All Episodes
Oct. 22, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:21:19
Episode 2636 CWSA 10/22/24

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, Anti-Drone Lasers, 2024 Election Statistical Tie, WaPo Polling, Illegitimate Polling, Kamala NBC Taped Interview, WI Ineligible Mail-In Ballots, Bodily Autonomy, Abortion Policy Voting, Enemy Within Hoax, Loss of Freedom, Liz Cheney Allegations, Steve Bannon Imprisonment, Beaten-Down Republicans, Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, James Carville, Mark Cuban Loudest Smartest Democrat, Kamala's Unrealized Gains Tax, Election Day Priming, Election Integrity, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Do-do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do-do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and if you don't feel it yet, if you don't feel the excitement that is the simultaneous sip, and you'd like to, You'd like to go to a level that nobody has ever even achieved with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank of gel, just a night in 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Technology's working.
Caffeine's going right to my mitochondria, where it belongs.
Well, what's new?
According to Study Finds, 65 is the new 25.
They did a little study, and they found out that if you do something for old people over 65, called Brain Endurance Training, So they do exercise, but they also do mental exercises.
And guess what they found?
Can anybody guess what they found when they had old people physically exercising and also doing mental exercising?
What did they find?
Can anybody guess?
Yeah, when they did physical exercises, people got physically healthier.
And when they did mental exercises, people got mentally sharper.
Well, they could have saved a little bit of time just by asking me, because I don't believe there's ever been a study since the beginning of time Where somebody started exercising and got weaker.
Or somebody started eating right and got sicker.
Or somebody started using their brain more and got dumber.
I think we're 100% on all those, aren't we?
But yet, people are spending money to confirm.
Exercise?
Good.
All right.
But it gets better.
A research team at Florida State University found that loneliness will heighten your risk of dementia.
So your risk of dementia will be heightened if you're lonely.
So let's put these two things together.
If you exercise, you get healthier.
And if you're talking to people about interesting things, probably that's good for your brain.
So what you should do is go for a walk with people you don't know.
I'm going to keep pushing this idea and see if it ever breaks through.
So, so far I have zero traction on this idea.
It goes like this.
The solution to everything is take a walk.
But try to figure out how to take a walk with other people and try to do it every day.
Now, I mean, some days the weather may be, you know, unpleasing.
But if you simply made it a habit in the United States that everybody takes a walk after dinner, you don't have to eat at the same time.
Just take a walk after dinner every night, no matter what.
If you see your neighbors, maybe you catch up with them and walk together.
If you don't, you know, the street's still going to be full of people and you got a lot of people watching.
But if America could develop just one habit of every day, eat first, take a walk.
Just walk out your door.
Don't drive your car to a good place to take a walk.
Just walk out the door.
And keep walking for like 50 minutes or something.
I'm going to sell that idea no matter how much you don't like it.
Because walking is the only thing that everybody can do.
And it's one of the few exercises where it's talking intensive.
So you get your walkie and you're talking at the same time and you don't have to think too much about what machine is available.
You don't have to join.
Well, you know, it's obvious.
According to SciPost, they just studied and found out that attractive people are more generous.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe attractive people are more generous?
So the way they did it was they did a game where you would allocate tokens to people based on the rules of the game.
And they found out that with the token allocating game that people were expecting the attractive people to be more generous and then they rated that they were.
Do you see anything wrong with that study at all?
Does anything jump out as obviously wrong with that study that attractive people are more generous?
If you put people in a token-related game where the only thing you have at risk is some tokens that don't have any value, you're not really going to get the same result as the real world.
Let me explain everything you need to know about the real world.
Attractive people can get away with anything.
No, they're not more generous.
Attractive people are definitely not more generous because they don't need to be.
Attractive people can get what they want out of life by just existing because other people want to give them things and they don't mind when they don't get something from them.
Hey, you just showed up.
If the most attractive celebrity you can think of just showed up here at your house, you know, without you knowing it, would the first thing you think be, what, no gift?
No hostess gift?
No, you would say, my God, you're attractive.
Get in here.
I want to tell all my friends that you came.
So here's what I learned by being a minor celebrity.
Minor celebrities are treated a little bit the way I imagine attractive people are.
I can only imagine if I had been attractive at the same time.
Imagine being famous and attractive.
That's a pretty big advantage.
Now, I only have the minor fame thing going for me, but even I would get treated in a way that even my flaws were forgiven immediately because I was famous.
And even I don't agree with that.
It's like, okay, you should be a little bit harder on me right now.
I kind of deserve...
I feel like I deserve some scorn right now for being five minutes late.
But if you're attractive or you're famous, people let you do anything.
And it's not fair.
I'm not in favor of it.
I'm just saying that I doubt you can find out anything about attractive people with a game that involves tokens that you didn't have to buy yourself.
I don't think so.
All right, so according to Newsweek, I think it was Sweden, but a NATO ally, I think it's Sweden, is doing some testing on these lasers, jet-fitted lasers.
So they managed to shoot down 100% of the missiles that they tested.
Apparently this whole missile thing, the whole lasers on ships and lasers on planes, it's going to be a thing.
And we have two trends that are going to intersect.
One is swarms of drones and the other is lasers.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only thing you could ever do cost-effectively to thwart a swarm of drones would be lasers.
It turns out that the lasers, they only need to shoo for, say, 10 seconds, and it only costs you $13 per shot.
So you could take down a million-dollar missile for $13 per shot.
That's not counting the setup expense.
But if you had a swarm of drones coming at you, and you could just put a steady laser up there, and just go, and almost do like a laser printer, except you'd be destroying drones as you lasered.
I'll bet it wouldn't take too many laser defense units to take out a thousand drones, because it could just go bram, bram, bram, bram, bram, bram, bram, just a continuous firing, I would think.
So those two trends are going to come together, lasers and drones.
um The Wall Street Journal has an article today that's very timely.
You know how we pretend that polling for elections is like a real thing and it's valid and stuff?
And we all pretend it because it gives us something to talk about in the horse race.
Hey, somebody's up by 0.2.
And there's really no validity to it at all, at least within the range that is important.
So the Wall Street Journal went through discussing how they have to update their assumptions all the time.
And if there's one thing I can tell you about prediction models, if they have a lot of assumptions, it's the assumption that determines the outcome.
It's not the model.
This is the one thing that everybody gets wrong if they've never actually worked with models, you know, the kind of models that are supposed to predict what happens tomorrow.
If you have lots of assumptions, and here would be an example, one assumption would be the people who are going to vote this year are the same people who voted in 2016.
Let's say for Republicans.
But what if it's closer to the number of people percentage who voted in 2020?
Because 2020 and 2016 weren't the same.
Or do you take the average and say it's going to be somewhere between the 2016 and the 2020 rate?
What would be your argument for doing any one of those things?
There's no way to validate which one of those is the right thing to do.
And then I think there are a few other ways to slice it.
So if the thing that makes the difference in your polling is which one of those techniques you picked, follow my logic.
The only thing that determined the outcome was your assumption.
And your assumption was based on nothing.
Nothing.
Because you don't know that the outcome or the turnout for this election will be closer to 2016 or 2020.
You don't know that, but you have to pick one.
So literally, I don't know, this is one of those things that is so obvious, but typically if you don't work with this kind of material, you don't see it.
The model of And the number of people who responded have nothing to do with the outcome.
The outcome is entirely determined by which of those three choices you made, and really there are probably more than three, and there's no backing for them.
There's no reasonable backing for any one of them.
Now, of course, they all have arguments.
Their arguments would be, well, I think this or that, or I looked at some other source and this or that, but they're really assumptions.
Yes, so the polls are pretty gamed.
All right, so let me give you some examples.
Nate Silver says, Nate Silver being maybe the most famous of political pollsters in the world, in America, let's say.
And he says the data continues to be pretty negative for Harris.
So Nate Silver sees that the polling trend is pro-Trump.
But that is still basically a statistical tie.
Now, a year ago, every one of us could have told you that it would be a statistical tie this week, no matter who ran, and no matter how well they did the campaign.
Am I right?
Now, I told you, How many of you remember that a year ago, I was saying, and probably said it once a month for a year, that it would be tie at the end?
You remember that, right?
And that's when I thought Biden was running.
You can even change out the characters, and I can still tell you what the poll will be in the last day.
Tie.
It'll be a statistical tie.
Now, is that a coincidence?
What causes that?
Now, the only thing I can think of is that the media consciously and subconsciously knows it needs to be close, or else they'll do what they did with Biden, which is switch them out, or they'll change the coverage.
So it seems to me that all the people who make money by making sure that you're glued to the TV and glued to the Internet, I feel like they all know that the way they make the most money Is by keeping it a tie.
But forget about the media.
If there's also manipulation in the deep state, I don't know that there is, but if there is, they would also need to keep it a tie.
So that if there's any cheating, hypothetically, I have no proof of any cheating.
But hypothetically, they'd want it to look like a tie going into the election.
So no matter which way it goes, the public will say, oh, well, that's within the expected range.
I accept that result.
So basically, every force in the world is consciously and unconsciously forcing it toward a tie.
And the world will do something dramatic if it's not a tie, which we saw.
They actually got rid of the candidate in the summer before the election.
Now, that's a pretty big change.
And why did they do it?
Because they couldn't keep the tie going.
They couldn't keep it a tie.
So they had to make something dramatic happen, and they did.
So it's always going to be a tie when you get to the end.
So is polling useful?
What's the point of polling if you know what the answer is going to be a year in advance and it doesn't matter who the candidates are or what they did or even what their policies are?
So that's the world we live in.
New Mexico could be a dark horse, they say.
Breitbart is reporting that typically, I guess, New Mexico would go to the Democrat candidate, but Trump's knocking on the door.
And he's only a few points behind, and he might even be close to the margin of error in a state he's not supposed to win at all.
But who knows?
But then let's look at the Washington Post.
Now, I've told you before that you can think of the polling companies as legitimate polling companies and not legitimate.
The legitimate ones are going to try to get the right answer by Election Day.
The illegitimate ones might also have to, you know, suddenly do something at the last minute, but they're really not trying to.
They're trying to influence how you feel about things.
So the Washington Post poll, as Molly Hemingway points out, the Washington Post's latest poll says Harris is winning Wisconsin by two points.
And as Molly Hemingway points out, that may be.
But she says in her post, but please never, ever forget that their 2020, their final 2020 poll said Biden was going to win Wisconsin by 17.
By 17.
He did win it by.7.
Less than one point.
And the Washington Post said he was going to win by 17.
Now, in some domains, 17 isn't that big a number.
17%, 17 points.
But in the election...
That's an enormous number.
So by that scale, as Molly points out, Harris would be losing the state by 14 instead of being ahead by two.
So here's what I ask.
You know, we always see the polling averages, like the real clear politics is an average.
Does this get averaged in when real clear politics does their average?
Do they put this in there?
They put the Washington Post in the average?
I don't know, but I'm guessing they probably do.
What good is an average if one of them is just absurd?
Now, let me ask you this.
Suppose you went the other way, and instead of just saying, okay, if it's a poll, it's a poll, we'll put it in the average.
Suppose instead you say, okay, we're going to put everything in the average, but we're going to take out ones that are obviously wrong.
Now what happens?
Now it's the assumption that gives you the answer.
The assumptions about which ones you decide are way too outside the range.
Oh, this one's got to go.
The assumption makes the answer, not the poll.
So once again, it's a trick.
If there are any assumptions involved in how you put the numbers together, it's the assumption that drives it, not the poll, not the voters.
All right, so here's some bad signs for Kamala.
So in The Hill, this is an opinion piece in The Hill.
The title of the opinion piece is, What If Joe Biden Was the Better Candidate All Along?
Now, here's the funny part.
I don't know who wrote it, the opinion piece, and I don't know even if it was a Democrat or a Republican.
What's funny is that this could even exist.
Imagine how bad Kamala Harris is if she's literally being compared unfavorably by anybody, by anybody, to the guy who's clearly mentally disabled at this point.
That's a pretty bad sign.
That's a bad sign.
Got any more bad signs?
Sure.
Apparently, Harris is not going to be in public today.
She's taking the entire day off to work on getting ready for an NBC interview, which will be taped.
It won't even be live.
Now, remember I always tell you, if what you know is just the facts that are in the news, you don't know anything.
Facts don't tell you anything.
It seems like they would, but they don't.
Here's what you need to know, the players.
If you know the players...
You probably know everything.
So, if I told you that the most important interview, the one that's going to be probably closest to election, that's a major interview, was going to be by NBC, what would that tell you?
NBC is one of the most famously Non-serious entities, meaning that they're just in the bag for the Democrats.
Some would say NBC is famously part of the deep state intel community.
I don't know about that.
I know it looks like it.
I mean, in every way it looks like it's just a CIA entity.
But I don't know that.
It's just what people say.
People know more than I do.
Now, the fact that it's taped...
Tells you that if they're working with what could be one of the friendliest networks and it's taped, what does that tell you about editing?
It tells you that her bad answers will be edited down.
Of course.
Do you think that they don't have a deal?
Or do you think that the person who does the editing is an anti-Harris person?
I doubt it.
Don't you think that the editing will determine what you think about the outcome?
Yes, it will.
It's just like the assumptions.
The assumptions drive the poll, not the voters.
It's just the assumptions.
And with an interview like this, where it's taped and it will clearly be edited, the editor determines whether it goes well.
That's just how it works.
It's the editor who will determine.
Now, the audience will think that they're seeing Kamala Harris doing well or not doing well.
Well, they're going to see her doing well, because it's NBC. But that will be a decision of the editor.
It won't be because she did well or didn't do well.
We won't know.
Because anything she didn't do well, you won't see.
Anything she did well will be running on a loop.
So you're seeing something that you think is judging whether somebody could do well in an interview.
What you're actually seeing is the talent of an editor.
That's the real world.
The real world is the editor will determine how this looks, and the editor is almost certainly going to be on her side.
Otherwise, she wouldn't be doing it, so she would know that in advance.
There will be an avalanche of claims about the elections that will be nonstop and more than I can tell you.
These will be claims that there are irregularities or problems, and I won't know what's true, but I'll warn you again that 95% of all the claims you hear of irregularity in the election will not be true.
They won't check out.
95%.
And that's a minimum.
It could be 100%.
Very easily, it could be that not a single thing that anybody finds made any difference to the election.
I mean, they could be small and not make a difference.
That's possible.
Could be 100% of the things that are surfaced weren't really a problem.
Now, that doesn't mean there's no problems.
I'm just saying it could be that 100% of the things that people identify as maybe problems, maybe when you look into them, they're not.
So don't assume that anything you hear from now going forward isn't necessarily true.
It's good to hear them, just so you know what the chatter is and how people are feeling and get a sense of the vibe and, you know, estimate the odds of something terrible happening at the election.
I'm going to close my automatic blinds to improve my lighting so you're going to hear some noise in the background.
I knew there was something I forgot.
So anyway, the Gateway Pundit says with 31,000 mail-in ballots requested at ineligible addresses in one swing state.
That would be Wisconsin.
And there are a whole bunch of categories in the 31,000.
But remember, the context is that almost all claims in this domain are not going to check out, or they're not going to be that important to the final outcome.
Doesn't mean none of them are, just means most.
All right.
So there's a whole list of reasons that there are a bunch of addresses or ballots that are not valid.
It's stuff like multiple ballots going to addresses that nobody lives at, people who move down the state, addresses that don't actually match the actual address.
So a number of them maybe are just ordinary mistakes.
Don't know how many.
A number of them look like they could be bad behavior.
A number of them could be just mistakes.
They could be reporting that's not reliable.
You know, maybe somebody reported something happened, but it didn't, or they thought they saw something, they didn't.
So there are a whole bunch of reasons that go into this 31,000.
I'll just note that somebody's looking at it.
You know, so the Gateway Pundit's all over it.
Well, if the election were fair and Trump were to lose, I think that it would be blamed almost totally on his failure and the Republican failure to do good messaging on bodily autonomy for women.
Let me tell you what should have happened.
It didn't happen at all.
But this is what I'm going to say if Trump loses.
And it looks like the election is fair.
If the election looks fair, and Trump loses fair and square, it's going to be because of bodily autonomy for women.
Would you agree?
Because Trump is dominating the male vote, and when women are voting against him, it's almost always the bodily autonomy thing.
And they have an argument.
They do have an argument.
But the trouble is, the Republicans also have a good argument.
It's just they've never used it.
I don't know why, exactly.
I mean, there might be a reason, but I don't know why.
So I'm going to give you the good argument.
There's still time, but it's not going to move many votes.
So here's the good argument.
Did you know that 55% of the electorate is women?
So in the country as a whole, 55% of the people who actually are going to vote are women.
55%.
That means that men are, yeah, 45%.
The difference between 45 and 55, that's a really big difference.
That's an enormous difference.
Now, it's not the same in every state.
In, for example, Alaska and North Dakota, there are a lot of male jobs, so there are more men who live there.
Now, even though there are more men who live there, the voting is still going to be closed.
But here's what the Republicans should have said.
Here's our argument on bodily autonomy.
Republicans are better for bodily autonomy.
We've taken the decision out of the Supreme Court that's mostly men.
We've taken it out of the presidency, which, when it was done, it was a man.
And we've moved it to the states where 55% of the voters are women.
That's moving bodily autonomy toward the direction of women deciding and taking men out of the mix.
Now, men can still vote, but they're not the majority, and half of the men are on, you know, they're split on the abortion anyway.
So if women just get women to vote and get a good majority of women, they can have anything they want.
Bodily autonomy is squarely 100% a decision of women, collectively.
If women collectively can't decide what their own bodily autonomy should be, it's really not the government's problem.
The government is effectively sidelined.
That's what Trump did.
And maybe that's the way to say it.
Trump sidelined the courts and sidelined the federal government and said, ladies, you're most of the voters and half of the men are already on your side.
You can get anything you want with that situation.
So bodily autonomy by far, and I mean this like not just a political argument, but like actually literally true, by far the Republicans have done better on bodily autonomy.
So not only are they saying, women, you decide what you do with your bodies.
That's the change that we gave you.
Now that you can decide not the Supreme Court.
But also, we can make it safer to walk down the street.
Isn't part of your bodily autonomy just being able to take a walk without getting beaten up?
The Republicans are way better than that, because everybody thinks the Republicans would be tougher on crime and migrants.
Do you think that Trump would make you safer from blowing up in a nuclear blast?
I think so.
I think so.
Do you think Trump would make you...
Do you think Trump working with RFK Jr.
is going to help your body in terms of your nutrition and maybe the better testing of the vaccinations and big pharma?
Well, nobody else has a plan.
I only see one person who's trying to help the bodily autonomy in food and medicine.
Nobody else does even have a plan for that.
But Trump has a really good plan to unleash RFK Jr.
on that.
How about the freedom to put food in your body?
If you can't afford groceries, how's your bodily autonomy?
You don't have any.
If you can't afford food, that's the ultimate in not having bodily autonomy.
But Trump can make an argument that he'd be better on inflation and better on the economy.
So the bodily autonomy is, do you have a job?
Can you walk the streets?
And who gets to make the decision about your abortion?
The Republican plan is women make the decision about abortions because they have the electoral majority.
We'll make it safer to walk down the street.
We'll make it safer to put food in your body.
We'll make it safer to put medicine in your body.
We won't force you to take, let's say, a shot.
And I don't think this is close.
In terms of bodily autonomy, the Republican argument that they're giving you more of it Even to carry a gun.
You know, the right to put a gun on your body and make that basically part of your personal defense.
Almost every part of the bodily autonomy argument is pro-Republican.
But nobody, not even Vivek, not even JD Vance, you know, the people that you'd expect to make really good arguments all the time, they're not even close on this one.
I don't know why.
I don't know if they didn't test enough different messages.
It's just not obvious.
Maybe they don't want women to vote against abortion, so they don't want to tell them they have that power, but they should know that.
So there is certainly a time lag, meaning that because Roe was overturned, there are a number of states that suddenly were more restrictive.
The women in those states, some of them, said, no, no, I don't like this.
But over time, This is the superior situation.
Because over time, women should get everything they want if they vote.
Well, let's talk about the enemy within.
You know, Trump has used that phrase, the enemy within, and then the Democrats tried to turn it into, you mean us.
Of course, he's not talking about them.
He doesn't mean the pundits, but the pundits think everything's about them.
But as the infinite dude points out on the X platform, The enemy within hoax pretends Democrats don't make those same legal threats to Trump and Trump supporters on the daily.
And I was thinking to myself, I can't believe that I got accustomed to the thought that my government might jail me on a pretense.
I'm actually, I've incorporated that into my normal worldview.
That my actual risk of just being a person who talks about the news is I could go to jail.
And not for something I did, but something they made up.
And I actually think about that almost every day.
Now, I wouldn't say, you know, I've got a million things that could kill me that I have to worry about, so it's not in the top ten.
But every day, I think about Democrats weaponizing the Justice Department to take out me.
Now, I'm pretty sure that, you know, politics is why I got canceled career-wise, so I don't think there's any limit to what they're willing to do to anybody if they can take you off the field.
But, so I've been the enemy within, as far as Democrats go, I've been the enemy within since 2016.
I also got used, you know how you can get used to anything?
I always quote my deceased mother.
She used to say you can get used to anything if you do it long enough, including hanging.
And, you know, it was sort of a common thing she often said.
And After 2016, when I started backing Trump, I lost basically 100% of my social life.
It just disappeared.
At some point, I couldn't even join a gym because it was just too uncomfortable because people recognize me.
And I had to stop completely licensing.
So there was no point of licensing anything anymore because I couldn't do any public speaking because nobody would pay me unless it was a partisan group.
So that complete business went away.
And I just sort of rolled with it.
Like I just said, well, this is my new normal.
And bit by bit, Democrats took my freedom away.
And I guess I wasn't noticing each little bit.
It's like, well, okay, you got to wear this mask.
You just got to get this shot.
You can't have a social life anymore.
Can't join a gym and be comfortable.
Can't give speeches.
Can't do your normal job.
Oh, in fact, we're going to take you out of all publications and cancel all of your books.
And I just sort of started getting used to having all of my freedom taken away a little bit at a time.
And to hear the Democrats be complaining because Trump says there's an enemy within, well, who did all of this to me?
Not a single foreign person has bothered me in years that I'm aware of.
But wow, Americans have fucked with me pretty hard.
For what?
Was I trying to hurry you?
Was I trying to make the world a worse place to live in?
Nope.
My entire motivation is that if I can't make things better, I'm not even a little bit interested.
If I don't think I can make something better.
Not even a little bit interested.
Because it's not like I do this for the money.
Right?
So I'm doing it for a higher cause.
And the enemy within is just vicious.
Just vicious.
So...
I would like to congratulate the Biden-Harris administration for, and I don't think they get enough credit for this.
They told us that the biggest threat in America was white supremacy.
That would be like an enemy within white supremacy.
But they've been in office for almost four years, and I don't recall any big problems with white supremacists, which means they solved it.
So the Biden-Harris campaign, I'd like to give them their due.
They identified the biggest problem in the country, the white supremacists, and they managed to eliminate it without doing anything I even noticed.
I didn't even notice them doing anything.
Now, I do know that they looked really hard in the military and couldn't find any.
But they were pretty sure there were some in the hills, you know, organizing up in the mountains.
I don't think they found any, or they got rid of them.
But congratulations.
I'd like to give a Tim Walsh seal clap for the Biden-Harris administration.
Could you join me?
Would you like to join me at home in a Tim Walsh seal clap for getting rid of all the white supremacy and having no problems for four years?
Okay?
Tim Walsh, seal clap.
That was worth waiting for, wasn't it?
All right.
According to Julie Kelly, Liz Cheney might have committed some crimes running that January 6th show trial.
According to Representative Loudermilk, there are some allegations that Liz Cheney may have committed several federal crimes, including tampering with a witness, suborning perjury, and fabricating evidence.
Now, what I say is no one's above the law.
You've probably never heard that before.
Have you ever heard that?
It goes like this.
No one is above the law.
Yeah, probably nobody's ever said that before.
This could be the first time you've ever heard it.
But I think that applies.
That applies here.
I don't know what she did or did not do.
But if she did the crimes that she is accused of, they're some of the worst crimes in American history.
And that would make her the enemy within.
It does seem like the January 6th committee was an enemy to the American people because I don't think they were working on our behalf.
Let's see.
Apparently the warden who is in charge of the prison where Steve Bannon is has admitted that they're illegally keeping him in prison.
Wait, what?
The warden is admitting that they are currently keeping him illegally in prison.
Now, I'm sure there's some nuance to this story that I'm not picking up, but my understanding of it is that Steve Bannon completed the requirements for consideration for early release under Trump's own plan for early release, and his application was Has simply been ignored.
It wasn't turned down.
They just ignored it.
And they're still ignoring it.
In other words, there's a Republican, an American citizen, who's in jail right now for reasons where even the warden says he doesn't belong there.
The warden doesn't say it that way.
The warden says he hasn't acted on the request, I guess.
Now, where is that jail?
What jail is he in?
And why are there not already a million Republicans surrounding the jail?
There should be a million Republicans surrounding the jail.
How did they beat us down this hard?
We're pretty beaten down, aren't we?
Everybody who says, oh, if the election doesn't go right, there's going to be a revolution?
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
Yeah.
So if this is true, I'll take a fact check on this, because maybe there's something to the story that I don't know.
There may be some, like, technical requirement they're leaning on that I don't know about.
But if it's true they're keeping them in jail and they don't have a reason, there should be a million people standing around the jail.
They should be surrounded.
Now, not for violence, obviously not for violence.
But why are we letting this happen?
Because you know this is you next, right?
When I told you I wake up every day thinking, you know, they can fuck with me and nobody would do anything, look what they're doing to Bannon and nobody's doing anything.
What are you doing about it?
I'm doing nothing about it either.
I can't blame you because I'm not doing anything.
Where is he in jail?
What's the name of the warden?
Why is nobody reporting on it?
If Bannon's in jail, just not cool.
I feel like the January 6th people all being in jail, so many of them being prosecuted, has taken the fight out of the people who might have reached the streets and protested.
Now again, no violence, no violence.
Nobody wants any violence.
But There should be a million people around that jail by now.
Because Steve Bannon isn't just Steve Bannon.
He's about the clearest avatar representing Trump supporters that you could ever have.
He's basically the Trump supporter avatar.
And they've got him in fucking jail.
And we're just sitting here.
You think they can't steal the election from you?
If you want to make sure that they don't steal the election, get him out of jail.
If you can get him out of jail with just, you know, legal, safe, peaceful protesting, then maybe we have a chance of some kind of a good election.
But why would they not cheat like hell if they can just put a guy in jail and keep him there without cause?
Right in front of you.
National news.
Nobody cares.
I feel like we don't have a chance.
Of having a fair election if Bannon's still in jail.
Not that they're directly related.
They're related in the sense that if the people in charge know that they can do this, they can just put you in jail and just keep you there without a good reason.
And by the way, I'll say again, if there's something to the story I'm missing, I'll update later.
But as far as I can tell, they're just keeping him there because they can.
So there really needs to be a million people around that jail.
It should be the only story in the news, honestly.
It should be the number one priority to get them out of the fucking jail.
Because it could happen to you next, right?
Could happen to me next, pretty easily.
So, definitely could happen to you next.
Don't move any lecterns, you'll be in jail too.
Meanwhile, the Gateway Pundits talking about Fannie Willis' lover, remember Nathan Wade?
So Fannie is the, what is she?
The DA? Yeah, the DA. And Georgia.
And she's the one prosecuting Trump, and there's evidence that Nathan Wade met with the White House a few times, which would suggest that the prosecution of Trump was lawfare and was being coordinated.
But of course, Wade pretends he doesn't remember.
Oh, I don't remember.
I don't even remember if I went.
It could have been just a video call.
I don't even know.
How many times was it?
I don't even remember.
Well, let me tell you this.
If you're not somebody who goes to the White House every day, You're not likely going to forget any of the visits.
It's kind of a big deal.
And there's talk that maybe Fannie was planning to get Trump the whole time and so had nothing to do with what Trump did and everything to do with lawfare.
I would consider them the enemies within.
Enemies within.
So if you're keeping track of Liz Cheney and the January 6th people, definitely there's some suggestion that they might be the enemies within because there's allegations they committed serious, serious crimes.
The warden has admitted that he doesn't have a reason to keep Bannon in jail.
There might be more to that story, but so far that looks like an enemy within.
Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade, their behavior that we know about would suggest that they're not on the side of the public and that they are an enemy within.
How many of them should go to jail?
Well, only if they broke laws.
If they didn't break any laws, I guess we have to deal with it in whatever legal, non-violent way we can.
But it looks pretty bad to me.
Well, according to the New York Post, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that'd be a big paper in Georgia, suggests that the Democrats are failing to connect with men.
And they're going to lose, and they say that only 20%, 28% of, it looks like Democrats will lose in Georgia, currently, and that just 28% of men back the Harris campaign.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, only 28% of men in Georgia are backing Harris?
28%?
Now, this was what they called a survey, not a poll.
I think this one you have to rack up to no way.
I think there's no way that's even close.
This is sort of like the Washington Post and their 17 points for Wisconsin in the prior election.
I don't think so.
I'm going to go, nah, on this one.
All right.
But there are many men who do support Harris, many very virile and the kind of men that the women just won't have sex with.
Let's put it that way.
We're talking about the kind of men who support Harris that when women even just hear their names or see their pictures, they swoon.
They swoon.
So, for example, George Conway, when the ladies see him on TV, they go, hmm, hmm.
There's Morning Joe, totally sane.
Stephen King, Rob Reiner, P. Diddy, James Carville.
Well, I think you can see the point.
It's a veritable list of men's men, the kind of men that every woman wants to just have a baby with.
Anyway, speaking of Carville, I'm really loving...
How batshit crazy he's become.
So look at the journey for James Carville.
So he got famous during the Clinton campaign for telling everybody and reminding them, it's the economy, stupid.
So if they focused on the economy, that they had the stronger message and they would win.
And sure enough, they won.
So he went from the genius who came up with, it's the economy, stupid.
Currently, he's pushing the idea that Trump's rally in Madison Square Garden is intentionally designed to mirror a 1939 Nazi event.
Let's compare, and let's see if we can figure out if James Carville has lost his fastball.
All right?
Here's the fastball.
It's the economy, stupid.
Boom.
Clinton becomes president, and everybody says, that was brilliant, and it becomes part of the history of how clever he was as a campaign manager.
And now it's...
Trump's going to have a rally in a place where everybody has a rally, except because it's Trump having the rally in the place that everybody has a rally at Madison Square Garden, which is an obvious place to have a rally.
It must be because he's mimicking Nazis in 1939.
Does that sound like the same fastball to you?
I think it's slowed down a little bit.
And the funny thing is, absolutely nobody is picking up on it.
He's trying to make it something that people are going to copy and imitate.
He's been on the news saying it now several times.
But correct me if I'm wrong, zero other people have said this out loud.
Am I wrong?
Have you heard any other person, any Democrat, even Rachel Maddow, anybody?
Have you heard anybody?
Say that because it's a rally in Madison Square Garden, it's evocative of Nazi Germany.
He can't even get a Democrat to repeat it.
anyway hilariously bat shit crazy I CNBC is talking about how Kamala Harris is delegating her major policy talk to Mark Cuban in the final weeks.
So I forget who said it.
Somebody on CNBC said that.
Now, I think that's true.
Mark Cuban has emerged as...
I've probably heard as much or more about Kamala Harris' economic plans for Mark Cuban as I have heard from her or any other source.
Now, many of you, and me included...
Have been fascinated by the mystery that is Mark Cuban.
Why is he acting the way he is and saying the things he says?
To many of you, it looks batshit crazy.
And maybe it is.
But I tend not to think it's stupid or crazy.
Because he's not stupid or crazy in general.
So it would be weird if he were a higher functioning than most people all the rest of the time.
But in this one narrow area, he was just stupid and crazy.
So I think stupid and crazy can be ruled out.
It's something else.
And if you take the assumption that he's actually an unusually smart person, which is my preferred view on things, then it looks different.
So what would be his motivation if you assumed that he's just unusually smart and he's doing exactly something smart to get what he wants?
What would that look like?
Well, here's what it might be.
So, I can't read minds, so this is just recreational, right?
So, Mark, if you're watching, this will be my entertaining attempt to read your mind.
Some of it might be he just has some past with Trump that doesn't make him happy.
So that might be some minor pressure, but it wouldn't be enough to make you go full in the way he is.
So I would rule out that everything he's doing is just about a feeling about Trump.
It comes through, but it can't be the main motivation.
There's just not enough reason for that.
So it'd be something else.
So what would be a big gain that Mark Cuban could possibly get for going all in on Harris?
Well, some would say he wants to get maybe a cabinet position or get some kind of clout.
I don't see any indication of that.
Because his current life and job and position are way better, way better than being, I don't know, secretary of this or that.
That would just be a waste of his talents, I think.
So I don't think it's that he wants a job.
Doesn't need one.
It wouldn't boost him.
And even his message would be less, probably.
You'd probably hear less of him.
So if he doesn't want a job, there are two possibilities that really stand out.
One, he may have businesses that really really really need the government to be on his side.
For example, if you're in the pharmaceutical business, as he is, he owns a...
What's it called?
I forget the name of it, but it's a real good idea.
He's lowering prices for a lot of meds, which we compliment him for.
And I have nothing but unreserved appreciation and respect for taking that on to the extent that he's actually lowering costs for meds.
Good job.
Thank you.
That is exactly, exactly what I want to see our successful people doing.
I want to see our billionaires putting us in space.
I want to see them lowering our drug costs.
I want to see our billionaires, the people who know how to do big stuff, do some big stuff.
And he is.
So he's doing some big stuff.
If he never did anything else, I'd say that was a hell of a good job, Mark Cuban, lowering those prices.
So it could be that either that or some other jobs he's got, he's got some benefit that he doesn't think he can get as much appreciation from the Republicans, maybe.
Maybe he thinks the Democrats would be better.
But that doesn't really make sense, does it?
Because you would think that the Republicans would be far better at removing regulations.
You know, unless there's some special situation that goes the other way in this case.
But that doesn't really feel satisfying as an explanation that he's doing it for his own businesses.
I think he would just try to stay out of government stuff if he wanted to do it for business.
So my experience, and many people's experience, is that if you become identified with one political side, it will pretty much destroy your business going forward, whatever your business is.
So I would rule out that he's being political for business success.
Because he's already got enough, and it probably would reduce his number of customers who have a good feeling about him by 50%.
So, yeah, I don't think it'd work.
The other possibility is the fun one.
The fun one is that we don't have a real government.
And we haven't for a long time.
Meaning that the way things get decided is by some weird collection of interests and who has the most power at any moment.
So some of it might be the money people who are donating have influence.
Some of it is the big...
Corporations have influence.
Sometimes we're doing things for allies.
Maybe some would say we're doing things for the benefit of Israel more than America, some would say.
And so it's this whole bunch of forces in many ways that form through a few people who get elected.
But it's not the elected people who are even making the decisions.
They kind of get the decision.
And then they tell you what it is.
But it feels like the decisions are made by this large constellation of advisors and influencers and money people and all that.
Now, if you accept that that's what it looks like, that we live in a world in which nobody's really in charge, everything is just Everything is just this long game of lots of variables going into stuff until something happens, which is how I see the world.
If you throw somebody like a Mark Cuban into that world, what happens?
Just give it a thought.
It's a big confused world where decisions are just coming from every direction and the best argument wins and now you just throw a non-elected But highly visible, Mark Cuban into the middle of it.
What happens?
Well, let me tell you.
It would give him an unusual amount of control over the country without being elected.
Because I always tell you the best ideas win.
So he's out in public testing ideas every day.
He'll throw something out and then a whole bunch of criticism comes in.
And then he either tries it again or he tweaks it, tries something else.
So he's out there testing one message after another, becoming the voice of economics for the Democratic Party.
What's the most important issue?
Economics.
Economics.
So if you become the most important voice, the one that goes on television, the one that MSNBC wants to talk to, the one that will go on Fox too, the one that will also go on CNN, the one who will also go on CNBC, and if every time he goes on, he's sort of speaking for, roughly speaking, the Democrat side of things, and he's the only one who makes sense, he's running the Democrats.
He would become the one who unofficially is making the economic and policies.
So here's the thing.
If you believe that Mark Cuban just got lucky and became a billionaire and he's really just a dope, then everything makes sense, right?
Everything you see would make sense if you assume, well, he's just a big dope or he just wants attention and he's not that bright.
Everything would make sense.
Everything you see would track perfectly.
Okay.
Yeah, that didn't make sense.
That didn't make sense.
He must be a big dope.
But I don't see that at all.
I don't see a big dope.
I see somebody who's smarter than most of us and always has been.
And he might be so much smarter that he figured out what I just explained to you, that the Democrat Party is such a mess that I think?
So Mark Cuban may have found a way through the back door to become one of the most important people in American influence.
And if that's what he was planning to do, and I don't know that, that would be speculation, just recreational speculation, it would be kind of awesome.
Now, not in the sense that I agree with everything he wants to do or thinks is a good idea.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if he intentionally said, the Democrat Party is a nest of incompetence, and the only thing I have to do to fix it is to be the loudest, smartest person, I can do that.
And he did.
He's the loudest, smartest person in the Democratic Party on the topic of economics.
To the point...
Where he's a better descriptor of their economic policy than Harris.
And when Mark Cuban tells you that Harris doesn't mean it about the tax on assets that have accrued in value but not been sold, when he tells you that's not really going to be implemented, I believe him.
So just think about this.
So you got two really big voices in the Democrat Party, obviously Harris.
Who is saying, I want to tax these unrealized gains.
And then you've got Mark Cuban who says, that's never going to happen.
But I like a lot of the other stuff.
What do you trust?
It's no contest.
You would trust Mark Cuban on that question, right?
By far.
I mean, I think there's no possibility that that will be implemented.
So yes, he is already...
The number one voice in economics in the party that's likely to win the White House.
Or, you know, it's a coin flip, I suppose.
So, do not rule out that his game is way smarter than you think it is.
Because all he had to do is be smart, say a bunch of stuff, don't be embarrassed if it doesn't work out, say something else.
So he has the voice, the personality, the charisma, the lack of embarrassment, which is really, really important.
And he knows enough about business and economics that he's credible.
You know, he can talk about the topics in ways that make sense to you.
He may have done one of the smartest things you've ever seen in American history, which is he saw incompetence.
He saw a solution himself.
He inserted himself into it, and he used exactly the tools that he had to become the prominent voice in economics, such that the next time a Democrat has a big idea, you want to bet they check with him first?
Here's how to think of it.
Let's say the Harris campaign comes up with a new idea.
At this point, would they roll it out before they checked with Mark Cuban, knowing that he's already shooting them down on that unrealized gains tax?
I think that if they're smart, they check with him first.
What's that make him?
It puts them in charge.
Because if they think they can't roll out a policy, if he's going to say it sucks, they probably won't do it.
And if they bring him a policy and he says, oh my God, I can sell the hell out of that.
All I have to do is show that Trump did this, but you want to do this.
The numbers are good.
Yes, do that.
I can sell that.
He's in charge.
So don't be surprised if If the real story there that maybe you'll never know is that he did one of the smartest things ever in America, and you want the good news?
Here's the good news.
You know how worried you are that everything will go to hell if the Democrats win?
Would you worry about that if Mark Cuban were in charge?
Probably not.
Probably not.
And he might be in charge.
Now, not of everything, but he might be the guardrails that are going to keep the Democrats from going full communist.
Because he's full capitalist.
So if you put that big of an anchor right in the middle of all their communist schemes, I'm being hyperbolic here, that's a big protection.
It's a big protection.
So here's what you should not rule out.
You should not rule out that what Mark Cuban is doing is probably one of the most patriotic things you've ever seen in your life.
Maybe.
Again, this is just recreational speculation.
It might be one of the most patriotic things you've ever seen.
Taking a personal risk to put himself in the middle of this incompetent Democrat swamp and just say, I'm going to make more noise until you can't ignore me, and I'm going to make it impossible for you to be as stupid as your impulses apparently are.
He's the thing that makes you think the Democrats might be a little bit smart and have at least one person who can tell them something that's true or not true without worrying about losing an election.
So it's funny, in the comments, somebody said it's ego.
Let me agree with you, but not in the way you think.
Would that be ego?
If, hypothetically, again, we can't read any minds, so we don't know what he's thinking, but if Mark Cuban said, I'm the only one who can fix this, and then he went in, is that ego?
Not if he can do it.
It's not ego if he can do it.
If he can do it, it's patriotic.
If he couldn't do it, and he somehow thought he had these abilities, well, then that's just some ego problem, I guess.
But if you can do it, and he's proven he can, that's not ego.
That's exactly the right kind of ego.
That's the one you want.
If you could all have that kind of ego, you'd all be in good shape.
All right, so I just thought I'd put that out there, just to make it fun.
As the Mays account on X points out, we seem to be getting primed for some kind of shenanigans on Election Day.
Mays points out that in 2016, the New York Times did a video about the 2000 election.
That was the Gore and Bush election where it took days to figure out who really won.
And the New York Times was talking about how crazy it was to not have a result on Election Day when we're a big, important country and we can't even figure out how to get anything done.
But today, we're being primed not by the New York Times necessarily, but by entities saying, you know, it might take up to four days.
Up to four days?
Now, I do think it'll take longer than that, actually.
But the fact that we're being primed for not being able to do an election without a four-day delay, unbelievable.
And then May has asked this.
He says, isn't that wild?
Can you think of anything other than voting in which the processes and technology have regressed in efficiency over a 25-year period?
Is there anything else in the United States that's got worse in 25 years?
Yes, airline travel.
Airline travel, it just only gets worse.
It's the same little seats, but they cost more and you have to, you know, wait longer and your luggage gets lost.
Yeah, airline travel, it's the same planes.
A lot of the planes are 25 years old, right?
I don't think it's improved.
But Rasmussen reports says that a majority, 55% of Democrats, think the election is going to be rigged or that the cheating will be a big part of the election.
Now, that's 55% of Democrats.
Presumably, when they answer that question, they're thinking the Republicans are doing the rigging.
How does it go the other direction?
Let's see.
58% of independents.
So independents and Democrats are largely on the same page.
By a good, healthy majority, think that cheating is going to be part of the process.
What about the Republicans?
Oh, 83%.
83% of Republicans think cheating is going to be, you know, a part of this election.
Now, that doesn't mean the cheating will change the election, but we do live in a world where there's lots of cheaters, so there will be attempts for sure.
I heard something that just blew my mind, if it's true.
I think this came from Mike Benz.
Do you know who owns Dominion voting machines?
How many of you know?
Do me a fact check as we're going.
What entity or company owns Dominion?
So it's not owned by itself.
It's owned by a larger entity.
Do you know the entity that owns it?
Anybody?
All right, I'll ask you a few questions and then see if you can.
So who's the entity that owns Dominion Voting Systems?
And then I'm going to ask you a second question.
Then who's the head of the group?
And then who does Joe Biden spend Thanksgiving with?
So, the answers, I think, are the Carlisle Group owns the Dominion Voting Company, and the head of the Carlisle Group owns the house that Biden stays at for Thanksgiving.
I don't know how many times he's done that, but...
So, if you stay with somebody for Thanksgiving, you know them pretty well, don't you?
Now, is that true?
Give me a fact check on that, because I thought I saw that, but I was in a hurry.
So is it true that the Carlyle Group owns Dominion voting machines, and that the head of the Carlyle Group is a good friend with Biden?
Is that true?
All right.
Well, I'll put that out there as a question.
I see some people confirming it, but does that raise any questions?
Oh, my goodness.
I don't know if that's true.
But let me say this statement for the record.
For the record.
I'd like to state that electronic voting machines...
And listen carefully because I don't want to get any legal trouble.
As far as I know, electronic voting machines are the only unhackable digital devices ever invented by humankind.
As far as I know.
So my understanding is that the only thing that you could not hack would be voting machines.
Now, some of you are like skeptical and you're like, oh, Scott, if it's digital, And there's a programmer.
Anything can be hacked.
Well, obviously not.
Obviously not, people.
If there were any problems with these voting machines, do you think the president of the United States would spend a Thanksgiving with the guy who was the head of the group that owns it?
Obviously not.
So I think we can say with certainty that the only kinds of digital devices that can't be hacked Our digital voting machines and counting machines cannot be hacked.
Stop it.
Stop looking at me like that.
They're the only ones that can't be hacked.
Everything else can be hacked, but not them.
Not them.
According to the National Post, voting machines failed the integrity test, but they're going to be used anyway in Dallas, Texas.
Okay, that's kind of worrisome.
So reportedly...
They tested only four machines in this Dallas County.
Let's see, where was it?
Just in Dallas.
So they only checked some of the machines.
And they say that tests showed that the machines failed on several fronts, including tabulation errors and vote flipping.
Vote flipping.
Vote flipping.
Come on.
They tested the machines and one of them vote flipped.
All right.
And the only four machines were tested in total.
So I don't know if this is true.
This is the National Pulse reporting it.
But in Dallas, they only tested four machines.
The four machines failed, and part of the failing was vote flipping.
And then they just said, well, good enough.
Yeah, that's like, that would be like testing, let's say, baby carriages.
We tested four baby carriages.
Two of them blew up.
Killed the baby inside.
Two of them did not.
We've decided to go with this design.
If you only test four machines and even one of them flips, if even one of them flips a result even once, you gotta shut down that whole system.
Has anybody ever worked in technology?
If you find one system and you've only picked four randomly out of all the machines in the whole area, and you've only picked four, and one of them flips a result, You have to close down the whole state or you're not even trying.
I mean, would you play it differently?
No, obviously it's too late and you know I'm sure they had their arguments and they probably said there's something special about this one machine but they couldn't possibly know that.
So is this report even true?
I mean, I don't know which voting machines they were looking at.
It doesn't say the vendor.
So it's not necessarily...
I have no reason to think it's Dominion.
But...
So the world we're living in is that absolutely everything is not looking credible at the moment.
But I remind you that the one thing we know for sure...
Is that voting machines are the only kind of digital devices that can't be hacked.
Cannot happen.
Impossible, people.
So if after this election you start saying that they can be, there's something wrong with you, not the machines.
That's all I've got for today.
Tonight I will be...
Tonight I'm going to live stream at 9 p.m.
Eastern Time, 6 p.m.
California.
And I will be filling out my ballot, which I will not be showing you.
It'll be off screen, but ballot.
And I'm going to ask you to fill out your ballots at the same time.
I won't be telling you how to vote.
That's up to you, of course.
But I just want to make sure that if any of you have ADHD and the only thing that's keeping you from voting is, well, I didn't get around to it, that you can have a chance to do it with other people.
I thought that this election, and no other election really, this election I feel like every person has to do something at the retail level.
Like, you have to make sure that you're driving somebody to the polls.
You have to make sure that you're sitting with somebody and handing them the pen to fill out the thing.
This isn't like the other elections.
This is the big one.
And If you have not yet done something on the retail level, meaning person to person, please do.
Find one person to vote that wasn't going to vote.
Find one person who needs a little prodding or a little reminder.
Maybe they lost their ballot.
Maybe you can find it.
Maybe you can drive them to the polls and go with them.
Do something.
You know, you don't have to do everything.
It's not on you, right?
But it would be great if everybody did something.
So the one little something I'm going to do is this live stream, and maybe two people vote that wouldn't have voted.
And that will be my contribution.
So my contribution will be, if I can get two people to vote that wouldn't have voted, there, that's mine.
Now, if you can do better than that because you have actual friends you see in person and stuff like that, you might have some advantages there.
But, you know, I use what I got.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to the people on the Locals platform privately.
Thanks for joining.
But I would like to leave all of you with this video that I think is very important.
Let's see if I can make that play.
Hold on.
You got to hear this.
And it's time for us to say no.
We are not going backwards.
We're going forward.
Sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and behavior of people who support Donald Trump.
And it's time for us to say no.
We are not going backwards.
We're going forward.
I'm sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous.
Trump could have run that as the campaign ad, and he wouldn't have had to even campaign.
If the only thing he had was that video, he could have just stayed home and say, you want some of this?
You know, I could give you something different, but if you want, you want some more of this?
All right, everybody, I'm going to talk to the locals, people.
Export Selection