Harris and you asked me that question, this seems like a kill shot.
It seems like a question that's like, do you still beat your spouse?
It just feels like you can't answer this question.
But watch me.
Here's what I'd say.
Mr.
Adams, when did you first know that Biden was not capable of serving a second term?
And I'd say, well, let me say for sure, I think we all noticed there were some physical changes in his movements.
And we all noticed that.
And we also noticed that sometimes he'd need a little extra time to find a word.
I think everybody noticed that as well.
So what you were seeing in public is the same thing we were seeing.
But, as I think you noticed in public as well, we were not seeing any impact on his judgment.
In other words, neither in public nor in private was he making any decisions or policy decisions that would make any difference or that were in any way off-kilter from the consensus in the room.
So we were watching very carefully to see if his physical impact had any impact on his judgment, and I don't think anybody's even suggested the situation where it has.
I haven't heard anybody privately say they thought his judgment was impaired, and I haven't heard it in public, and I'm not even aware of any such thing.
So I didn't see it.
We all saw that he was physically losing it.
He was a certain age.
We expected that at some level, and we were keeping an eye on it.
But having said that, it also seemed that the physical decline couldn't be ignored if we're looking at another four years.
So if you're asking me, do I think that he has the mental and physical acuity to make it for the rest of the term?
I do.
I think he has the best care in the world.
He's being watched more than anybody in the world because that's what presidents do.
Everybody's watching carefully.
He's got tons of help and I'm still here.
If something changed suddenly and all of a sudden I saw that his judgment declined, there are steps to take care of that.
We don't need to mention them.
They're all well known.
But I can tell you, in my personal opinion, I've seen nothing that would alarm me about his judgment so far.
It is, however, prudent, and I think the country appreciates, that a younger generation is probably a better risk management situation, and that's why I'm here.
How was that?
All right, my only point is, I think that is an answerable question.
The fact that she can't do it speaks to her competence, right?
Because you can imagine, not a normal politician, most politicians wouldn't be able to do it, but you could probably come up with five names of politicians that could pull that off, and she's just not one of them, unfortunately.
All right, Elon Musk is in Pennsylvania.
He's already done one pro-Trump, pro-voting rally.
And he says this.
He said the U.S. elections need paper ballots, and he needs hand counting and in-person voting and voter ID. He said, quote, I'm a technologist.
I know a lot about computers.
I love the understatement.
I'm a technologist.
I know a lot about computers.
Now, here's the part where I think it's funny.
That there will be 80 million Americans who are going to say to themselves, I disagree with Elon Musk on this question of computers and technology.
Now is that not funny?
Now, I'm not saying that just because he's the most notable technologist in the world, that doesn't mean he's right about everything every time.
But this one's just so obvious that he's right.
And he's Elon Musk.
80 million people are going to say...
Nope.
No, actually, more people are concerned about the election integrity than is the mix of the country.
So there's a majority who are actually concerned.
So Elon goes on, and he says, I'm a technologist.
I know a lot about computers, and I'm like, the last thing I would do is trust a computer program because it's just too easy to hack.
It's too easy to add just one line, and it's really difficult to hack paper ballots.
And he goes on, in-person voting with ID, which, by the way, every country has.
I mean, like almost every country that has democratic elections requires in-person voting with voter ID. And then he sums it up by saying, it's super weird to not have that.
It's super weird to not have that.
I love this summary.
It's super weird to not have that, because you really can't figure out.
And he uses their word, they tried to sell the weird thing.
It's super weird not to have that, because it makes you wonder what the reason is.
When he says it's super weird not to have it, your brain wants to argue with him and say, no, it's not.
They do it because, and then you find out there's no because.
Which is my next point.
And then he says that the Democrats are fighting paper ballots tooth and nail and I wonder why.
He goes, I wonder why they're fighting the thing that we know works.
The thing that everybody knows works.
Why are they fighting us so hard?
Is it because electronic voting machines are cheaper?
No.
This is me now, not him.
Is it because the machines are more credible?
We trust them?
No, obviously.
Obviously we don't.
Is it because they're easier to maintain than paper?
No.
Is it easier to train?
To train people to use paper or to train people to maintain the machines?
No.
Paper's easier.
Is it safer from cheating?
No.
Is it faster?
Can you get a result sooner?
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
So, here's the thing.
As far as I know, no journalist, and I'm going to put this in quotes, because we don't have any journalists, as far as I can tell, who have access to the right people.
We have lots of great independent journalists now, but they don't always have the same access to the same people.
But none of the mainstream journalists have ever asked anybody why electronic voting machines are used.
Just hold that in your brain for a second.
That the biggest question in this election is whether it'll be fair and rigged or whether or not it's secure.
And nobody has ever asked why, given that we know exactly the wrong way to do an election and we know the right way, why do we do it the way we're doing it?
Can you please explain?
Nobody's ever asked the question except Elon Musk in a Pennsylvania rally and me every other day on X. Anyway, so here are some cheating methods that are alleged to be available in our current system.
Now, I'm going to say alleged because that's the only way I can stay monetized.
Now, so it doesn't matter what I believe.
So my personal belief doesn't matter to what I'm going to say.
I'll say that these are all things that have been alleged in a way that I haven't seen debunked to my satisfaction.
So the allegations are not proven.
But neither are they debunked, to my satisfaction, based on my knowledge.
So here are just some things we know about.
The number of drop boxes appears to make a big difference in election results, which should not, because it should be the voters' opinions that make a difference, not the number of boxes.
Nobody signed up for the number of boxes system.
Hey, who's going to be president?
Well, how many boxes are there?
Well, in 2020, Wisconsin had 500 boxes, but now they only have 78.
Oh, okay.
So before, when they had a lot of boxes, the Democrats would win.
But now when they have fewer boxes, maybe the Republicans will win.
Although, as is pointed out, if someone is going to cheat using any of these boxes, meaning put in ballots that are not real ballots or harvest them or do that sort of thing, if anybody were going to misuse them, they could still find the 78 ballots, boxes.
You know, the fact that they went from 500 to 78 ballots, It isn't going to stop a motivated person.
They can still find them.
But the point is, if the number of boxes matters to the outcome, then what kind of a system do we have?
What kind of a system should it matter the number of boxes on the sidewalks that collect the ballots?
It's not a box.
We have a republic, if you can keep it, not a number of boxes system.
As Insurrection Barbie notes, an account on X, the number one reason people distrust the election of 2020 is because it came down to 40,000 votes in four major cities.
And in each of those Democrat-controlled cities, removed Republican poll watchers, sent home the media, told us they would stop counting.
And then when we woke up, the following ballots were counted overnight without impartial observers.
Now, so this is a claim from Insurrection Barbie.
So I don't know who the person is behind the account.
But is that true?
This is a way of saying what I've heard a million times, but I've not ever heard it this way.
So I'd always heard it in, you know, there are some places in some swing states that mattered a lot.
But I didn't know that it was four out of four major cities and that they were the ones that made the difference.
Is this an accurate way to explain what happened?
Because if it is...
I have to admit that the entire time I've been hearing this story, because I guess I've been hearing it explained a little differently.
Like, I did know...
Here's the parts I knew.
I knew that in at least one place, they claimed there was a water break, and they counted things overnight.
I thought I heard that there was a second place that happened.
But I thought to myself, well, maybe they just took a break, and their story was that other ballots come in late at night, and they just counted them.
And maybe they shouldn't have sent the people home, but beyond that, that's all we knew.
So I would lack any direct evidence that anything illegal happened.
So I haven't heard the story with direct evidence.
So if you're only using indirect evidence, you know, kind of a statistical thing, I had never heard it described in a way that triggered my pattern recognition.
So if you just say, we think it happened in this place, and then there's a story that doesn't involve water main breaking, but there was another place that counted them overnight.
And by the way, there were several places that the results changed overnight.
That sounds like this sort of loose...
You know, thing that happened that you really can't tell.
Well, if it happened in several places, I would say to myself, if it's in several places, it's just maybe how the system works, because it's spread everywhere.
But if you tell me that the four key cities were the four that had this very specific thing happened, if anybody had ever said it in these exact words before, it would have completely changed how I thought about it from day one.
And I've read about this story a hundred times.
So if this is the right way to say it, boy, does it look different in my head.
Elon Musk commented on Insurrection Barbie's post, and he said, quote, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Now, that was probably reckless of him to say that, because when you say sunlight is the best disinfectant, it's only going to be hours before MSNBC turns that into, Musk recommends drinking bleach to cure electronic voting machines.
It's going to happen, people.
It's going to happen.
It happened to Trump.
All right.
So I divided all the ways that our election is susceptible to cheating into three categories.
There's the cheating before the election, there's the cheating during the election, and then there's the cheating after the election, right?
So let me go through the three categories of cheating.
Now again, I believe none of these would be available, or some would, but they would be mostly unavailable if Elon Musk's plan of voting in person with ID and doing it in one day, etc.
If all that happened, most of this couldn't happen, but some of it could.
Before the election, we were inundated with fake news that half of the country believes is real news.
That's a big problem.
How in the world Do we depend on voting when we have a system where half of the country doesn't know the news isn't real?
I mean, it's literally actually not real.
It's not even attempting to be real.
When it comes to the political stuff, it's not really attempting to be real.
Now, if half of the country doesn't know that, and our knowledge is what drives the entire election, you could say that the fake news is a rigged election.
Because the election is irrelevant if you've brainwashed people all in one direction.
Now, because it's also a free market, you've got your Fox News, your Brian Bartz, and lots of independent people who are balancing things out.
But it's really about the brainwashing competition.
Isn't it?
We think it's about the votes, but the real cheating happens in the brainwashing.
So the cheaters are the people who lie the most effectively, and the mainstream media is really good at it.
Then there's the fake data.
You heard that the crime rate numbers that were allegedly down, but everybody who had eyeballs and lived in the real world knew they were up.
They just got adjusted up, but not until Not until after the debate, when Trump got fact-checked, and now half of the country, because they believe news and they think data is real, and they heard it first, they think crime is down because Biden did a good job.
It's actually way up 4.5%.
That's a lot.
Up 4.5%?
Crime?
That is a lot.
So, we also know that Google and Meta are allegedly gaming their systems in big ways.
Again, what is the point of having an election if the information that you would use to make your decision is all fake, or biased, or anti-wack, or manipulated, or algorithmically controlled?
The election is the least important part.
The decision is made by the brainwashers and how effectively they brainwash.
Then you've got the states that are trying to block the no cheating laws.
So wherever somebody is trying to tighten up the election laws so it's not easy to cheat, there are people working really hard In the government to stop that so that it is easier to cheat.
Now, there's always some second reason, like, well, that would be disruptive, or, well, we're not sure you have the authority to, you know, it's always some technical reason.
But coincidentally, it all goes toward the same direction of making sure it's easier to cheat.
So now you've got Georgia Republican Party, they're appealing a decision because there's some stuff they wanted that got turned down.
Fulton County, they wanted some stuff to make the elections more secure, got turned down.
Texas, same problem.
Florida, same problem.
It has stuff to do with voter IDs and voter rolls being corrected and stuff like that.
But in every case where This seems like it's a really big effect, and there's an obvious fix.
Not happening.
The Daily Wire says that Michigan's voter rolls list 8.4 million voters, but there are only 8 million voting age residents in the state.
Now, that's an allegation.
I haven't done the counting myself.
Now, What's the point of having an election with such a leaky system?
And it gets worse.
You know, of course, we know the Mark Elias and all the legal maneuvers that have happened in the past and the present make a big difference in the effects.
We know the lawfare against Trump is, of course, election interference, but it doesn't get counted as such.
And the lawfare could make or break the entire thing.
I mean, if the lawfare took Trump completely out, what does the vote matter?
So the lawfare is just election cheating.
It's just we call it something different because it happened before the election day.
But it's all election cheating.
And now the judge has denied the request to delay publication of the evidence against Trump on the January 6th case.
So that's all going to be dumped right before the election.
That's election interference, because we know that the judges and the DAs and all these Soros Democrat people are just doing every single decision, it seems like.
Not everyone.
But it seems like a lot of decisions are going against one person.
And to me, that looks like election cheating.
Then during the election, here are the allegations that Allegedly, in 2020, there were a bunch of extra ballots printed by a ballot printing company, sent on trucks to one place, filled out by the millions, and then shipped off to be counted.
It's seemingly a credible account that that's exactly what happened, and that there's a door that won't be unlocked, even though the court has ordered it, that has at least some of all those fake ballots, but we're not allowed to look at them, which is enough to tell me it's true.
If we had opened up the door and somebody checked, I'd say, oh, okay, maybe true, maybe not.
But if they won't open the door after a court order, still don't open the door, just to look.
All they have to do is look at them and they'll be able to tell if they're fake.
I believe it.
Now, I don't know for sure.
But if you're not going to open the door, I believe you're guilty, government.
Government is always guilty until proven innocent.
All they have to do is open the door, prove their innocence, but they don't do it.
All right.
Then the overseas ballots, obviously that's a gigantic hole.
You can vote by email overseas without an ID. Of course there will be cheating.
I would imagine it will be massive.
How about the election machines?
If Elon Musk thinks that they're vulnerable, why would I doubt him?
What about non-citizen voting?
Some say there will be a lot of them.
Some say that someday there might be a lot of them, but only if they become citizens.
And Democrats say, well, there might be some, but it's not any big thing because they know it's illegal.
But there is enough suggestion that maybe their names are being used.
Or they're getting ballots that somebody could harvest.
So I would suggest that that's certainly a big hole, but we don't know how big.
We've got the dead people voting, the people who moved down to state voting.
That's the problem with the voter rolls.
We know the voter rolls are a mess in a number of places.
We've got the possibility that the post office can do shenanigans and throw away votes if they know they're from a place that has more support from one candidate.
How would you know?
Well, they say some people in some states can check their ballot to make sure it was received.
How many people do that?
And if they did do that, would there be time to fix any of it?
No.
If you checked and found that your personal ballot had not been delivered, all you would be able to do with that is vote again.
You just, you know, maybe vote in person or send in another one if you have time.
But it wouldn't stop any process because you wouldn't even talk to your neighbors.
And your neighbor might be doing the same thing.
Like, oh, wow, my vote didn't get in.
So you could have massive knowledge that votes had not gotten in without anybody knowing that it's a massive knowledge, that you'd only know the way you knew, and maybe you had one co-worker happen to.
But you wouldn't know it was big if it happened.
Now, I'm not saying I have evidence that's ever happened.
I'm giving you a point that even if you had massive, allegedly, hypothetically, if you had massive cheating, There's no way to catch it.
There really isn't.
You could catch it maybe 20 years later after the fact, like we think we know that JFK's election was rigged, but they didn't catch it when it happened.
It always takes too long.
Everything gets certified by the time you could catch anything.
And then you got that kicking out the observers.
That could happen again.
And the late night counting after the observers are gone, I suppose that could happen again.
So that's what you could do during the election.
Here's what you could do after the election if, hypothetically, you had rigged it.
If you had rigged it, You're part of the rig is after the election because you got to hold your position and make sure it doesn't get reversed.
So the first thing you do is make sure that the elections are not fully auditable, which is the case.
So there's not really any practical way to know that every vote got in and it wasn't rigging.
As Elon Musk says, if you change one line of code, where do you catch that?
Who's going to catch that?
How about the courts?
The courts really, really don't want to get involved in election stuff.
They have sort of a reflex to be a separate branch of government and not have too much influence over the elections.
And I appreciate that.
But it also means they're going to...
They're going to be so slow that the president will be installed, whoever it is.
And they're going to say that you have no standing and there's a technical problem with your case, etc.
And that might all be true.
But my point is the courts are not a tool that could be used in a short term, in a brief period between election day and inauguration day.
Nothing could happen that fast in the court system.
We don't have any kind of court that can do that.
I mean, you could do an emergency Supreme Court thing.
You could do that in time.
But they wouldn't have any time to research.
You wouldn't be able to do an investigation.
Nothing like that.
And if you did, you'd know that everything would disappear.
Oh, the video of that Dropbox, we lost it, which has happened.
That's literally something that happened.
So you could just delay after the election.
And even if you were finding things, and even if you did investigate, you would find things, it wouldn't matter.
Because we don't have a fully auditable system, nor do we have a second line of protection, which would be, well, we didn't fully audit it, but we caused some sketchy things and we took it to court that won't work.
Because the court needs way better than sketchy things, and it's not really the tool that determines elections.
And then, of course, the Department of Justice would punish anybody who protests, so citizens would be helpless because if they protest, they'd be arrested.
That's what January 6th was about, to make sure that you knew that if you disagree with the government, they'll put you in jail.
And the fake news would, of course, rally around whatever result they liked, if they liked it, and tell you the election was fine, and if you doubted it, you were a bad citizen and possibly some kind of conspiracy theorist.
So here's my statement I would like to make publicly.
My public statement.
Don't design a laughably ridiculous election system and ask me in advance to accept the vote count.
You could ask me to accept the vote count if you had designed in advance a secure system.
I would do that.
You could ask me in advance, would I accept it?
And I would say, yeah.
As you've described that system, that Elon Musk design system where people show up and show their ID and they vote on the same day.
Yeah, I'll tell you in advance.
I trust it.
But don't design a system which is laughably porous.
Laughably porous.
I mean, just absurdly porous.
And then ask me to confirm it in advance.
Because that's just a little bit too much signaling that you plan to rig it.
I mean, you might as well just say, hey, Scott, I'm going to shove this all the way up your ass until it comes out your mouth.
But I'd like you to agree with it in advance.
The absurdity level of this is beyond anything that is even describable.
It's indescribably absurd to ask people to confirm in advance that they'll accept the result from a system that is designed like this.
It looks like it's designed to hide the result.
That's what it looks like.
I mean, if you were from another planet and you didn't know anything about politics and you said, okay, you advanced aliens, take a look at this system.
And they'd say, all right, what are you trying to do?
Well, we're trying to elect some people and make sure that it's a secure system.
So take a look at our system.
They say, well, how are you doing it now?
We say, well, we've got these electronic machines that the alien would be, well, hold on, hold on.
You mean the kind that you can change with one line of code?
And we say, yeah, yeah, very secure.
And the aliens would say, what are you talking about?
You just told me you could change it with one line of code.
How many people do you think have access to any given machine?
Well, you know, we...
Check.
And the alien would just slap you around and say, are you kidding?
That's your system.
That's your system for a secure election?
But we've been brainwashed into thinking we live in the system where all the smart people are in charge.
They took care of you.
They took care of the hard things so you don't have to.
You don't have to worry about the security of the election because the smart people are taking care of it.
It's boring.
It's boring, people.
Don't even ask questions.
You don't need to know why we do it this way.
It's boring.
It's boring.
We'll just take care of it.
Well, let's talk about Trump on tariffs.
The Wall Street Journal said this about it.
That Trump's plan remains shrouded in uncertainty.
He has called for an across-the-board tariff of 10%, later suggested 10 to 20%, and at least once even said 50 to 200%.
They go on.
He has proposed a tariff of 60% on goods from China, or maybe more.
He has also proposed reciprocity, or U.S. tariffs that match those of its partners.
That should spare Mexico and Canada, which under a U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement negotiated in Trump's first term don't change tariffs on the U.S. But Trump has separately said autos from Mexico could face or would face 100% tariff.
Mexico imposes no tariff on U.S.-made autos.
In short, they summarize, in short, no one knows what Trump has in mind.
Perfect.
Perfect.
It's almost like he could write a book called The Art of the Deal.
If you knew what he had in mind, it wouldn't work.
It's only the fact that you think he might put a 200% tariff on you that you're going to take him seriously at all.
This makes me laugh because it's so perfect.
This is exactly what I want Trump to do.
I want Trump to go in public today and say maybe 10%, maybe 200%, maybe 50%, maybe your cars, maybe not, maybe China, maybe Germany, maybe Russia, I don't know, maybe 10%, maybe 50%.
That's exactly what I want him to do.
Until he gets in the room.
You know, I mean the trade negotiators.
You put the trade negotiators in the room, and the trade negotiators play good cop, and the good cop says, you know, you heard what Trump wants to do.
I mean, he wants to tariff you so hard.
He loves tariffs.
You've never even met somebody who likes tariffs as much as he does.
He thinks it's a win every time he does it.
I'm trying to talk him out of it because I know it's bad for you.
And I'm sort of on your side.
But damn, I cannot talk.
He loves the tariffs.
He can't stop talking about it.
He wants 10.
He wants 80.
He wants 60.
He wants cars.
Did you see what he said he's going to do with China?
My God, if you give me a great deal.
There's some chance I can take it back to the boss and talk him down on these tariffs.
But you're going to have to give me a lot.
You're going to have to give me more than you've ever given me.
Because Trump is on the warpath with these tariffs.
I don't know how I'm going to talk him out of it unless you really work with me.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how it's done.
All right.
The European Union is at war with America.
I think they're giving Apple a hard time.
They're giving Tesla a hard time and his other companies.
And don't have to free speech in America directly and indirectly.
I've really sort of had it with the European Union.
And I think maybe we should just stop funding Ukraine and let the European Union fall.
Because if you're going to attack the United States, We need to kind of send a message.
Don't attack our companies.
Just back the fuck off, European Union.
Now, I don't know if I'm going too far on that, but anyway.
So, yeah, European Union, you're not my friend.
Poly markets, you know, the poly market, betting market, as I have been trying to warn you, betting markets are not reliable when it comes to predicting what's going to happen.
Trump has a big lead in the poly markets market, but now there's a report that Some big accounts put in $30 million, and they look like they might even be related, as in there might even be one person or one entity.
So it might be somebody gaming the system, or it might be somebody who's rich who's just playing.
You can't tell.
But you cannot assume that the Epoly markets is telling you anything useful.
Have you all heard the hoax about the enemy within and Trump going to use the military to shoot or imprison his political enemies?
You know, I've been hearing that for like, what, a week or something?
And I've literally just been ignoring it.
And the reason I ignored it is because as soon as you hear it, you know it's based on something out of context and it's a hoax.
And I thought, surely I will not have to get involved in yet another hoax that's something taken out of context.
But sure enough, it's turned into the major message coming from the Democrats and from Harris.
And their claim is, and by the way, I don't even need to explain how it's a hoax because as soon as you hear it, You don't even need it to be explained.
Do you really believe that Trump said he wanted to use the U.S. military to get rid of political enemies like Adam Schiff?
How many of you think that's a real thing that could have happened in the real world, that maybe, just maybe has slipped out and he really said that?
Does anybody think that?
That's the actual story that idiot cunt Harris is pushing on the country.
I mean, this is really cuntish behavior.
I mean, you're just a piece of shit if you do that.
Because the level of division that that could create is just off the chart.
Now, do you know the real story?
So the real story...
It's two separate stories, and they just put them together.
So separate story number one is that Trump did say that Adam Schiff and some of his cronies were, he calls them the enemy within, meaning that he considers that they're external enemies, you know, and adversaries, of course, but that he also has people inside our government who are bad actors.
Now, I agree that when he's talking about Adam Schiff, he's not talking about just a Democrat senator who votes the other way.
Adam Schiff has been part of two major hoaxes that by any reasonable definition were attempts to overthrow the government.
Absolutely.
He is the worst lying, you know, negative thing that we have in the country.
So the first thing is that Trump did say that that's like an enemy within.
I completely agree with that.
Anybody who knows what Adam Schiff lied about from Russia collusion to what the laptop to how many lies is that one guy told?
There are really the dangerous kind, the super dangerous kind.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's an enemy from within.
And what's wrong with that?
It's pretty much exactly what Harris is saying.
She's saying Trump's the enemy.
She's saying that the white supremacists hiding in the mountains, they're the enemy within.
It's just words.
Everybody knows what Trump thinks of Adam Schiff.
He just reiterated what he thinks.
He used those words, enemy within.
Then, separately, the question of if there was some kind of mass protest that is related to the turnover of power, Trump said he wanted to make sure that there was nothing dangerous happening, so he'd do whatever he needed, including if that meant calling in the military.
But it would be calling in the military to avoid all danger.
It would be calling in the military to make sure no Democrats got hurt.
It's literally the opposite of calling in the military to take out the enemy within.
It would be bringing in the military to make sure that everybody was protected, including the enemy within, including Adam Schiff.
Meaning that the military wouldn't say, well, don't kill anybody except Adam Schiff.
No, the military would be protecting Adam Schiff.
That would be The job of the president and the military, if he called them, that would be, you know, last resort.
Now, I don't think he would call them, because probably the National Guard could do the job.
Which he said.
But if you had to call in the military to keep the peace, wouldn't it be nice to have the option?
I mean, you could argue that maybe you should never do that.
But it's certainly the right instinct to reduce the level of violence.
So then Harris puts them together and makes it act like...
But she does it with...
She tries to convince you with her face and her crying.
So instead of saying, I think Trump wants to use the military to shoot Democrats, she does it like this.
He wants to, but he wants to, he wants to bring the military, the military people, the military.
And she just makes it act like if I say it with a more tortured face, it'll be more believable.
And so she takes liar face to the highest level.
Oh, he wants to wow, wow!
Very convincing.
Anyways.
I wanted to mention that if you heard that Jim Gaffigan, who was the comedic host at that Al Smith dinner thing that Trump was doing the jokes at, he did poke at Harris, sort of that her package wasn't funny, so to speak.
But then he said this joke.
He said, the Democrats have been telling us Trump's reelection is a threat to democracy.
In fact, they were so concerned of this threat, they staged a coup, ousted their democratically elected incumbent, and installed Kamala Harris.
He said, sometimes prayers take three and a half years in George Clooney op-ed.
Now, if you heard that completely out of context, you would say to yourself, is he a Trump supporter?
Because the main claim, the single biggest claim Democrats are making is that Trump is the one who's going to steal your democracy.
And Gaffigan's joke does what jokes do, often, is they reveal a truth that the Democrats are the one who have demonstrated a willingness to steal democracy and just did it right in front of you.
Now, if you didn't know anything about anybody, You would say that's a very pro-Trump person who's sort of sneaking in.
Probably one of the most powerful jabs you could ever make at the Democratic brainwashing operation.
That the whole steal your democracy is projection, basically.
I mean, he doesn't say it's projection, but he's saying it's projection.
Now, I would like to give you a little behind-the-scenes knowledge.
So I know Jim Gaffigan a little bit.
I worked with him on a commercial for Barnes& Noble many years ago when neither of us were very well known.
And I thought that he might have remembered that he worked with me one day.
So when he got much more famous and I was at a show of his in Vegas with my ex at the time, I thought, hey, I think I'll see if I can say hi to him after the show.
So I handed a note to one of the ushers, and I said, hey, I'm so-and-so.
I think I told him I was the creator of Dilbert or something.
And I said, I know Jim Gaffigan.
Can I say hi after the show?
So he gave him the note, and the message came back.
Yeah, he says, come on back.
Now, here's what I didn't know at the time.
He did not remember that he'd ever met me.
But apparently he liked Dilbert.
And he thought, oh, the Dilbert guy wants to say hi, that'd be fun.
So my ex and I went backstage afterwards.
And when we figured out, oh, you don't remember me?
It was just like, that was funny.
So then we talked a little bit about politics because he was apparently aware of my Trump support at the time.
This was the first election.
So this is back in 2016.
And so we had this long conversation about politics.
He listened very politely, respectfully to any opinions I had.
Didn't really push back on anything.
I had his own opinions, which, you know, are his opinions, so it's not for me to give them.
But here's what I can tell you.
I have no idea who he supports.
I have no idea.
And that's my compliment to him.
If you can talk to somebody for, you know, an hour, and a lot of it's about politics, and when you leave, you're not sure who they're going to vote for, that's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
He was very honest about what holes in his own knowledge he had.
You know, there's some things I knew that he hadn't heard.
He absorbed it all.
He had genuine curiosity.
He wasn't, you know, he wasn't mocking me or putting me down for my opinions, which you might expect from somebody who you assume would be Democrat leaning.
And I think he is actually, but I don't know.
Like if I had to guess, probably lifelong Democrat, but could be a Republican.
And that's my compliment.
When you say that people are independents, you rarely mean it, right?
There aren't real independents, people who actually might vote one way or the other depending on what makes sense.
He might be.
He might be the real deal.
So, I don't know.
I don't know.
But this joke is, if you didn't know that he's a genuinely open-minded person who is seeking reality, which he is, I can confirm that, he is seeking reality.
It might get different.
But I think he would hit both sides with equal gusto and And I don't think this reveals anything.
It doesn't reveal anything about who he would vote for, because he might have equal complaints on both sides.
Well, you probably heard that Israel, they say they got lucky.
Some people say it might have been more planned, but Sinwar, the head of Hamas, and the person who was most responsible for everything, I guess, including October 7th, has been killed in an operation.
And so a lot of people are speculating that that will change things, because once the main person behind Hamas is dead, and probably a lot of their lieutenants and underlings are dead as well, It might be time that Hamas would say, hmm, maybe we should talk about exchanging these prisoners for a ceasefire.
I'm here to tell you, forget about that.
Nothing like that's going to happen.
They're not going to get more flexible because you killed their leader.
It's like if you've paid no attention to the Middle East ever, you might think that.
But no, killing somebody's leader just about never makes things better.
Just about never.
But if you kept killing the leaders and you got down several layers of capability, then it can make a difference.
I've speculated before that the top two or three people in any successful organization Probably make a big difference.
But once you get to that sort of that fourth, then chance comes into it.
Or what are the odds the fourth one's like a superstar?
Because in order to make something like Hamas or Al-Qaeda work, with limited resources and everything, somebody at the top has to be really good at whatever they're doing.
And if you get rid of the top two or three, You're probably not going to have somebody who is as good as the founders.
Probably not, right?
So I think Israel's moving in the right direction.
Netanyahu said Hamas will no longer rule Gaza.
So they're very clear that all of Hamas has to be dismantled.
It looks like the only idea that I saw that sounded feasible is that you do what I called, years ago I called it a filter fence, that if you can't bring peace to the population the way the population is, And you can't kill them all because you're not monsters.
The only thing you can do is create peaceful zones that are entirely gated and then let in the people that you know are safe.
But only if you know they're safe.
Like, babies, yes.
So just really, really, really carefully know they're safe.
And then you build a safe community, and then you expand the number of safe ones.
But you'll always have this mixed one that you're trying to shrink, which has a lot of bad people in it.
And you keep trying to, you know, whack them all the bad ones, but you know they're going to come back.
And then eventually you build some communities where people have something to hope for, something to live for, something that's working out, something you can make peace with, and then you can talk about the politics.
But you can't really just pacify it the way it is.
You can't just say, all right, Hamas, it looks like you got nothing but rubble.
So make a government.
We'll see if we...
Nothing like that's going to happen.
So I think it was Petraeus who described the idea of building the walled cities that are safe and only letting in the safest, most vetted people.
And then once in, you make sure you control the schools because you're going to have to control the brainwashing to make sure they don't re-radicalize just over the internet or something.
So, that's going.
Ukraine's government, according to the Brussels signal, they're alarmed by rising desertions.
So, allegedly, the first eight months of this year, they had 46,000 soldiers desert.
Some say it might be more.
But here's my question.
If you were a Ukrainian or Russian soldier...
Shouldn't you desert?
You should desert right away.
Because the war is over.
The war is over.
It's going to be something like the current borders.
And if you give your life for the status quo, you're an idiot.
Why would you give your life for the status quo?
Nobody does that.
So desertion is the number one thing you should do.
Now, I suppose if only one side deserted massively, then the borders would change.
But I feel like the Ukrainians and the Russians should be talking to each other at the fighting level.
At the soldier level, they should be making a deal for a mass desertion on the same day and just both sides do it.
Because I'm sure that the officers would try to have you killed for deserting, but not if you all do it.
If everybody deserts and just says, hey, we're done.
Our leaders have completely failed us, and we don't need to wait four months for Trump to do something.
Let's just desert.
Now, of course, that could never happen.
Or could it?
My point is, every person who dies from really a while ago, but everybody dying from now on is completely wasted.
You can't make an argument that it was somehow to somebody's benefit.
It was just poor management on both sides.
Poor management is killing people.
It's not Russia.
You know, Russia is maybe the tool that's killing them, but it's bad leadership that's killing people because nothing's going to change on the borders.
So it's just a leadership death trap.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my prepared remarks for today.
I thought it was awesome.
I hope you enjoyed it.
And I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately.
By the way, if I haven't told you, the local subscribers get my Man Cave broadcast, my pre-show broadcast, my brief after comments.
They get the Robots Read News comic.
They get Dilbert Reborn comic every single day.
Oh, here's the funny thing.
So if you're a local subscriber, or also if you subscribe on X to the Dilbert Reborn comic, I give you both the current one that I did a few days ago, and then I give you one that was 10 years from the publication date, 10 years earlier.
And both of them are about robots today.
So 10 years ago, the comic was about a walking robot that was the supervisor of WALL-E. And this week, 10 years later, we see the Optimus robots walking and right on the verge of taking jobs.
So 10 years ago, I was basically writing comics for today.
That's weird.
Anyway, so if you want to see all that stuff that's on Locals, go to scottadams.locals.com, and I'm going to go talk to those amazing people right now.
