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, Chronic Inflammation, Daniel Penny Trial, Doctor Recommended Cancer Drugs, Cancer Drug Research, China US Interdependency, 2024 Election Polls, Dominion Warning, Overseas Voting, Trump McDonald's, 60 Minutes Kamala Edit, Kamala Heckler, Arguing Definitions, Border Bill Hoax, Byron Donalds, Elon Musk Million Dollar Giveaway, State Contest Regulations, Election Result Priming, Politico Election Priming, Hezbollah Drone, PM Netanyahu, Iran Leadership, 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
I'm going to put up some comments by the locals people, because they get the best of everything.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cuppa mug or a glass of tanker gels or 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 of the dopamine of the day thing that makes everything special.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens right now.
Go.
Oh.
Now there's something you can't mail in, am I right?
That's right.
Got to do it in person.
No ID required.
Well, I've got all kinds of things to talk about.
Shall I jump right in?
There's a, according to Wall Street Journal, there might be a big breakthrough in electric motors, which would be a gigantic big deal because the size of the breakthrough could be like an 80% efficiency.
Apparently, Ben Franklin invented a little electric motor back in his day that was not considered efficient enough, and for whatever reason, the new modern motors became the standard.
But there have been other developments in science that might make old Ben Franklin's design that seems to, instead of sending a flow of energy, does a back and forth between negative and positive somehow, and can reduce maybe your, can improve your efficiency tremendously.
Might be 80% better.
Now, that might not sound like a big story to you, But there's going to be an electric engine in every robot and every car.
If you can make them 80% more efficient, that's everything.
Like that, everything you assumed about the economy, the future, completely different just with this one invention, if it works.
Now, it's not really right on the edge of, you know, they're going to roll it out.
They need some work, but it looks like it might.
And, you know, the thing about the future and predicting it is that probably it's going to be, you know, six people in a garage somewhere trying to make an electric motor work better or somebody invented something to make a battery better or somebody figured out how to make a small modular nuclear power plant a little bit safer or better or faster.
And that's going to be everything.
Basically, you could just look at energy inventions, and you would know everything about the future of a country.
So let's hope we out-invent other countries.
I like our odds.
Now, there's a story that says, from No Ridge, that says vitamin B12 might be the key to reducing your chronic inflammation.
Well, I have lots of chronic inflammation.
I have always, and I've tried to figure out what that is all about.
And I have a pretty good opinion on this now.
Now, you could talk to your doctor.
That'd be one way to find out about your health.
Or you could listen to a disgraced cartoonist on the internet.
Which one makes more sense?
Well, it's probably closer to a tie than you'd like to admit.
But I can tell you from my own experience that what makes you have chronic inflammation is everything.
I think everything.
Every little pollution, every food additive, everything you do, everything you touch.
It feels like everything causes inflammation.
So I have experimented with taking B12 and not taking B12, and I can tell you that my experience of chronic inflammation was no different.
However, I suspect B12 is good for you.
Now, I'm not a doctor, so don't take my advice for any of this.
But I'd be surprised if it's bad for you.
But it's not going to cure your inflammation.
I'm pretty sure of that.
Unless you have the one kind of inflammation that is only caused by B12, which would be amazing to me.
And then, who knows?
But listen to your doctor.
Don't listen to me.
So I saw a story that, according to something called Intelligent, I guess that's a publication, one in six companies are hesitant to hire recent college graduates because they have all kinds of problems with these college graduates.
What do you think of the problems?
Well, 5% of the companies report that some of the recent college graduates were unsatisfactory.
Now, does that sound like a problem?
If 5% of your college hires turned out to be not good, I would say that's actually a pretty good rate.
But the story is that it's bad news.
Is it?
If only 5% of the people you hired who had college degrees turned out to be bad, I feel like you'd be one of the best hirers of all time.
So that doesn't sound bad, 5%.
Six in ten companies fired a recent college graduate they hired this year.
Again, six in ten companies firing a recent college graduate, well, that's just the 5%.
So that's not really very scary.
That sounds kind of in line with what I'd expect.
One in six hiring managers say they're hesitant to hire people from this group.
In other words, recent college graduates.
Well, why do you think that they're hesitant to do that?
The news is full of bullshit stories about how they're all incompetent and they can't do anything.
Well, if you've ever read the news, of course you'd be hesitant.
But so far, the two pieces of data that they've given me have not suggested any reason for pain.
But let us continue.
Hiring managers say recent college graduates are unprepared for the workforce.
That's what a recent college graduate is.
If any of you were ever recent college graduates, do you remember how unprepared you were for the workforce?
Oh my god, it's the definition of unprepared.
Oh yeah, very unprepared.
But is that different?
Is that new?
This is exactly the way it's always been.
One in seven companies may refrain from hiring college graduates.
Well, again, because they read the news.
Nine in ten hiring managers say recent college graduates should undergo etiquette training.
I think that could be useful, but I don't think it's the end of the world either.
Yes, it's true that some people need a little, you know, etiquette.
It'd be a good idea.
I'm all for it.
I don't think it's going to be the difference between inventing a new microchip and not.
It's like, oh, we're trying to invent a new way to communicate.
We're trying to build a satellite.
But it turned out that Eric didn't know which fork to use at lunch, so it all fell apart.
Yeah, I mean, it would be good.
To have all these manners and stuff, but probably doesn't change how many satellites get invented.
And three and four companies report issues with recent graduate hires, of course, because they've got issues with every one of the cohorts that they hired.
You could randomly pick any group of people.
You could make it racist.
You could make it sexist.
How about we'll just look at the LGBTQ new hires.
Do you think that managers have had any problems in the LGBTQ community?
Probably.
Now, in my experience, the LGBTQ employees are unusually good, just anecdotally.
I have no science behind that.
Just my experience is that the people who are out...
Just tend to be pretty serious people and know how to get stuff done.
But I think you could take any group and then ask the manager if they've had any recent problems with them.
And statistically speaking, they would say yes, even if it was their very best group.
They'd say, yeah, I got a problem.
Two people were a problem this month.
Every group has problems.
So I think this might be a continuation from ancient Greece.
I have a distant memory that there's some quote from ancient Greece, somebody like Plato or Socrates or somebody like that, saying that the new generation are all basically worthless.
And then that generation grew up and realized that they were actually pretty awesome.
But the next generation, they're looking pretty awesome.
And then repeat, repeat, repeat.
When I was a kid, I heard every single day that the hippies that were in my generation were all worthless, dirty, non-working pieces of trash.
And the world was going to end.
And it just never stops.
We just always think the next generation is garbage.
Here's why.
Here's why.
80% of every group is not helping.
So, of course, you need all the people to do all the jobs that need to be done, so they're getting jobs done.
But the people who are making civilization move forward, it's like 1% of 1% of the country.
And guess what?
Did I just sound like Joe Biden?
Guess what?
People, guess what?
It's the same 1% and 1% that are making the country move forward that has always been the same 1% and 1%.
Everybody else is just carrying things.
Just moving stuff, right?
But you need that.
I mean, the country would fall apart.
So some people are digging in the ground to dig up some coal, to move it somewhere, to do something with it.
So most of the world is just moving stuff.
You know, they're driving stuff.
They're moving papers back and forth.
And then 1% of 1% are inventing the future.
That 1% and 1% is probably stronger and better than it's ever been any time in history.
So we might be in a better shape than at any time in history, but it would always look like it isn't.
And it will look like that next time and next time and next time.
Daniel Penny, you remember him?
He was the one who tried to keep people safe on a subway train by restraining somebody who was looking dangerous.
The person who was looking dangerous died in his grips.
It didn't look like it was a killer grip, but maybe drugs were involved.
We don't know.
but it's coming to trial I guess on Monday And the reporting is that the lawyer will try to put the people in the Who are in the jury, they're going to put him in the car.
Now, that means mentally.
So this is a lawyer trick from Jerry Spence.
I read his book, How to Argue and Win Every Time or something like that.
A very old book, but very influential.
And I think maybe that's where I got a lot of my interest in persuasion, was learning about how one defense lawyer won every single case.
And what he would do is he would simply put the jury...
He would take them on a ride and tell a story where he put the jury in the spot of the person he was trying to get some money for whatever accident they were in.
And the people would just feel it.
They just became the victim.
And then if you become the victim, it's pretty easy to give money to the victim because you're the victim.
So...
That, of course, I don't know if the reporting is based on something they know from the defense's plans, or it's just obvious, but here's how I would do it.
I would say, whatever it is, I'm going to make up the facts.
These are not the real facts.
It's Tuesday morning.
You had your coffee and you went to work just like always.
You got on the subway.
You're already feeling a little bit of concern because the subway is getting a little more dangerous.
You do a look around.
You ask yourself, if something went down, where would you go?
Where's your exits?
Who would protect you?
Who would be dangerous?
You're never really comfortable, are you?
Suddenly, you see a gentleman who's acting up, and he's acting up in a way that looks dangerous, and he's making some threats, and you're looking at the faces of the men in the car, and you're pleading with them with your eyes, and you're saying, please, if this gets worse, will one of you do something?
Because he's bigger than I am, and I can't control this situation.
I can't leave.
I'm trapped.
I'm afraid.
And then you look at the faces of the men, and they're looking away.
Every time you look at a man, he's trying to not look at this guy.
If this guy attacks me, will these men help me?
Will these men watch?
What is 2023?
I don't know what year it was.
Am I dead?
If this guy wants to hurt me, are they just going to watch?
And now I'm really afraid because he's starting to act up.
He's starting to make specific threats against other people, and he's big enough that he can make it happen and make it happen quick.
And the men are not moving.
They're not moving.
I'm dead.
I'm going to die right now because nobody is going to stop this man.
And then one man stands up.
I found out later his name was Daniel Penny.
And he acted.
I don't know why the other men didn't, but when he acted, a few others came to his assistance.
Somebody had to go first.
There was one leader on the car and a few followers.
But there was only one leader.
Fortunately, I found out later that this wasn't an accident.
He had been trained.
He had been in the military.
And he was trained to go toward danger, not away from it.
And the only thing that holds society together, ladies and gentlemen, is the fact that some men are trained to go toward danger.
If you didn't have them, we couldn't be in this courtroom having a conversation.
You couldn't ever get on that car and take a ride to work and be safe.
You need to know that if somebody acts up, there's going to be somebody nearby, Probably a man, but doesn't have to be, who's going to go toward the danger instead of away from it.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the only thing that holds civilization together.
If you want to get rid of that, you're going to get rid of the very fibers and fabric that keep America whole.
The moment you can't depend on a big man coming toward danger, everything's gone.
Everything.
You're going to lose your life, your job, your family.
Everything you like about this country is dependent on this one very fragile thought.
It's not even the physical thing.
It's a thought.
And the thought is this.
It's better if I go toward that danger.
As soon as you take that away from our system, the whole thing falls apart.
We become like other countries.
Other countries that can't figure out how to pull it together.
Countries that can't run a legal system.
It's the basis of everything.
The moment our legal system isn't trusted or isn't part of this solution, nothing else works.
The legal system and the threat that strong men or strong women will come to the rescue of people who are in trouble in public and even in private, if you take that away from the United States, We've got nothing left.
Everything, everything depends on that one fragile thought.
If somebody comes after you, the people around you will stop it.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a little bit about this one situation, and we all see that.
It's also about the bigger situation because this is in the news.
Everybody's watching.
Everybody who sees this is going to be affected by it.
If Daniel Penny goes to jail for trying to help, the next one isn't going to help.
Let me look you in the eyes, every one of you in the jury.
And here's what I want you to say.
I want you to look me in the eye, and I want you to tell me that you're okay being a person who removes the most vital thought in American life.
That if somebody comes for you, we're going to help.
If you take that away, just know what you're doing.
You can't get it back.
So, Daniel Penny is way more, way more than a case about one man who killed one man in an accidental, presumably accidental, act of, really an act of love.
It was an act of love for his fellow citizens.
It didn't work out, and it was a tragedy.
But you don't want to throw away the good because there was something bad that happened this one time.
Ladies and gentlemen, I depend on you to keep America solid.
If you remove this pillar, we're all in trouble.
So that's how I do it.
I hope that Daniel Penny has a good lawyer.
I was listening to a story that I would like you all to ignore me on, meaning that I'm going to say some things in the medical domain and you really, really, really need to ignore me on this one, okay?
Do not take anything I'm going to say as being true.
It's just where my head's at.
So there's a story about two women who had breast cancer.
I think they got surgery to get rid of the tumors or whatever.
But then they turned down the follow-up work that I think would have been chemo and some other drugs and some other things because they didn't like where the side effects were pointing.
But so far, they're fine.
A number of years have gone by and they seem to be fine.
I can't conclude that they're fine.
Now, here's what I want to tell you.
If what you hear is me telling you not to follow the advice of doctors, I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying I was putting myself in their position coming off of the pandemic.
And a doctor says to you, all right, in this situation, the rules say, usually there's some kind of, you know, And my employer, my hospital, my HMO, or whatever, says that in these conditions, we should use these treatments.
It's one of these three treatments.
Pick one.
And here's my question.
How do those doctors know those are the right treatments?
Well, you'd say science, obviously.
Every drug has been studied.
But I lived through the pandemic.
All of you did too.
When somebody says a drug has been studied, does it hit you the same as it did before the pandemic?
Doesn't hit me the same.
Today I say to myself, okay, who in the world would have enough money to do a multi-million dollar study about a drug that's going to benefit one company?
That company.
So Is there any independent data on any of these products?
My guess is no.
Meaning that there is no popular...
Probably.
There's probably no popular treatment for cancer that has been studied by independent anything.
Probably just the people who make the drug study it and tell you it worked.
Now, when they tell you that the cancer drug worked...
Are they telling you that it cured it and you go home and you're good?
Mostly not.
You know, there's lots of different cancers and lots of different things going on, but mostly they're slowing it down.
Now, combine everything you know about the pandemic with everything you know about how drugs are tested by only the company that's going to make millions of dollars if it gets approved.
And then you throw on that it doesn't cure it.
Now, if it cured it, you'd be pretty sure it was working.
Because you'd say the people who didn't take it, they died.
The people who did take it, blah, blah.
But what if all it does is extend your life?
Do you think that they can really sort that out?
Like we got them an extra year?
Because I'll bet you there are no two cancer patients who do the same things.
And I don't know how you'd sort all that out.
If all you're looking at is, you know, somebody bought two extra years, and that's the only thing that drug is doing for you.
Got you two extra years.
But it made all of your years bad.
So from day one, you know, you had side effects, you were tired, your hair fell out, whatever it was.
Do you think you would trust a study that was funded by the company that makes millions, and only them, nobody else, and it said it gave you two extra years when you knew that every single person who used it was in a different situation?
So you're not entirely sure if you even isolated the effect of that one drug, because they're probably on three different drugs.
They might be on ten different drugs.
Because they might be slamming vitamin D and B12 because somebody told them to do it.
They might be trying any one of, you know, a million things that are in the media of like, oh, somebody tried this and, you know, it's all anecdotal.
There probably aren't two people who are in the same situation.
So can you really even know if those drugs work?
Now, here's where I have to be careful.
I would talk to your doctor, not me.
You definitely don't want to get your cancer advice from me.
But I think there's a real crisis in medicine, and the pandemic uncovered it in a way that we've never seen before.
You always knew that it wasn't 100%, that if your doctor told you to do something, it was a good idea.
But I feel like I've taken it from 100% down to 60%, meaning I'd still take the doctor's advice in all likelihood.
But it doesn't feel like a 90% anymore.
It feels like Better than a coin flip, but not super better than a coin flip for a lot of different categories.
So I'm just going to put that out there, but listen to your doctor.
Don't do anything crazy.
I just don't trust anything anymore.
The U.S. government says, according to Wired, that relying on China for their lithium batteries for networks and stuff is really risky.
But I'm going to give the counter to that.
I think that there is zero chance that the United States and China could enter a shooting war that lasts.
You could imagine there might be this skirmish over an island or something, but in terms of a major war between the two countries, almost impossible.
Almost impossible.
And it's because we're too economically tied.
So, yes, it'd be better for us if we didn't have to depend on them for lithium batteries.
But on the other hand, it's probably this depending on each other for everything that makes us not go to war.
Have any countries ever gone to war when they were highly dependent on each other for their economies in the modern world?
Let's just say the last 50 years.
Is there any country that went to war with their own customers?
Is that even a thing?
I wonder.
Yeah.
So it seems to me that the risk with China As long as we have this need for the rare earth materials and they need stuff from us, which is we need to buy things from them for them to stay in business, I don't see how we're going to have a major war.
But also, China doesn't need a major war to someday control the world if they think their population is going to grow and stay bigger than the rest.
China really just needs to manage their situation well, and given the just pure number of people, that should put them in the economic dominant position eventually.
It might take 100 years.
But whoever has the most people and all that land should be the dominant country in 100 years, no matter what else happens.
So it doesn't make sense for China to start a war.
It doesn't make sense for us to start a war.
It makes no sense whatsoever to be in a war with Russia.
War doesn't make any sense anymore.
It only makes sense for the terrorist type, you know, Yemen Houthis kind of weird things and, you know, some special cases like Russia trying to keep, you know, keep NATO and Ukraine.
So Ukraine's kind of a special case.
But I don't remember that we were buying a lot from Ukraine, and I don't remember, I mean, even though they were enormous in terms of food and trade, it feels like we absorbed that economic hit pretty easily.
I don't remember anybody starving, because Ukraine couldn't make enough wheat.
Weren't we supposed to run out of wheat?
Because it's like the breadbasket of Europe, and then what happened?
Did just somebody grow more wheat?
So what happened to losing the breadbasket of Europe?
It's like we don't even talk about it.
I don't know what happened there.
Anyway, I'm not worried about the big countries wanting to go to war because they just don't have any reason.
It's just all downside.
And I'm not sure that was always the case.
According to LinkedIn and the Post Millennial's reporting, the older job seekers from 60 to 78 are looking for jobs.
I am not surprised whatsoever.
That seems like the natural outcome from the economy starting to fall apart.
Is the older people looking for jobs?
So tomorrow, here's an announcement.
So tomorrow will be two weeks, Tuesday night, tomorrow.
Two weeks until actual election day.
I'm going to live stream in the evening tomorrow at 9 p.m.
Eastern Time.
My local time, that would be 6 p.m.
And it will be in place of my normal man cave that I do.
Usually that's just for subscribers.
But this will be open.
I'll do it on all the platforms.
And all I'm going to do is fill out my voting ballot.
I'm not going to show it to you.
I'm not going to tell you to vote for.
I'm just going to keep you company.
And so, if you've got a little bit of ADHD and you keep telling yourself, I'm going to do it, I'll get to it, I can't remember where it is, just find your ballot.
Just find it.
And then, if you want to join me, fill it out at the same time.
I won't see yours, you won't see mine, but we will just be patriots at the same time.
And this one really matters.
I've never done this before.
In fact, honestly, I've never gone out of my way to tell people to vote because in the past, you know, pre-Trump, it never seemed like it mattered.
Now it matters.
Now I feel like I'm doing something that has real purpose.
So we're just going to have fun.
It won't last that long, probably.
I'll take some questions, do some usual stuff.
But it won't be much entertainment.
We'll just keep you company.
And we'll just fill out our ballots at the same time and mail them in.
Now, I remind you that if you're in a state like I am, California, and you say to yourself, but Scott, my vote doesn't matter.
Oh, yes, it does.
Oh, yes, it does.
Because if Trump doesn't win...
Not just the Electoral College, but also the overall national vote.
He's not going to have the credibility he needs.
He's going to have to just scream through the voting on this.
He's going to have to dominate the swing states, but also cleanly win the national vote.
Otherwise, it's just trouble.
We need Californians to say, well, even though he didn't win in California, it's the most he's ever gotten there.
Well, maybe he didn't win in New York, but oh my God, was it close.
Know what I mean?
So there's no such thing as a swing state anymore.
They're all swing states.
Everything's swinging, but for a different purpose.
But they're all swinging.
So get over your idea and That you live in a state where it doesn't matter.
It all matters this time.
And this is different.
It's not like other times.
Other times, honestly, it didn't matter.
And I've said that myself.
I've said it didn't really matter.
This time, this matters as much as anything has ever mattered in the United States.
This is the highest level of, oh my God, it matters.
You can't get higher than this much mattering.
So do what you need to do.
According to the Daily Mail, Harris has a huge, huge lead in older women over the age of 50, even more than Joe Biden did.
So the older women, they love her.
What do we know about older women in the United States?
They're on antidepressants.
If you would like to not be on antidepressants, maybe vote the other way this time.
Maybe vote for the guy who's got a plan to get you off of antidepressants.
If your problem is your own mental health, I think Trump can help you with that a lot more than anybody else can because of the team he's bringing into it.
All right, let's talk about the fake polls.
Washington Post still has Harris winning the Electoral College.
Simon Rosenberg's talking about this on X. The very next story.
So here are the stories that are next to each other.
The Washington Post has Harris winning the Electoral College, which means winning the election.
The very next story is that Trump opens a 10-point lead on Harris, according to modernity, in a major forecast.
In the decision to SHQ, the Hill forecast, Trump has a 52% chance of winning versus 42%.
So, Washington Post has Harris winning.
The Hill and the Decision Desk HQ have Trump winning handily.
Now, do you remember what I told you about the polls?
What we're gonna see is two phenomenon that are both fake, but they're fake in a different way.
So the original polls didn't have to be accurate because nobody had voted yet, so nobody could tell if they were inaccurate.
Under those conditions, many of the polls operate as propaganda.
So in order to raise money, Your friendly pollster says, my God, look how good you're doing.
If you just had a little bit more money, it would put you over the top.
You would win.
And then the money people say, well, perfect.
This is a good use of my money because it's so close that my money could make the difference.
So if you want to raise money, you got to show that it's close.
If you want to be credible as a pollster, You got to get it right.
So you're going to move from an area in which simply making it fake look like it's really close is what everybody makes money from.
Everybody gains that way.
Just more money flowing around.
Yeah, it's close.
It's close.
You better get another poll.
Why don't I sell you another poll result?
We'll do you a private one.
Yeah, it's so close.
You're gonna have to study everything.
So everybody's benefiting by fake too close polls.
Now, what happens when you get close to the actual election?
Well, you got two kinds of pollsters.
One kind of pollster wants to remain credible.
So they converge on the accurate, as they know it, answer, so that when the actual election happens, they go, well, you know, it's a good thing we updated it from our summer numbers that are way off.
But when we got to the end, apparently the public changed.
No, it wasn't us.
It was the public.
The public changed their votes.
No, no, it wasn't the way we measured it.
No, don't look at us.
Don't look at us.
Don't look at us.
The public changed their mind because Trump sold some french fries.
Yeah, that's it.
That's it.
That's it.
There was a big move at the end because Trump sold french fries at McDonald's and that probably moved a lot of voters.
So that's why we move from saying he would lose to saying he's going to win at the end.
So now that would be the honest pollsters because they're trying to hit the polling number and the actual result of being as close as possible.
And then there's the Washington Post.
There should be some pollsters who will maintain that it never left too close to call.
The reason they would do that is presumably, now this is speculation based on observation, that they're part of the cheat.
Now, if there are in fact, and this is speculation, if there are in fact entities within the Democrat Party that are planning to cheat and they want to get away with it, The only way they could get away with it is if some of their illegitimate press and illegitimate pollsters say, it was too close to call, so how can you even say it was cheated?
We don't even know who was supposed to win.
It was too close to call.
And then others will say, but, but, but, these other polls said it wasn't close at all.
Trump was totally going to win.
And then they'll say, but, but, but, the Washington Post said it was going to be close.
But the Washington Post is the loudest noise.
The people who are pollsters but do not own media are just going to be complaining.
But the Washington Post will write story after story telling you that it was too close to call and so obviously it's a clean race because the courts have not shown that there were any problems because the courts are not the right tool to do it and they don't have time to do it and people don't have a standing and they want to stay on it if they can.
So the story will be That there were big polls that said it was going to be close.
It was, in fact, close.
And if you think there were some irregularities, well, that's always the case.
There's always some irregularities.
We found a few, but they weren't enough to change anything.
But what if there were more?
You won't know.
No way to know if there were more.
More ones that didn't get caught.
You won't have a way to know.
So it does look in every way like the fix is in.
But don't blame Dominion voting systems.
They have warned us in an ex-post.
So this is from Dominion.
Dominion is closely monitoring claims around the November 2024 election and strongly encourages use of verified, credible sources of information.
So what would be a verified, credible source of information according to Dominion?
Probably the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Maybe Time Magazine?
The Atlantic?
MSNBC? CNN? Okay.
So you're credible and my credible might not be the same.
But Dominion says, we remain fully prepared to defend our company and our customers against lies and those who spread them.
Get the facts.
So in other words, they're going to take you to court if you tell a lie about their company.
Now, if I were Dominion, I would do this.
This is the right play.
So from a business perspective, warning people that if they get too far over their skis and accuse them of something without proof, they're going to be in a lot of trouble.
Basically, they're going to be broke.
They'll break you.
So, I want to be as careful as I can in saying this.
I'm not personally aware of any specific problems with Dominion or other voting machines.
At the end of the election, even if there are very reliable sounding claims, I won't know.
Because I guarantee you that 95% of the claims of election fraud will be fake.
They will be fake.
And indeed, many of the ones that you already have seen and already believe are credible Probably a lot of them are fake.
I don't know if all of them are, but probably the majority.
So keep these two things in mind.
You will never probably know, probably never, know if any specific claim was valid, either because the courts dragged their feet or somebody lost the records or, whoops, we forgot to make a backup.
You know, all the things that you've seen every day.
You're seeing the same thing every day.
It's the same play.
Oh, we lost that.
Oh, that record is wrong.
Oh, the videotape got overwritten.
So it seems unlikely that if there were any irregularities, that it would be solved in any organized way.
I don't think we have a system that could solve things in time, even if they were surfaced.
But I don't believe that the voting machines need to be a part of any cheating.
Because we have overseas ballots coming in without ID requirements, and they can email their ballot.
You can email a vote from overseas without proving you're overseas.
Now, let's say a whole bunch of people, just speculating again, imagine a whole bunch of people voted illegally overseas.
How long would it take to catch them?
And verify that they were all illegal votes.
Well, let me tell you how that would go.
Well, these votes came from lots of different sources, and we're following up as hard as we can, but it's going to take some time.
Well, I mean, you only have until January 6th.
I know, I know, but, well, we're trying as hard as we can, but turns out the people we need to talk to are on a two-week vacation.
Oh, but they're coming back, right?
It's just because of Christmas?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So now you've studied all the people in Europe that voted?
No, no, no.
Oh my God.
There were millions of them.
How are we going to call millions of people in just a few weeks with all the vacations and Christmas and everything?
And then we'll say, but you need to.
You need to.
Because if you don't, we won't know who won.
But we don't have time.
Well, we're taking this to the courts.
And the court says, well, what do you got?
Well, we found so far 2,500 people who voted overseas that are totally not eligible to vote.
And then the court will say, well, what was the margin of victory?
Well, the margin of victory was 500,000 people.
So basically what you're giving me is something that wouldn't change the result.
Yeah, yeah, but we think there's a lot of it.
But you've only found 2,500.
Yeah, yeah, but we don't have time.
Because there are millions that we need to check, and you'd have to catch up to them.
You'd have to compare their vote.
You'd have to find out if they're real.
You'd have to visit them in person to find out if they're even real people.
Check their IDs.
And then the court says, you know what?
I can't deal with this.
Because you haven't shown me it would change the result, and the courts don't like to get involved if no result is going to be changed.
You don't have a perp.
You've just got names in Europe, and that's not my jurisdiction.
And the court is going to say, I got nothing.
I can't help you.
So the only thing you need to do to get away with cheating is to have a system which is sufficiently distributed That if anybody looked into it and they found the cheating and they found it, they wouldn't be able to find enough in time to change anything.
And then once the new administration's in power, what do they do?
They put their attorney general in charge and the attorney general says, I think all the claims of election interference are overblown.
Let's leave that alone.
There is no way...
To reverse this.
If, in fact, and again, this is just a worry, it's not something I have proof of, but if we get a whole bunch of suspicious votes from overseas, there's no way to stop it.
It's a perfect cheat, and we see it in advance.
We see it in advance.
Now, how could we ever have a real election under our current circumstance, where one candidate has been likened to Hitler, so many times.
And people literally believe he's going to steal your democracy.
And the only thing you have to do, according to their view of things, to save things, is to email.
To email a vote that you're not allowed to make.
How many people would say, well, if I can save the world, I guess I can send a fake email.
I don't know.
Not much of an election this time.
Well, Trump went to McDonald's, you all know.
Some people said, ah, it's fake because all the cars were vetted and they even trained for the interaction.
Well, of course they're vetted.
The president said at least two assassination attempts.
Of course they made sure that the cars that went by the windows were not ordinary customers.
The only thing they got was french fries.
They weren't even real orders, because if they wanted more than french fries, all they got from Trump was a bag of french fries.
But he did it perfectly.
Nobody can do that better than Trump.
He can chatter with everybody.
He just made it look comfortable and fun and Kind of ironic and iconic and just everything that Trump does.
It was sort of bringing together all the best of.
You know, if there's any best thing he does, it's that.
It's interacting with ordinary people in a way that is interesting to people watching.
I mean, nobody does that better.
So who knows if it changes any votes, but it certainly made him look good and helped his...
I think he won the day.
You know, they're talking about winning each day in politics.
He won that day.
But you do have to ask, what did RFK Jr.
and Nicole Shanahan think about Trump boosting fast food at McDonald's?
And that's a good question.
That's a good question.
Politically, I think it was brilliant.
Medically, we can do better.
All right, I'm going to anger you on this 60 Minutes thing.
As you know, 60 Minutes edited at least one answer from Kamala Harris to make it less word salad-y and more coherent.
And people said, you dirty 60 minutes, you're in the bag for Kamala Harris.
You're not allowed to edit it.
Show us that complete unedited document so we can see how badly you edited it.
All right.
What I'm supposed to tell you is that 60 Minutes is influencing the election and their fake news and everything else.
I don't see it.
So let me tell you something that most of you didn't know when you read the story.
For the big publications where there is editing, editing for time, that would include a print story, where they don't want the print story to be as big as a book, so it's got to be smaller.
And certainly if it's televised and has to fit a certain time, then it's always edited.
Now, I have been the subject of many, many interviews, hundreds.
Thousands?
At least many hundreds, I don't know how many, over my career.
And I can tell you that the most typical and normal thing is that they will edit your comments.
And they edit them if your comment is sort of, it goes on a little bit, but there's a bit of it that says the core part.
It's very common that they'll cut out the part where you just run on a little bit long and they'll keep the part where you summarized it and set it just right.
Here's why they do that.
It's better to watch.
As a viewer, you would appreciate it because you didn't need the word salad.
You just needed the summary or the part that said it right.
This is a very ordinary thing.
So when 60 Minutes admitted that they edited one for tightness, I looked at it and I said to myself, did they get rid of something that was like the opposite of what she said?
Because if they changed it from saying yes to no, well, I mean, that's almost a crime, isn't it?
But if they changed it from yes to hell yes or yes to yes, but just the words are changed...
That's just what they always do.
That's actually normal.
So I'm going to be a contrarian on this, having been the subject of many edited interviews.
And I will tell you that if the entity that is doing the editing is doing a hit piece, such as Bloomberg did on me once during 2016, I think, their edits of me were to make me look bad.
When I did the Playboy interview, back when Playboy was a much bigger deal, back in the 90s, I was the featured interview in the Playboy interview.
And when I read the interview, I barely recognized my own speech.
It was so heavily edited that if you played my actual tape next to the written part, you would be shocked how heavily edited it was.
But did I complain?
I did not.
Do you know why I didn't complain?
Because they edited it to make me look smarter.
They simply kept the places where I said exactly the right thing, just the right way.
And maybe if I coughed or hummed or said something twice when I only needed to say it once, they just fixed it.
So when I read my own interview, I remember thinking, oh my God, do they make me look smarter than I actually am.
That's normal.
Now, the Playboy interviews are not meant to make anybody look bad.
They don't do hit pieces.
They do pieces that you want to read.
So it'll be about somebody that you wanted to read about, and it'll be mostly positive things.
So when you see this 60-minute interview and you see the edit, You don't know if they were acting in a malicious way.
The only thing you can know for sure is that they acted in a typical way, the way any other media would have acted in that same situation.
Now, since Harris is known for word salad, And she's running for president.
The word salad, or the lack of it, is really important in this context.
So in this context, I do think it's a little illegitimate to cut it out.
But if you imagine that what was going on is that the people who do the normal jobs did the normal jobs, there's somebody whose job it is to add it.
If the editor simply edited the way they always edit without even thinking about it, without thinking about any bias or really just not thinking about anything except being a good editor, it would have looked just like this.
So that's the problem.
You can't tell if somebody was trying to pull a trick on you.
Because whether they were or whether or not, it would look the same.
It would look like they fixed it to make her look smart, because it's sort of what they do.
They do it to me, they do it, you know, if they liked me, they would do it to me.
So you can certainly say that it's not ideal, but to say that 60 Minutes was necessarily glaringly and obviously biased is not an evidence.
That is not in evidence.
It's certainly possible.
It's possible that they edit it with an eye toward making her get elected.
Very possible.
But it's not in evidence.
So, I can't go there with you.
All right.
Here's another fake news.
I hate to be defending Kamala Harris against fake news, but there's another one.
So she was doing an event, talking to an audience, and some heckler came in, and the heckler said something along the lines of, you know, he started yelling, what about Israel's genocide?
Now, genocide is the word chosen by the heckler, right?
What about Israel's genocide?
What about 19,000 children dead?
Now, he said more than those two sentences, but among them were Israel's genocide, that's his take on it, and 19,000 children dead.
Now, security immediately had the guy taken out, and then Kamala Harris' comment immediately after he was out, she said, quote, what he is talking about is real, and I respect his voice.
So that got reported as that she was sort of in favor of genocide.
Come on.
Really?
Or that she, no, not that she was in favor of genocide, but that she was blaming Israel for genocide.
I'm sorry.
So forget the first thing I said.
She's being blamed for accusing Israel of genocide because she said of what the protester said, that that is real and I respect his voice.
Okay.
If Trump had been in this situation, here's what I would say.
He's obviously not talking about the genocide interpretation.
He's talking about the fact that a bunch of people are getting killed, and good leadership could end that faster.
So yes, it's real that people are getting killed.
A lot of them are children, and everybody would like to end that faster.
It doesn't mean she agreed with the characterization of genocide.
And by the way, I don't know if she does.
So if you have some other source where she has said, oh, it's genocide, then I would revise my opinion.
But to me, she did not embrace everything the guy said.
I think she was embracing the fact that people are getting killed and a lot of them are, you know, innocents and children.
So, I don't think I want to get into a question about what is genocide and what is not, because we're all talking about the same thing.
I feel like you enter stupidville if you're looking at the same thing, that everybody's seeing the same thing, and you're arguing about the definition of it.
Why?
That's like trans.
When I see people arguing about whether somebody is really a man or really a woman, I say, wait a minute, don't you both agree completely on the facts of this case?
You both agree that a person was born in one gender.
You both agree that the person's preference is the different gender.
You both agree that they're identifying as the different gender.
Why are we talking about definitions?
Because we both are looking at exactly the same facts.
And yet we found a way to argue about it.
Now, you could argue about what rights somebody has in the trans situation, and that's a good argument.
We need to figure that out.
But you shouldn't be arguing about whether or not they are or are not a woman, because you're both looking at exactly the same set of facts, and you don't disagree with them at all.
You know that somebody's calling themselves a woman, and you know that maybe you don't like it.
So, there's nothing else to say.
But you can talk about what rights people have.
That makes sense.
Anyway, so talking about whether Israel is doing a genocide or they're just in a defensive war, why does the labeling make it different?
Do fewer people get killed if you change the word for it?
Are you more in favor of it if you change the word for it?
Are you more against it because you change the word you're using?
Every single one of us knows that Israel is trying to kill all of the Hamas fighters.
It would be to their advantage, Israel's, to kill the fewest number of non-combatants.
But sometimes, well, often, the non-combatants are going to die.
So what part are we arguing about?
It's just not even worth having a conversation about what the word is, if we're both saying exactly the same stuff.
Anyway, the biggest hoax of this election, I'm going to call it, the biggest hoax and the biggest failure of the Republicans in messaging is the, quote, turn down border bill.
Now, one of the reasons I say that Byron Donald is sort of a superstar among Republicans is that every time this topic comes up, He goes to X and he posts, I think, nine bullet points of why that border bill was not what they said it was.
Now, that's the right answer.
Every single time, here's nine reasons that was a fake.
If all you can do is say, oh, but, but, but, uh, Trump was better at the border, But we had a border bill that would have fixed everything and Trump turned it down for politics.
But it was better, better during Trump.
I know, I know.
But it would have been great if we had a border bill and he backed it.
Instead, he turned it down for political reasons.
But the border was better under Trump.
It just lets the hoax just sit there.
The border bill was a hoax.
It was...
So Brett Baer even failed on this because you'll get talked over if you try to do it.
So remember when Harris said during the Brett Baer interview, said that, but we tried to get this border bill passed and Brett interrupted her, which didn't work out.
He said, yes, ma'am.
It was called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.
And then Baer described it as essentially a pathway to citizenship.
The main point of the bill was to take the things that we want to stop and are currently illegal, which is people coming into the country illegally, and simply make it legal.
It wasn't stopping it.
It was just changing the word for it so it would be legal.
It's the opposite of stopping.
It's encouraging.
So Here's how, if you didn't know the nine bullet points that were a problem, you should say it was a pathway to citizenship bill primarily, and it was doing the opposite of what we wanted.
What we wanted to do is to stop it and also stop the incentive for it and also ship back some number of people.
What the bill would do is let people stay here, make it legal, and increase the incentive for more of them to come because they see it works out.
So the fact that Republicans completely botched the messaging and argument on this border bill thing, I don't think there's a single Democrat who knows what I just told you.
I'll bet none.
I'll bet not a single Democrat has ever heard that the border bill was really the opposite of preventing people.
It was designed to make it faster to process people in.
I'm right about that, right?
When they said it was going to increase the number of border people working, it wasn't increasing the number of people shipping people back.
It was processing the number of people...
Stamping papers to let them in.
It was literally to increase the number of people coming in.
And it would make legal a number of entrants like 1.8 million.
What was the number?
1.8 million or something.
There was some number of annual entrants that was way above what Republicans think is okay that was going to be codified into law.
So it was basically going to codify all the things we want to go away.
It was going to simply make legal and boost all the bad things, according to Republicans.
Again, this would be based on their argument.
So the fact that that hoax got all the way to two weeks before election, and I saw, honestly, I only saw Byron Donalds do a good job of trying to defeat it, but he's one person.
You know, there's not much he can do as one person, but he's the only A+. I'm giving out one A +, and everybody else failed.
Honestly, just failed.
Anyway, so as you know, Elon Musk is giving away a million dollars per day to some lucky person who signs a...
He's got some kind of a petition he's taking around when he's giving these talks in Pennsylvania.
And if you sign the petition saying that you favor free speech and gun rights and basically the Constitution, you could be eligible to get a million dollars.
Now...
The governor has threatened to launch a criminal investigation.
Here's what I know, because I used to work for a big corporation, and every now and then one of us would have the brilliant idea that we could increase sales with some kind of a contest.
And no matter what kind of contest we came up with, do you know why we didn't do it?
We could never get it past a lawyer.
Try this in your company.
If you work for a big company, you're a Fortune 500 company, go to your boss and suggest a contest for your customers.
Somebody will win something if they're one of the lucky people.
See what your lawyer says about that.
They're going to slap you down so fast.
And do you know why?
There are a whole bunch of different state regulatory restrictions on contests.
And the reason is contests are ways that people get ripped off.
So fake contests are kind of a classic scam.
So in order to make sure you're not a fake contest, you've got to do a number of things.
If Musk didn't do the things, and it would be different in each state, then...
There's some small legal liability, not jail time, but probably some, I don't know, maybe some kind of a fine or something.
So let me give you an example.
If you want to run a contest in California, and unless the law changed, this is what it used to be, you would have to show that you held the money, let's say it's money that you're going to win, in escrow.
So you can't just say, I will pay you a million.
You have to have the million sitting there in a defined account that is free from any other use, can't be used for anything except paying off the winner, and that's how you make sure it's not a scam.
You don't get to say, I will pay you.
You've got to say, here's my money.
It's sitting here.
It's in this protected account.
It cannot be used for any other purpose.
This is your money.
Now, do you think that Musk needs to do that?
Well, no, because everybody knows that Musk will pay.
There's nobody who thinks he's not going to pay.
So you don't really need it.
But it might be a law.
Now, the law in Pennsylvania would be different than California.
But if that's a law, and if he decided to skip it, and I don't know if either of those are true, then there would be some minor, totally unimportant violation of a minor law, I guess.
But I think there are other things like that.
There are a few other hoops you have to jump through.
So he might be, he might have some trouble.
And of course, if you're worrying about money from billionaires going into politics and changing something, you got to talk about the Soros family.
And I just saw another picture of Alex Soros with like demon eyes.
I don't know.
Is it just me?
I'm seeing a lot of the people that I call the bad guys, you know, the people who seem to be on the same team of bad actors on the Democrat side, the number of them that have crazy eyes is really hard to ignore.
And it could be just my bias.
Maybe I'm just seeing them as having crazy eyes when they don't.
But wow, a lot of them have crazy eyes.
Anyway, Der Spiegel, which might be the biggest publication in Germany, has Musk on the cover, and it calls him enemy number two, and it shows some of his skin being removed, and underneath it is Trump.
In other words, They're basically setting him up for assassination, which Elon Musk noticed.
And he said with their relentless hit pieces, legacy mainstream media are actively encouraging the assassination of Trump and now me.
Is that an exaggeration?
No, it's not.
That is not an exaggeration.
To me, it seems really clear that somebody behind the media...
And maybe just the media themselves making their own decisions are creating a situation that makes it very likely that Trump is in trouble, and so is Musk.
We hope their security is excellent.
Meanwhile, Politico has an article priming you for the steal.
Now, when I say priming you for the steal in the election, I don't mean that I have proof of a steal.
What I mean is, if everything looks like they're setting you up to steal it, I wouldn't ignore that.
Now, what you would expect is, first of all, you'd have some fake polls, the ones you trust the least, would show that the election is close.
Washington Post, done.
The other thing you'd have You'd have people warning you in advance what happens if there's a fair win for Harris, but those evil, evil Republicans, and especially that darn old president, ex-president Trump, if he tries to say that that wasn't a good election, they want you to know that that is trouble and needs to be dealt with.
And by the way, the thing you shouldn't think about is whether or not the election was rigged.
I would like you to not think about whether the election is rigged.
I'd like you to think past it to how we will punish the people who said it was rigged.
The election hasn't happened yet, and they're already talking about how they're going to punish you for claiming it was rigged.
Dominion, as I already told you, has now said publicly, if you blame their machines, you're going to be destroyed.
Whether you're right or wrong won't be relevant.
You will be law-fared just because it's real expensive to go to court.
And now you've got Politico setting you up to say, if he loses, Trump, here's how he might try to overturn the 2024 election and install himself in the White House.
Do you see that word, install?
Here's how they could have written it.
If the election looks sketchy, here's what Trump might do to see if he can get a better audit or a little clarity on who won.
Wouldn't that be fair?
Is that an accurate way to say it?
No.
They use the word install.
It's a dictator word.
So they're already creating Politico, one of the more important political outlets, is now setting us up to think past whether the election is real and all the way to how to punish the people who say it's not real.
Am I supposed to ignore that?
I mean, that seems pretty clear signal of bad things ahead.
Very bad.
All right.
But here's how I would have written that article.
I would have said the risk of shenanigans goes both ways.
It is not a risk of what happens if Trump loses and claims he won.
It is a problem that no matter who wins, the other side is going to say that it was fixed.
Am I right?
It doesn't matter which side wins.
They're both going to say it was fixed.
We know that from 2016, very clearly.
It's the same people.
The same people like Hillary Clinton and Raskin and all those people will say it was rigged if Trump wins.
So why aren't we talking about that?
It works both ways and he's ahead in the polls, the real ones.
So what happens if Trump wins and Harris tries to install herself anyway?
Isn't that a fair question?
But no.
And we know that Jamie Raskin is already talking about if Trump wins, they're going to try to not certify the election and install Harris instead.
They're saying it out loud, and yet it didn't make it into the story.
Let's just hold that in your mind.
The Politico knows that Raskin has said out loud in public, That if Trump wins, they have a plan to remove him from office and install Harris.
Amazingly.
And yet the story is about what would happen if Trump makes that claim.
I mean, the level of shenanigans is, I've never seen anything like this.
Well, let's talk about Israel.
I told you there was some fog of war, a lack of clarity about whether Netanyahu's home was actually attacked by Hezbollah.
And the current reporting says there were three missiles that went toward his home.
Two of them got knocked down and one of them created minor damage, but the Netanyahu family had not been there for several days, so there was not bodily risk, at least on that day.
Now, remember, it's still fog of war.
Is this true?
Is it true that three missiles were sent from Hezbollah and likely at Netanyahu as being the target?
Is it true?
I don't know.
How would you know?
Do you believe stories that come from war zones in the middle of a war?
If you believe this story, that's a mistake.
Is the story true?
It might be.
I mean, it totally might be.
There's nothing to rule it out.
But is it true?
I would act like you don't know one way or the other.
I would say it's a coin flip at best.
Because, and I think I've told you this before, in the context of self-defense, and Israel's operating in self-defense, as is the others would say they're in self-defense too, I suppose.
But if you're operating in self-defense, you can lie all you want.
It's self-defense.
If lying gives you any advantage when trying to defend yourself, absolutely.
Absolutely.
If you're my ally and I heard that you lied in the context of defending yourself, I'm going to pat you on the back and say, that was a good lie.
Good.
Well done there.
You protected yourself just like I want my allies to do.
So I don't care.
Well, I don't really care if it's true.
I care if it works.
So in terms of analyzing, I'll say, well, here's what it did.
It just gave Israel permission to take out the leadership of Iran.
So that's the only story.
Now, they've already taken out the leadership of Hezbollah and gone down one or two levels of leadership.
The leadership that matters is sitting in Iran.
Now, until this, I would have said that if they had taken out the leadership of Iran, they would have gone too far, because you couldn't look at something that was the equivalent.
But now that there is a narrative Might be true.
Might not be true.
But the narrative is that the proxy of Iran, which you assume would not do such a thing without permission from the bosses, which would be Iran, have tried to take out the head of Israel.
This is a free pass.
If Israel decides to take out the leadership of Iran, they're going to say, you started it.
And we're not going to know the difference whether they started it or not.
In my opinion, Iran would be insane to have tried to take out Netanyahu.
If you told me that Hezbollah tried to do it and it made Iran unhappy, that would be very believable.
Because the Hezbollah people are taking orders, but maybe not on every missile.
You know, maybe they have sort of general orders, and you've got some rogues, and maybe the rogues thought, oh, we'll end the war by taking care of Netanyahu.
So it's entirely possible that Hezbollah tried to take out Netanyahu.
It's entirely possible that they did it with the approval and even maybe help by the Iranian leadership.
But it's also entirely possible that Hezbollah really fucked up and they thought they were doing something maybe that they wanted to do and maybe they thought Iran would like it if it worked.
But I don't believe that the Iranian leadership has ever shown enough stupidity that they would do that.
Because they just opened up a doorway that they did not need to open up.
Because the war would not have stopped if Netanyahu got killed.
It wouldn't have stopped.
It might have gotten worse.
So how in the world could Iran have benefited by taking out Netanyahu?
That's the question you have to ask.
But we will never know the truth of this, probably.
We'll never know the truth.
We'll never know if Iran said, yes, take out Netanyahu.
We'll never know if Hezbollah did it and Iran was mad at them for doing it.
We'll never know if these missiles really were not that close to Netanyahu's house, but they maybe exaggerated it so it sounded like it was more dangerous.
We'll never know, because Israel has every right to The lie and self-defense, as we all do.
And it's not a crime.
It's not immoral.
It's not unethical.
It's nothing you need to apologize for if you did it.
So, I don't believe the story entirely, but I don't disbelieve it.
I just don't have any way to know it's true or not true.
The only thing I know for sure is that the option of taking out Iran's leadership is now completely open.
And that's never been the case before.
Now, would taking out Iran's leadership make things better or worse?
No idea.
I'm pretty sure it's a good idea to take out the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah.
That feels like you don't have to be a military genius to know that that's a good idea.
But the head of an actual UN state?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I wouldn't be surprised...
If Israel gets a clean shot, if they take it, don't be surprised.
I'd be surprised if it happens before election, unless they wanted to use the election to say you guys are all too distracted.
And they wouldn't want to change the election outcome.
So I don't think Israel would want to change America's outcome by some action in the next two weeks.
Because they would get blamed for it.
They'd say, you knew if you did or didn't do this Yeah.
So I think Israel will not take out the leadership of Iran before our election.
But once our election happens, we're still not going to have a president, right?
Even if we think we elected one, we're not going to have a president.
Because it'll take time to count and we'll be disagreeing and everybody will say the other side cheated and it'll be in court and everything else.
So between the election day and the actual day if we ever decide who actually is president, that's probably where Israel would want to make a move.
Because Trump can say, I wasn't president so I couldn't stop it.
Nobody will think Biden could have stopped it.
And they'll say the vice president wasn't in charge.
So we're entering a period where basically nobody's going to be in charge.
And we know it.
And Israel knows it too.
So if I were Israel...
And again, this is not a recommendation, because I'm no war planning expert, but it seems the most rational time to do it would be between Election Day and January 6th.
I hate to say it, but if it's going to happen, that would be the time to do it.
So, that is what I got for today.
Do you notice I have something behind me?
I'm going to make probably a separate video on this, but people always ask me, Scott, I know somebody who's a fan of Dilbert or a fan of your other work, and I want to know what gift to buy them for Christmas.
So I thought I'd answer that.
If your friend is a Dilbert fan and they don't care about politics or fixing their career or anything like that, they just like the jokes, Then they should get the 2025 Dilbert calendar, which is now reissued.
It was discontinued last year.
But now it's reissued.
Made in America.
Twice the comics.
It's got the traditional comics that you always see on the front pages.
But on the backs of every page is the Dilbert calendar.
Reborn comic that is only available normally to subscribers.
And so you'll get twice as many comics as ever.
The only place you can buy this is at the link at Dilbert.com.
It is not going to be on any other online or brick-and-mortar store.
The only place you get it, go to Dilbert.com and get the link.
If you buy it as a presale, it's good for me.
So if you like me, Buy it now.
Don't wait till December 15th because they get printed on demand the way we're banking them.
So you don't want to run out by waiting too long.
And the sooner you do it, the better it is for me.
If you...
Know somebody that you want to give a gift to who's sort of a brainy, big thinker, philosophy, sci-fi kind of person?
They will love the newly issued God's Debris, which is now three separate works.
It's God's Debris, which used to be its own book.
It is the sequel as well, also now in the same book, The Religion War.
Very hard to find the sequel.
And I've added a short story.
It's called Lucky House.
Lucky House rounds out the trilogy, and a number of people tell me this is the best book they've ever read in their life.
That's a real thing.
All the time, people tell me it's the best book they've ever read in their life.
Now, that was even the first God's degree people have been telling me that.
So, not every person is going to like every book, but this is a real good bet.
It'll make your brain spin around in your head.
Win Bigley is a book I wrote about Trump's 2016 run and the influence he used.
So if you want to give a book to somebody that will help them be more successful and happy, I've got three books.
One will teach you persuasion in the context of how Trump used it, but it's all stuff you can use.
You could use it immediately.
Just read it and you'll know how to do it.
This is the second edition, so it's a little bit updated.
If you've already read the first one, you don't need to read the second one because it's just punched up a little bit.
Likewise, my book from 2013, How to Fail Almost Everything and Still Win Big, is still the OG book in the success domain, career or personal.
And this is the book that's influenced a whole bunch of other books.
So you'll see the work from this book In lots of popular books, and you might not recognize where it came from, but if you want to see the original work that teaches about systems over goals and building talent stacks and chasing your...
What do you call it?
Your joy or something?
It's not so good.
Just build yourself a talent stack.
You'll be fine.
And then more recently...
This is the first edition that came out in the last year.
Reframe Your Brain will teach you how to think yourself into a happier and more productive life without doing any work at all.
All you have to do is read the various reframes in the book.
Some won't apply to you.
Doesn't matter.
But the ones that do apply to you, you might find them completely spinning your thoughts around to the point where things that were big problems just go away.
This can fix problems in your career plan, your mental health, your physical health, your social life.
Basically, every part of your life has at least one reframe, which is just a simple way to look at something differently that changes everything about it.
So, if you want persuasion, you want a plan for success, professionally or personally, and you want to either change your brain to get the best result, I've got three books that I guarantee you people love.
They really love these books.
So, Entertainment on the Left.
Fix your life on the right.
And there you are.
All right, I'm going to talk to the people who are subscribers on Locals.
