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, Ozempic, Geothermal Energy, Embryo IQ Technology, University Michigan DEI, Culture of Grievance, Political Right Hoax Awareness, Tim Walz Buffalo Run, Hoax Debunkers, Fake News Identification, Georgia Vote Flipping Allegations, Cenk Uygur, Steve Bannon Early Release, President Trump J6, 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 there's never been a better time in the world.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
That's right.
Go.
Delicious.
So there's a study of studies that says that strawberries are not only good for your heart, but they're good for your brain.
It'll reduce your dimension.
It'll make your heart tick forever.
Hey!
I wonder who would do a big expensive story on strawberries?
Hmm.
Hmm.
Trust the science.
Huh.
Maybe I should check to see who funded it.
Let's see.
Checking.
Checking.
Funding.
This work was supported by the California Strawberry Commission.
Yeah.
Strawberry California.
So, big strawberry.
Do you believe a study...
By the people who are involved in the industry, that their industry is awesome and it makes you smarter and live forever?
Well, you shouldn't.
I don't think you can believe big strawberry when it comes to a study about strawberries.
I've got a feeling they might be biased.
They might be.
Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with strawberries.
I eat them every single day.
But I love them, actually.
Here's another tip.
Don't put your strawberries in the refrigerator.
They will be instantly ruined.
And that's what you need to know about strawberries.
Did you know that Ozempic, in addition to making you lose weight, has promising results for treating alcohol and drug abuse?
Turns out that if you study the people who are on Ozempic, They have also cut way down on alcohol and drugs.
Now, do you trust that study?
What do the people who have that go to the doctor and get Ozempic, what do they have in common with each other?
Do they have anything in common with each other?
Well, let me put the hypnotist filter on it.
When people would ask me as a trained hypnotist, Scott, can you use hypnosis to help me quit smoking?
I would say, yes.
It works exactly as well as every other method you would try.
And if they come to me and say, Scott, can hypnosis help me lose weight?
I would say, yes.
It works exactly as well as every other method you could try.
Do you know why?
Here's why hypnotists know that once you've decided you're going to do something, you're going to make it work.
So if you decided first and then you used hypnosis, it would work.
If you decided first and then decided you're going to use patches or take a class or something, it would work.
It's the deciding that's the active part.
Now, if you took a whole bunch of people who had decided, because it's not cheap, right?
There's some risk involved, some expense involved, some time involved.
If you did all that to cut down on food because you wanted to become healthier, don't you think probably that would be the same group that would say, you know what?
If I'm trying to lose weight, why would I keep drinking?
Yeah, if I'm trying to lose weight, why would I smoke some weed and get the munchies?
So, I think that this is definitely worth studying.
However, I would be open to the possibility that the only thing that's happening is that the people had really made up their minds to change their lives, made up their mind to change their lives, and you get benefits in all the areas.
I would go further and say it wouldn't surprise me if people doing Ozempic Maybe exercise a little more?
Because again, it would be the people who had decided the way I used to be is not the way I'm willing to be anymore.
So probably that affected more than just one decision.
That's my guess.
Could go the other way.
Could be the Olympic users are the ones who don't exercise because they're thinking, well, I don't need to exercise.
Everything's going great.
Losing weight like crazy.
So it could go either way.
But I would guess...
That once you decide to fix your life, that all the things that need to be done right start falling into line.
It's the deciding that's the hard part.
All right.
Apparently a thousand protesters went to protest the Kellogg company.
They say that the additives in the food is poisoning our children.
Have you heard so many people use the word poison to describe our food supply before the last, say, year or so?
I feel like that wasn't as common.
There were a lot of people saying, oh, the food supply isn't safe, or they used other words.
But the word poison...
I feel like that's a new entry.
Are you feeling the same thing?
You know, we've done Sugar is Poison.
That was a book.
I often say alcohol is poison.
That's taken on kind of a viral quality.
But this word poison is really powerful.
If you say, oh, this isn't as good for you as this thing, it's not very active.
But when you say something is poison and then you add children, you've really got a strong message.
This is poison.
You're giving it to our children.
Now, I don't know the science behind the Kellogg situation, so I don't have a specific claim on my own, but I'll tell you the persuasion is strong.
If you say you're poisoning children, You're going to have to answer that claim one way or the other.
Let's see.
The Biden administration is going to reduce the environmental review process for geothermal.
So geothermal is where you drill a really deep hole in the ground where there's tons of heat, and you release that heat and use it to turn a turbine, I guess, and it generates electricity.
But in order to dig one of these really deep holes and build one of these plants, you've got to do these environmental reviews, which apparently were burdensome, and they are being altered to make it easier.
And one of these plants is going in right now in Utah?
Somewhere.
Anyway, this is all recorded in The Hill.
But here's what I have to say.
You know, as much as we complain about our government, and we like one side versus the other, it does seem to me that the Department of Energy...
Has been doing consistently the right things through two administrations.
And, you know, maybe if I were closer to it, I'd say, no, they should have gone faster or they should do way more than they're doing.
But every time I hear a story that's related to the Department of Energy, it's at least directionally correct.
So here they are doing something that makes it easier to do geothermal.
Of course, I love that.
It's the least polluting thing you could even think of.
And they're doing a lot for the approvals of especially small nuclear power plants in the United States, which is exactly what I want them to do.
So I'm sure if I looked into it, I could find lots of things to complain about because big bureaucratic groups always have something wrong.
But I got to say, across two administrations with two different leaderships, They seem to be pushing the country in the right direction.
And the beauty of that is that if you get energy right, a whole lot of other things work out on their own.
Like the economy.
If we lowered energy prices and made the environment clean, suddenly everything starts fixing itself.
I've been saying for maybe 20 years that the most important technology in the world would be holes.
Just holes.
If you could figure out how to make a hole in the ground really cheaply, then you could do all the geothermal you wanted.
And you'd have basically unlimited energy.
But the trouble is digging the hole.
So if you can figure out holes, you pretty much solve most of the big problems in energy.
There is a study by Min Jae Kim in The Conversation.
Found out that voters' moral flexibility, as you call it, helps them defend politicians' misinformation.
So what it means is, if you like your politician, and you generally like the side that your politician is on, and they come up with some BS, and you say to yourself, hmm, that's the politician I like, but even I can tell that's a lie, that you will rationalize their lie And disinformation as being not so bad, because at least it's what you want.
So if you want what that politician is offering, the study shows that you're going to be willing to flexibly accept that they're using some hyperbole.
Maybe their facts don't exactly match up, but you're still happy about where they're going, so you're okay with it.
What does that sound like?
Do you think they needed to do that study?
Or...
Or do you think they could have just asked me?
The developer of the statement that Trump is, even when his hyperbole is off base, he is directionally correct.
That's all this is.
It's saying that if you like where your politician is heading, you don't mind if they do a little hyperbole, a little exaggeration, maybe get some facts wrong.
It doesn't really matter.
Right?
So, I use this argument all the time with Trump, which is, if you want the border closed, and Trump's telling some stories and maybe some of them are not exactly true, if it gets the border closed, I'm pretty happy about it.
Right?
Am I going to mind that he got some anecdotal story wrong and maybe it wasn't because of illegal migrants that somebody died?
I don't really care.
As long as it gets the border closed.
And if telling stories that get people worked up gets it done, yes, I am morally flexible.
So, yeah, you didn't need to do this study.
You could have asked me.
I'm totally morally flexible about saving lives and keeping people safe.
If it takes a little fibbing, I'm okay with that.
I mean, I would prefer there were none, but if you have to choose between two fibbers, I'll take the fibber that's directionally accurate.
Anyway, There's a U.S. startup that can charge you a lot of money, up to $50,000, to screen your embryo for IQ. I guess this is only applicable to people who are doing the in vitro fertilization, so you've got a number of eggs, and you can check which ones you think you like the best.
So what do you think of that?
50,000, of course, we'll limit it to a very select group of people.
But if you could do it cheaply, if you could do it cheaply, would you pick the high IQ baby dev for your own baby?
If you don't, I would have many questions for you.
Because the correlation between IQ and success is so clear, so clear, that if you had the option of doing it and you didn't do it, I'd have to wonder about you.
I mean, mental health is just one part of health.
If you could screen and you found out that one was going to be...
I won't mention any specific physical problem because then there'll be somebody who will say, hey, you're talking about me.
But you can imagine that we all know there's a certain set of physical traits that'll make your life easier.
A little bit taller...
It's a little bit easier than a little bit shorter.
A little bit smarter is definitely easier than not smart.
So if you could control for these things, yeah, you'd do it.
Why wouldn't you?
In a sense, people are already doing it because when they're looking at donors, sperm donors, you know that guy who's the CEO and founder of Signal?
I think it's the Signal app.
And he's unusually good-looking.
So he's tall, unusually good-looking, and brilliant, and apparently he's been chosen as a sperm donor like a thousand times.
You just have to take one look at him and then look at what he does for a living, and you'd be like, okay, all right, we'll take that one.
That's pretty good.
So yeah, of course, people are going to choose IQ if they can.
So it's legal to do this in the United States, but it is illegal in Great Britain.
You can't select for IQ. Okay, let's run the tape forward.
Okay, we'll start in 2024.
We've got two countries.
We've got the Great Britain and we've got the United States.
The United States, we have the technology and the legal ability to choose IQ in our children.
In the Great Britain, let's say they keep it the same and we fast forward it a couple hundred years and they do not have the legal right to choose smarter children.
How do things look in 200 years?
Unfortunately, if one of the countries has unrestricted immigration and no IQ, no ability to choose IQ of your own babies, you're going to have a dumber country.
Because it's not the geniuses moving in.
Because the geniuses probably have lots of options and they're fine where they are.
It's the people who are struggling.
So if you let in people who are struggling, you're going to get a lot of great workers, great people.
There's nothing wrong with anybody at any level of the IQ. It's not a judgment call.
It's just a statement that it's correlated with success.
And Great Britain would be toast compared to a country that had been managing to IQ. They'd be toast.
Unless they had a better school system and then they'd beat us anyway.
Anyway.
According to the Daily Caller, Jennifer Newelly is writing about...
There's a big university, University of Michigan, that in the years since they've been working on DEI, they spent $250 million on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
That's good.
That's good.
So they spent a lot of money on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
So can you imagine the benefits they've gotten from that?
Wow.
Wow.
It feels so unfair.
Because imagine the colleges that didn't spend any money on it.
Imagine going to one of those hell holes.
But if you want to go to a place that's really got it worked out, some place that's futuristic, you know, they're taking care of all the people, not just some, but all the people.
Spent $250 million on DEI. Let's see how they're doing.
According to this article, students were less likely to interact with those of a different race, religion, or political.
Okay.
So it made people stay away from each other.
Huh.
How could they have saved $250 million?
If the end result was that people were emphasizing the differences, and then that caused them to stay away from each other, what would be a way to save money?
Well, they could have just told them, why don't you just stay away from each other?
I'm not suggesting you should, but if all they got for $250 million was people staying away from each other, there was probably a cheaper way to get to that point.
Hey, hey, everybody, you all think the other is an asshole.
Why don't you just stay away from each other?
Huh.
Well, now that could work.
There's nothing about DEI that's good.
It's like no matter what they try to do, it comes out bad.
Now, this, by the way, would be no surprise to anybody who's studied persuasion.
If I wanted you to think obsessively about the worst thing that you could be thinking about, I would make it the focus of my spending.
So if I wanted you to spend a lot of time thinking about your racial differences, I would make a DEI group.
I could predict that if I made a big expense and a big program around anything, that you would be thinking about it more.
That would be the whole point, to make you think about it more.
So if you spend more time thinking about how you're a victim and how your classmate is your oppressor, how do you think that was going to go in the long run?
Well, you know, if you were to, if you were just sort of, you know, game that out on paper, and you're like the designer of the system, it's like, all right, we're going to design a system.
We're going to say, let's say half of the people, we're going to say that they're the oppressors, and the other half will be the victims, the victims.
And we'll make sure that everybody knows that this half is oppressors, even if they had nothing to do with anything.
It was their ancestors.
And this group is the victims, even if they're doing fine, but maybe their ancestors weren't.
How do you think that would go in the long run?
There's only one way that goes.
Those people end up not wanting to spend time with each other.
What other way could that end up?
Even on paper that doesn't work.
All right, here's the best news for me personally in a long time.
Every now and then there'll be a thing that sneaks up on you.
Because, you know, bad news sort of hits you in the face.
Like, ah, bad news.
Good news sometimes is a gradual process.
Where something's improving over time and then one day you just notice, hey, wow, that didn't used to be the case.
That's like way better now.
Here's my example.
Many of you saw, and I mentioned it a few times, there was a terrible rumor about Tim Walz.
I told you on livestream that I wasn't even going to tell you what the rumor was, because the credibility of it was low.
It was based on one eyewitness and one account we didn't know about.
It was a little too on the nose, and it was at that time when rumors happened.
So I warned you to be careful about that one.
And I was cautious enough that I didn't even tell you what the rumor was.
And now I'm glad, because the person spreading the rumor just disappeared.
So the account that had the rumors gone, I don't know if they got canceled or what.
But there was no further confirming evidence.
So nobody found anything that would support it.
Now, here's the bigger point.
It seems to me that the political right, the Republican conservative types, have now developed an immune system that wasn't there before.
And the immune system is for hoaxes.
And what I mean by that is that what happened when this particular story hit the news is that a whole bunch of people immediately sent it to me.
And they said, is this real?
But I wasn't the only one.
I think a number of other people on the internet who you thought were credible that maybe could help you determine if something's a hoax, I'll bet they also got it.
So I don't know for sure, but I'd be surprised if nobody sent it to, you know, say Mike Cervich or Bongino or some people you know, just to say, does this look real to you?
Now, I can tell you that I know Joshua Steinman said, this could be one of those bull run or buffalo run plays.
A buffalo run is where you create a fake story and you see if you can get one side to embrace it.
And then if they do, you can say they're all idiots and stupid and they believe in fake news.
So you can discredit people who had been doing well until that point So you could take out, let's say, Alex Jones.
You could take him out with a fake story or something like that.
I think that's what happened to Sidney Powell.
I don't have confirmation of that, but I think that's what happened to her with that Kraken story.
And I recognized that at the time.
I don't know if you remember, but I called that out as, I feel like somebody's setting her up so that anything else she says, you're not going to believe.
And I think that's actually what happened.
I don't have confirmation.
But anyway, this latest story about Walsh probably was a Buffalo run, and maybe somebody was just seeing how much attention they could get.
But it feels like maybe somebody on the other team was trying to create a rumor that we could all get slapped down on, and then we'd look silly, and then people would be discredited.
But I asked today, I asked for people for a list of people that they would go to if they were trying to figure out if something was a hoax.
And so I'm just going to read you the names of people who other people say they would trust enough to say, hey, let me check with you first.
Now, nobody said check with CNN. Nobody said MSNBC, Fox News, any of those.
They were looking to individual, I don't want to say high value, but let's say high credibility people.
Now, to be fair, because I asked the question in my own X feed, most people said me as the person they would go to to To figure out if something was true or a hoax.
Now, of course, I'm not 100% because this is not a 100% game, but I appreciate it if those of you who have watched me over the years develop a set of tools that I often remind you of have had a spot of hoax.
Okay, is it one story of one anonymous person who heard somebody say something?
You know, so I always give you the examples.
I tell you, oh, that's too on the nose.
I look at maybe the source.
So those of you who have been with me know that I have a toolbox that I use regularly to spot fake news.
Do I get every one right?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
But the toolbox is pretty good.
So even if you say, Scott, you're not very accurate, the tools are.
The tools are pretty accurate.
If you just use them, you'd have the same result.
So I'm going to read you the names of people that I thought, as well as the people who suggested them, I thought that these are the ones who are, let's say, the white blood cells of the political right.
These are the people who will surround and destroy a hoax.
So if you knew that three or four people on this list I'm going to read thought that the truth was in one direction or the other, I would certainly listen to them.
Now, I'm on the list, but even if you take me off, This is a group that I consider more credible and more able to spot hoaxes than the average person.
You ready?
So I don't know if I'll write this down, but I'll just mention them if you want to play it back later.
All right.
Joshua Steinman, Mike Cernovich.
There's me, of course.
Dan Bongino, Mike Benz, Mike Benz especially for the deep state stuff, and Bongino especially for anything that has to do with Secret Service or the way the hard people work.
I don't know.
His expertise is pretty wide.
Catherine Herridge, now she's from the Real News, but she has an unusually good reputation for not falling for BS. Molly Hemingway, one of my favorites, Julie Kelly, Jack Posadok, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Michael Schellenberger, Megan Kelly.
Victor Davis Hanson.
Tim Pool.
And then here's some accounts that we don't know their names, but they're accounts on X. Amuse.
Cynical Publius.
It's all one word.
Cynical Publius.
Maze.
M-A-Z-E. That's not the handle, but that's the name of the account.
Jonathan Turley for anything legal.
Alan Dershowitz for anything legal.
And Vivek Ramaswamy is just generally good at spotting stuff.
Now, it's not a complete list.
I mentioned Matt Tybee.
It's not a complete list, but it does operate as like an immune system.
So this was not true in 2015.
In 2015, you couldn't tell me, oh, if there's a fake story in the news, I've got a few people I'll check with.
So I'll check their account and see what they're saying about it.
That wasn't true.
But today, you've got, what was this, 15 names?
You've got 15 people that you could check, and if you saw that three of them were debunking something...
I would take that pretty seriously.
If any three of these people debunked a story, it wouldn't matter which three.
If any three of them said, I'd hold on on this one, hold on on that one.
So that's your advice for today.
And by the way, I love the fact that the political right...
Derives its power from the group.
It seems that the political left is deriving its power from the top.
Some shadowy figures, maybe Obama and Pelosi and God knows who, Soros.
But you can see that the political right is a bottom-up situation.
You saw that when Trump visited the barbershop...
You probably saw that I was suggesting, you know, Trump should go to a barbershop.
I said it for a few weeks.
But I wasn't the only one.
And I have no reason to believe that that's the reason he went to the barbershop.
I think probably there were, if I had to guess, probably several people Black advisors to Trump who said, you know, you know what would be a good idea?
Black barbershop.
So when you watch Trump, you often see somebody who's continually scanning his own field and looking for ideas.
And one of the things I also teach you is the person who's in charge in any situation is the one with the best idea.
Because you can't resist the best idea.
So if you had the future president of the United States and also a past president, you'd say, that's the most powerful person in the room.
But if one of the persons in the room Had the idea, you know, it'd look good.
Go to a black barbershop, you'd kill it.
That's the best idea in the room.
So whoever said that's in charge, because that's what Trump did.
Now, it's hard to wrap your head around that, that the best idea is always in charge, but it is.
You'll see it a million times.
And I think it's uniquely well-formed on the right, and I think that Trump has a lot to do with that, because it's so obvious that he is listening to the ideas that are bubbling up, and he's putting value on them.
Marjorie Taylor Greene sounds the alarm, according to the Gateway Pundit.
On some voting machines that have allegedly switched votes in Georgia's 14th district.
What that means is somebody voted a certain way and then they printed out the ballot and the printed ballot that should have matched what they just did on the screen is the opposite.
That's right.
There are reported stories.
That this cycle, apparently, people are voting and then printing it out and it doesn't match what they voted.
Now, this is one machine.
How can it happen on one machine?
Do you think one of those machines had a bad piece of hardware?
Was it a hardware problem that made one machine vote opposite of what the actual vote was?
Doesn't sound like it, does it?
If you've ever been around hardware and software, if you had two machines and one of them was changing the vote, you probably would rule out hardware as the problem.
A hardware problem is where just something doesn't work.
That's a software problem.
Now, if you knew that there was one machine, and let's say you could confirm it, and by the way, I have not confirmed this.
So remember I just told you to watch out for hoaxes?
I'm going to tell you on this one, if you have one account of one machine, that's not good enough.
So I need more on this before I believe it.
Now, all it would take is extra witnesses because it sounds like the report would be something that it sounds like they repeated it so that actually people stood there and said, wait, can you do that again?
And they reproduced the problem.
So I think there are multiple witnesses.
Now, I would like to hear literally from the multiple witnesses.
I don't want to hear a report that somebody talked to multiple witnesses.
For something like this, I want to see more than one person say, I was standing there.
I was in the room.
I watched it with my own eyes.
I watched it change.
If you give me that, I believe it.
Now, here's the problem.
Suppose you do convince me that this happened on one machine once.
It's software.
How in the world does one machine get software that changes votes?
Just one?
Nobody in the world would believe it was on just one machine.
Now, if you were going to put that sort of thing into a machine, would you make it change every vote?
Or would you do it on maybe just some machines?
Because you wouldn't need to do it everywhere.
Or would you do it at a random interval?
Such that it would do it every time for every 13th vote, but all the rest would be normal.
How would you do it?
Well, I wouldn't do it for every vote because that would be too obvious.
But if it happened on one machine, I would cancel the election.
Let me say that again.
If it were confirmed that that one machine in one precinct this one time reversed the vote, I would cancel the whole election.
And I would say, we can't use machines anymore.
And then I would say, give us six months, change out every system, do it on paper, make the election one day, you better bring your ID, and then we'll have a real election.
But we're already at the point where there isn't really any chance we can have a real election here, people.
You know that, right?
I mean, I don't want to be like a crazy, you know, the wolf is coming, but we're well beyond the point where we're going to believe the outcome of the election, aren't we?
Is most of the country so not paying attention that they don't know what's going on?
We're well beyond trusting the outcome of the election.
I already reject it, unless it goes the way I want.
I'm going to be very clear about this.
If Trump gets elected, which is what I want, I'm going to accept the outcome.
If he doesn't get elected, and the polls are similar to kind of what they are now, and it looks like there's some shenanigans and more reports like this, which there will be, I'm not going to accept the outcome.
Nobody should.
Nobody should accept an outcome that looks sketchy when you have a system that's designed not to tell you who got elected.
So do not tell me in advance that I need to accept the election.
Do not ask me in advance, will I accept the election?
The answer is, can you do an election that is credible?
The answer is no.
So I'm going to accept it if I like it.
And that is the correct answer.
The correct answer is I will accept it if it looks legitimate and it's the one I want to win.
If it doesn't look legitimate and it's not the one I want to win, I am absolutely not going to accept it, which means we don't have a real election that we're going into.
Whatever is going to happen is not an election.
I have no idea what the fuck this is going to be, but it looks like just a disaster to me.
So I would say the odds of massive street protests are pretty high, no matter which way it goes.
So that's coming.
But luckily, there's only this one story about this machine changing a vote.
Thank goodness it's only happening in this one place.
Except that...
There have been multiple complaints in Texas about the same thing.
So, apparently we've got a problem here.
Got a problem.
On a separate topic, Megyn Kelly had a Dr.
Marty Macari on, talking about the story of how we came to believe in the past that fat, the natural kind of fat, was bad for us.
Turns out it was just, there was some politician scientist named Ansel Keys, Who after Eisenhower had a heart attack, he just said, must have been all the fat he ate.
And then for years, the entire food industry decided that fat was bad for you.
Because the guy said it once.
That's sort of the whole story.
There was a guy who said it once.
And then all of the dietary, the dietary model for the entire world changed.
Because the guy said it once.
None of it was true.
Turns out that fat's not so bad for you.
But what will kill you is the things that people were eating instead of fat.
So they started eating more carbs and processed foods and everything went to hell.
Anyway, you've probably seen this by now, but it remains funny.
So, Musk was doing his Pennsylvania rallies.
He's doing several rallies to help Trump in Pennsylvania.
And he talked about, he saw Mark Cuban being interviewed by Rachel Maddow and he couldn't tell them apart.
Now, it's very politically incorrect because I'm sure it's insulting somebody, but because you can't figure out which one is being insulted, it's diabolically clever as an insult. but because you can't figure out which one is being Because my first thought is, hey, he's insulting...
Oh, wait a minute.
Is he insulting Rachel Maddow?
Or is he insulting Mark Cuban?
Or wait a minute, all he's saying is they look the same.
But which one's being insulted?
Are they both being insulted?
And here's the thing, they're both good-looking people.
So it becomes extra confusing because, in my opinion, I mean, you can disagree if you like, but they're both good-looking people.
Period.
They're just both good-looking people.
Most people would rather look like one of them than whatever they look like.
If you count good hair and good skin and tall and stuff like that.
So, I don't know.
I just think it's hilarious when he says it.
I laugh every time.
And I just love how complicated it is when you think about who's getting insulted and why.
I don't like to insult people's physical appearance too much.
I'm sure I break my own rules sometimes.
But this one's funny just because they're both brilliant, successful, rich, good-looking people, so it doesn't hit like it would be if you're punching down.
All right.
Some of you know that the Young Turks host Cenk, and I hope I pronounce his last name right.
Is it Uyghur?
Is it Cenk Uyghur?
Is that close to the correct pronunciation?
For some reason, I never hear his last name pronounced Out loud.
I see it written all the time.
And I see his first name sometimes pronounced.
But I've never heard a single person on TV or social media say his last name.
And I keep waiting for it, so I'll say it correct.
Uyghur.
Oh, I'm being corrected here.
It's Uyghur, not Uyghur.
Thank you.
Okay.
So the correct pronunciation would be Uyghur.
So U-Y would be pronounced as if it were backwards.
Perfect.
I'm dyslexic, so I'll get that right every time.
Anyway, he said, Trump is crazy, and the fact that half of this country can't see it is one of the most amazing things in my lifetime.
So here we go.
I challenge any conservative with a real audience to debate me, either on our air or yours on Trump.
So I volunteered.
I sent him an email this morning.
I haven't heard back.
I just sent it before the show.
Now, I don't know if I have a big enough platform.
He's looking for somebody who's got an audience.
Maybe mine isn't big enough.
But I loved how he started it.
And this is what I like about him.
Trump is so crazy.
And the fact that half this country can't see it is one of the most amazing things in my lifetime.
So, he is noticing, so here's what I like about him.
I disagree with Cenk a lot, you know, on politics.
But whenever I see him wrestling with it, he seems to be using the right tools.
In other words, he's a smart guy who understands bias and he understands that we're kind of hypnotized half the time.
And he seems to simply just be working with different information.
And I feel like if he and I were exposed to exactly the same information, We might actually have very similar opinions.
So that's what makes it fascinating.
There's some people who you say, okay, no matter how much I talk to them, they're never going to change their mind because they'd be too embarrassed to ever change their mind.
I don't think he is.
I think Cenk, if he heard a better argument live in the context of where he was even trying to win the argument, I believe he's actually bold enough that he could change his mind right in front of you.
And I could too.
I could actually do that as well.
I could completely modify my opinion if I heard something from him that I never heard that sounded real.
I could say, huh, that's actually a pretty good point.
Now, there aren't many people who can do that because the embarrassment of changing your mind in public is pretty extreme.
But if you watch him operate for a while, he doesn't seem like he's operating under fear.
So he doesn't seem to have a fear variable, which means that you could deal with him on a logical basis.
He would have all the logic and the knowledge, but he wouldn't have the fear that would make him locked into a point of view.
So that's what's different.
So otherwise I wouldn't have bothered because you'd just be, you know, somebody would be talking over you and the time would run out, nothing would happen.
But I actually think he's a real player.
He's not an NPC. It doesn't mean it would go well, but as something that would be worth a shot, I think his audience would be benefited from hearing my point of view, because it would be distinct from something they've heard before.
And I think I would benefit from hearing his point of view, because I'm not sure I fully understand it.
So I volunteered.
And I would add this to my earlier statements.
About the names you've learned as your immune system against fake news.
That the fact that Cenk and I could even have this exchange is a positive thing.
Because if you say to me, I'm going to take two elected politicians or two candidates for elected office and they're going to have a debate, the first thing I say is, well, that's worthless.
Because they're both going to lie about a bunch of stuff and then time will run out and nobody fact checks them.
But if you took two people who are not running for office, who have some pattern in their past of looking for what's true as opposed to just trying to win, then you really have something.
Potentially.
If you have two people who honestly just want to understand the thing, That's something.
Because that's not what the politicians are doing.
The politicians are trying to win the election, and everybody understands that.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Everybody gets that.
But it is possible that two people who are not running for election, who both would really most like to just understand what's true and what's not true, that's different.
That's different.
And this might be one of those cases.
I don't know.
It's worth a shot.
Well, according to the Daily Caller, Trump is leading in all major swing state polling averages.
And then also, according to Fox News poll, Trump is also ahead in the popular vote by 2%.
Now, you know that there are other polls that still say different.
But I did see that most of the polls are starting to tighten up, and they're at least saying that Trump is either statistically tied when it used to be way behind.
So right on time, just as you imagined, the polls are tightening up.
According to Fox News' Sarah Rumpf Witten, polls are also finding that most Americans say they're worse off from four years ago.
Now, in the article...
I noted that, well, the article noted that the last time it was so bad was under Bill Clinton.
The last time that people thought they were worse off.
Now, Bill Clinton managed to beat a somewhat popular incumbent, you know, in Bush Senior.
It's very unusual to beat an incumbent, but Part of the reason is because people thought they were worse off, and Clinton was saying, you know, it's the economy, stupid, so he had a good message.
However, there's something missing from the story, isn't there?
Wasn't this the Ross Perot year?
If you took Ross Perot out of the mix, George Bush would have won.
So we don't really have that as an example that people will change their vote radically because they're worse off than they were.
So I'm not sure that's telling us as much as it could be telling us, but it's not nothing.
If people think they're worse off, I would think that would motivate them to vote differently.
Steve Bannon's running into a little trouble getting out of jail.
Apparently he tried to use, and this is sort of, is it ironic?
I don't know.
He tried to use the process where if you do the right things and study something, you get an early release.
Because I guess he did what he was supposed to do to get that early release, but he's just being ignored.
So it looks like they're going to keep him in jail longer than...
The process suggests, because he did the part of the process that would make him eligible for the early release, there's no reason not to.
They're just not ruling on it.
So they're just letting his request sit there for days and days and days.
So that's probably exactly what it looks like.
I like to talk about this question of whether Trump is going to jail his enemies.
So as I'm watching the fake news develop, what their new fake news message is going to be, the new one is that Trump has said in a variety of different ways, in different places, that he would try to jail his enemies.
I'm not hearing that.
Like, the only times I've heard it, it was obviously not anything to worry about, but apparently there are like four different times he said something slightly in that domain.
But here's my take.
There are a number of Democrats that, in my opinion, have so cleanly and obviously broke major laws that if you don't have them processed, the country's going to wonder why not.
Now, I'm very careful...
I don't want a President Trump to lawfare his enemies because he can.
Not cool.
Not cool at all.
But I do believe that a number of his enemies have done things that, to me, seem so obviously illegal that that should be looked into.
But if you look into it and you don't find a crime, then no.
No.
You know, I think Schiff was mentioned.
And I don't know if Schiff has committed anything that's actually a crime.
But if you look at the hoaxes that he has run on the American people, you know, the Russia collusion hoax, the laptop hoax, I was in the SCIF and I saw something that wasn't really their hoax.
And it's just one hoax after another.
Now, is any of that illegal?
I don't know.
I mean, I can't think of a specific law that would be broken by any of it.
But if there is some law that he broke...
And it's consequential, and it's not just some lawfare thing that they looked until they found something.
Yes.
Yes, I believe the legal system should do what it does.
Of course.
Now, here's what the Democrats don't understand when they complain about it.
I don't think they understand the degree of lawlessness in their own side.
It's pretty extreme.
And so if Trump decides that there are a bunch of people who are enemies and also have grossly broken the law, yeah, he should go after them.
Isn't that his job?
So the way you should talk about it is not that he's going to do some terrible, unconstitutional thing.
The question should be, shouldn't the Attorney General be prosecuting real crimes?
There's nobody I know who would be in favor of Trump jailing somebody on a made-up charge.
So let me say this as loudly and clearly as I can, in case there are any Democrats listening.
I am so out if I see Republicans trying to lawfare Democrats just because they can.
That is absolutely hard no.
I mean, I would register...
Well, I'm already registered as a Democrat for safety.
But I would start voting Democrat if you do that.
I mean, that's way over the line.
Way over the line.
Absolutely no tolerance for that whatsoever.
But real crimes?
Real crimes?
Yeah.
If they're real crimes that made a difference to the real public...
Of course.
That's the job of the Attorney General, and the President should be backing that.
Now, I think I told you that there's going to be a lot more January 6th conversations, and I can't remember if I said this only on the pre-show, I might have, but I'll say it again.
If you get in a conversation about January 6th, and specifically Trump's involvement, here's the way to handle it.
The assumption that the Democrats make is that Trump knew he lost and that everybody else knew he lost.
That's the only thing you should go after.
You should go after the fact that we do not have a system which even now could make you feel comfortable with the result and that half of the country agrees with the idea that the elections are not secure.
And I think we can say that there were some irregularities in the output that That did not look like they could have happened naturally.
Now, if you put that all together, along with Trump's natural optimism that, you know, things should go his way, the most reasonable assumption is that he did believe the election was rigged and that everything he did was in the service of correcting a mistake that the country would want corrected and that it was his job to correct.
If you believe that he knew the election was fair and he lost fair and square, well, then he's an insurrectionist.
And by the way, I would even think that myself.
I mean, not insurrectionist technically, because the law was not broken in that regard.
But if it looked like he had convinced people for years to protest and act differently based on something that was not true and he knew it, Well, I'd have a real problem with that.
But I believe it's clearly obvious that he believes still and did believe then that the election was stolen and that he was trying to fix that.
So if you get into the conversation of who died, like did Ashley Babbage, was she the only one who died?
Did the other ones die lately?
Was there danger?
You don't have to talk about any of that.
Because you know what?
Trump didn't do that.
Trump didn't hit anybody.
Now, you could say that he caused people to be worked up, but if the election had been stolen right in front of us, as it looked like to him, and as it looked like to tens of millions of Americans, that it looked like it had been stolen, I don't mind a little violence.
Now, I don't recommend it, and I wish you wouldn't do it.
But we do live in a country where if somebody tried to steal the election right in front of you, and you were pretty sure it happened, and it led to a little bit of violence, we're not worse off.
It's only the threat of violence that makes anything work.
So I prefer no violence.
And if you don't like the election outcome this time, don't do anything violent.
So avoid all violence.
Nothing good can come from it.
But it's just the truth that the threat of violence, the credible threat of violence, is the only thing that keeps society together.
The threat that somebody big will come take you out if you do something that bad.
So, the only thing that matters is, did Trump legitimately think the election was rigged?
And I wouldn't go any further in the conversation, because if he did, then he was pushing the right buttons.
Maybe there was some violence that was even caused by that.
If he was right, the risk of a little violence was an acceptable risk.
If he was right, the election was rigged, the risk, not the guarantee of it, but the risk of a little bit of violence was worth the risk.
Tragic.
That still makes it tragic.
It's not less tragic.
I'm not taking the empathy away.
But we live in a country where every now and then you've got to do something that's hard and tough to put things back on track, right?
We don't like to go to war, but sometimes we have to.
We don't like to shoot anybody who's mentally ill, but they're coming after a cop to kill them, but sometimes you have to.
And I definitely don't want any violence around anything like an election.
But if an election gets thrown right in front of you and has every signal of looking thrown, and people say it, and the saying of it causes some action, which leads to a little bit of violence, I'm not going to encourage the violence, and I'm not going to compliment it.
I'm going to note that it's a necessary variable to keep civilization in order.
So talk about only whether it was true that it was rigged and whether or not he believed it was rigged, which is more to the point.
It matters what he believed, and it matters what tens of millions of Americans believed and observed.
And at this point, I accepted the election result Because I thought the system, as bad as it was, created a result.
And I didn't see any way to fix it.
So I never changed my mind from accepting the result.
But separately, do I think that the election was rigged?
Yes.
Yes.
And I don't need evidence for that.
What I need is to look at the system and see that it's clearly designed in a way that nobody would design it if they didn't want it rigged.
It's designed to be rigged.
The design is very clear.
So the odds of it being rigged, I think, are 100%.
Now, whether it was rigged enough, I don't know.
Was it rigged in both directions?
Is it possible there was rigging both ways?
Could be.
There's nothing that would prevent that.
So I don't know who won.
But I don't think the election is something you could consider credible.
And I don't think the coming one is credible in the least.
Not even a little bit, really.
That's my opinion.
So I don't know what we're going to do about it.
I'm confident that we'll work it out.
Because the one thing I love about America, I love a lot about it, but one thing I love in particular is we're really good at figuring stuff out.
Like even hard stuff.
We will figure it out.
But I don't know how.
Because it'll be more based on who has power to do what.
It won't be based on what's logical or what's the best thing to do.
But we'll work it out one way or the other.
We'll be okay.
All right, that's all I have for this Saturday.
I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and X. I'm going to talk to the wonderful people on Locals privately for a moment.
