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, Posobiec Lisec Bulletproof, Joshua Lisec, Butler Assassination Attempt, Thomas Crooks, Early Voting, Scott Presler, 2024 Election Outcome Expectations, October Surprises, Jack Smith, President Trump, Harry Enten, Election Polls, Photo ID Voting, 82 Nobel Winners TDS, Flawed Climate Models, Catholic Voters, Putin's NK Troops, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels, then nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
go so good Well, if my technology works, I'm going to bring in my special guest.
But before I do that, let me show you a little video that's highly relevant to the special guest situation.
Let's see if this works.
Let's see.
We'll make sure that we got a sound.
And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this.
Jack is a great guy.
He's written a fantastic book.
Everybody's talking about it.
Go get it.
And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this whole beautiful event.
And we're going to turn it around.
Amen.
Good luck, Mr.
President.
Thank you.
Now, that's a good, good book review right there.
That's how it's done.
And I'm going to bring in my special guest.
Joshua Lysak.
Now, Joshua, are you calling yourself a co-author of this book with Jack Posobiec?
It's called Bulletproof.
Hi, Scott.
Yes, Jack and I are co-authors of the book Bulletproof.
And that is out today?
It came out on Tuesday, yes.
This is this week.
Still fresh.
You can get your fresh book.
So the book's about the first assassination attempt?
It's about both.
We've got details on both.
Wow.
You are definitely the fastest writer on the planet.
I don't think anybody can beat you for putting a book out.
So tell us what we're going to learn that we haven't seen in the news.
What are you adding in the book that's going to be special and irresistible?
Yes, so we cover both what happened with Thomas Matthew Crooks, the shooter, and Aaron Butler at that rally, and then Ryan Wesley-Ruth, the would-be assassin there in Florida.
The...
Bait and switch that we noticed, Jack and I, within 48 hours of the Butler shooting there on July 13th, was concerns, how could this have possibly happened?
And we thought, wait a second, what if the security failures were a tactical success?
And then all evidence associated with Thomas Matthew Crookes And his life and his times, gone, just like that.
We thought, oh, something's not right about this.
So Jack and I, we commissioned a private investigative team to do our own, you might call, open source, semi-open source investigation into the matter.
And we have our first full report on everything that we found.
The sketchy stuff, Inside of Bulletproof.
The metaphor I like to use is when you're out in the yard on a summer day and you pull up a rock in the yard, what do you typically see?
You typically see creepy crawlies skittering around exposed to sunlight.
And that's what we observed before, during, and after in the life and network of Thomas Matthew Crooks.
And we talk about that inside of the book.
Interesting.
So Crooks had a life that basically doesn't look like a regular life.
That's the bottom line on him, right?
Everything he did didn't make sense for somebody who wasn't part of something extraordinary?
Yes, that's correct.
And there's a significant amount of suspicious and otherwise coincidental activities with his associates and colleagues that you might say, people in his life.
And we had our team speak to neighbors, spoke to friends, spoke to people that are in the community.
And we have siren, siren, siren lights flashing, sort of a situation there.
And we later learned that the Turning Point Action group that Jack and I both have done events with, they spoke to Thomas Matthew Crooks minutes before the shooting.
He came by their booth and they said that he came across cocky, They said that he lifted up his chin at them and looked down at them like this and wouldn't answer any of their questions.
They thought, okay, this guy's kind of weird.
What's he got going on?
And the Secret Service Director and then the Acting Secret Service Director both lied to the public about what they knew Crooks to be doing before and during the shooting activities.
For example, we saw him on video jumping from roof to roof in sight of the police.
We have this from body cam footage, what he was up to.
And yet, what we see with the footage is someone acting calm, cool, collected, confident, going at a normal pace as if there's some sort of a plan that's being executed.
He doesn't act as if he's worried about getting caught.
That's what is the most pants on fire moment for us.
Yeah, like somebody maybe had told him you're going to be fine?
Could be, yes.
And then Officer Greg Nickel, we find out, was supposed to be positioned overseeing that part of the building, the AGR building, and then inexplicably, minutes before the shooting, just a few minutes, handful of minutes, leaves his post, And then said that, oh, I forgot something.
I need to go back outside and get it.
And then comes back in.
We understand.
And then a couple of minutes after the shooting, goes back outside again.
After this individual would have heard gunshots.
Now, we're not necessarily insinuating anything with this particular individual.
Because there's so many events...
That line up.
For example, they're supposed to be a drone operator that day, a police drone.
When Jack and I were there for the Butler II rally, the Trump's grand return in the memorial service for Cori Compertori, 100,000 people there in attendance, we saw Perhaps seven, six drones overhead all over the area.
But on that day, the person who was supposed to be operating the drone was a noob at drones.
And it turns out spent several hours that day on tech support with the drone manufacturer, customer service, like an 800 number, trying to find out how this thing is supposed to work.
Right.
So you have events like this that are all going up.
Greg Nichol leaving the drone operator.
Are we insinuating that the drone operator is somehow part of this great deep state's conspiracy?
Not necessarily that.
I think that's not in evidence and we don't want to speculate even for entertainment purposes because this is a serious national security matter.
But when we put all of this, all of these security botches, Scott, we put them all into chat GPT as some sort of social experiment.
Oh, interesting.
And we asked GPT 4.0, we asked it, What is the probability of each of these security botches, failures, all happening the same day an armed and trained marksman is 140 yards away and is able to get eight shots off at a presidential candidate?
We asked.
And the probability, and we put all of this inside of the book, there towards the end, I said the probability of these events occurring independently of one another Is one in a septillion, which is a one followed by 27 zeros.
The similar probability for this is if you flip a coin and it turns up heads 95 times in a row.
All right, well, let me give you the challenge to that.
Make sure you're ready for this.
So you and Jack Posobiec are like an amazing team because he's got a lot of the background in the security, you know, intelligence world.
So he's going to spot some things that the rest of us couldn't spot.
But you have a background in hypnosis.
And so presumably you're keyed into confirmation bias and you'd know there'd be problems in any large organization.
There's going to be a lot of incompetence.
How do you sort out The natural incompetence that every organization has from something that would be an extraordinary amount of incompetence.
Where do you draw the line?
Because when I saw the story, my first reaction was that even if there's something that we'll never know about, some plot...
There's still going to be a whole bunch of stuff that looks like it's part of the plot that would be ordinary incompetence.
So how do you sort that out?
Or even how does ChatGPT sort that out?
Yes, that's a fair response.
And we thought about this as well, because it's not unusual for there to be the occasional security botch.
So at the release of the book, Unhumans, that Jack and I co-authored back here and that came out in July, we did a pre-launch event in Detroit and there was a Turning Point event and Donald Trump spoke Sunday.
Well, it turns out that, and I don't recall who exactly it was, but there was law enforcement, either the Detroit police or the Secret Service themselves, who had allowed a number of people in who didn't have security badges, who weren't supposed to be there, suspicious circumstances, and everyone locked down and everyone had to be rewanted again, and events were pushed back three hours because some law enforcement let someone in who wasn't supposed to be there, and it was clamped down immediately.
Actually, no, it was Saturday night.
I was wrong.
It was Saturday night that that happened.
So that's not an unusual sort of thing that happens.
Like you said, large organizations where there's not instant communication, this sort of thing happens.
What is unique about the Butler Rally is the number of these...
security failures that had not happened before, or that there wasn't precedent for, and they all are occurring on the same day.
And there seems to be certainly motive, means, and opportunity for such a hit to occur that day.
So we walk up to the line of speculation, and we peer over it, we lean over it with a probability experiment. - And the other thing is it's not binary.
It's not that it was only mistakes, and it's not that every single thing we saw was part of the plot.
It's almost one of the more likely scenarios, which is some combination of both of those things.
We suspect so, yes, given that we've seen these sorts of things happening.
But we also are aware of the fact that the Trump team had requested from the Biden administration additional Secret Service support because of the number of Iranian plots and, let's say, noise around Iran wanting to attempt to assassinate former noise around Iran wanting to attempt to assassinate former President Trump.
And of course, they were denied repeatedly over this.
And I am reminded of a story in the Bible.
A story that is so well known.
It speaks to, let's say, an instinct of our species almost.
I like to think about religion in biological terms.
And the religions that are closest to human thriving and flourishing from a biological perspective are the ones that are truer.
So this is a story from the Old Testament.
Many of your viewers will know the story of David and Bathsheba, right?
So David's cheating on, you know, his wives and Bathsheba's married to somebody else, a man named Uriah.
Well, David orchestrates this plot that gets Uriah marched out to the front lines in battle.
And then he has all of the other soldiers pull back from the front lines to leave Uriah out there by himself, be surrounded by the enemy.
Because there's plausible deniability associated with it.
Oh, well, that was just a maneuver that the king had ordered and the general approved.
That's real tough luck.
And that was immediately what came to mind within minutes after I saw that video.
I'm sitting there July 13th at about 6.30, eating Thai food and my phone's blowing up.
And in a reference back to my previous, one of my own books called So Good They Call You a Fake, one of the Moms for Liberty women texted me and said, So good they try to kill you.
That's the text, right?
And I thought, they just shot Trump.
And so I pull up my phone and 50 messages, you know, everything's blowing up at that point.
And a few minutes later, I start writing Bulletproof.
And I'm watching that video over and over and over.
I try to find the longest one, the speech, up to that moment.
And it felt a little bit like...
When I turned on the television at 10 years old and I saw the second tower get hit.
Wow.
It was a moment like that for me.
Right.
And I wanted to be more than just a civilian citizen observer.
I wanted to be a commentator participant in telling this story.
Because I go over to the mainstream media and it's headlines like, Trump collapses on stage.
Fireworks heard nearby.
And I have some family members who are more liberal and lefty, and I ran this past him like, did you see what happened?
And I'm like, what are you talking about?
That's just a conspiracy.
Of course they're going to claim you as assassinated.
This is what they do.
They just exaggerate everything.
Everything has always ended the world with those people.
They don't know anything.
It was not even two movies on one screen.
It was two different movies at this point.
Not even a shared set of facts right now.
Wow.
So we live in a world where we think the JFK assassination was probably an inside job.
Would you say that the assumption that JFK was a CIA hit, especially since RFK Jr.
seems to be behind that idea, do you think that's generally accepted in the public now?
Yes.
And the lead up working on this book, we did our own casual surveying and pulling to get a sense of like in our networks and in our world, people who believe it was the official story about the JFK that there's this lone shooter named Lee Harvey Oswald.
It seems to be the vast majority, even people who are employees of the federal government, military contractors, service members, the response is, oh yeah, they killed him.
It's not even just, I don't know about that official story about JFK. Now, the official story about JFK also falls apart statistically, right?
So it's reminding me of your approach to this one, because you've got things like, right, who was in charge of the commission to look into, well, maybe the person who might have done the murder?
And so every time you find even the accuracy of the shot, you're like, hmm, You know, the ability that you would get that shot off in a moving car with that rifle and all that stuff.
So it seemed like, or the one magic bullet, all the weird coincidences.
So there are a lot of coincidences in this one, too.
It seems at least rivaling that level of coincidence.
And that's something that, after several decades, we've come to believe had to be an inside job.
Yes, it does defy expectations that this would be possible.
It defies belief, the official story.
And we lay out a few different scenarios.
We don't make any particular claim of truth because we don't have all facts and evidence in our possession.
So we can't tinfoil hat this thing.
We lay out the scenarios that are being put forward, including the, oh, this was just a troubled young man who was computer savvy but was only able to get a job working in assisted living part-time as a helper, and yet he somehow could find out how to build He was an expert marksman, and he attended a marksman club, a sportsman's club, that known federal agents regularly frequent and train at.
And the records that we found, which we had to significantly redact so as not to docs, seemed to indicate, Scott, that Thomas Matthew Crooks was going to their range with someone on a regular basis.
There's so much in our private investigative report that we are not able to publish for confidentiality reasons.
Plus, Jack likes to call it the Bulletproof Project because it is an ongoing investigation.
And going back to the rock and sunlight metaphor and skittering about, all these months later, they're still skittering and we're following them.
Wow.
All right, so just to wrap up for people coming in late, hold up the book.
Let's see the book.
It's Bulletproof, and it's available now everywhere that you buy books, I assume.
Yes, that's right.
We have autographed copies available at orderbulletproof.com, but most people are just ordering it on Amazon.
And Jack just finished the audiobook recording now.
Excellent.
All right.
Thanks.
Everybody go out and buy that.
That sounds like the most timely book that ever could be.
Find out what's really happening in your world.
And we're in this weird fake news world bubble where sometimes the only way you can know what's true is by looking at the statistics and saying to yourself, does that look true?
Could all of those things happen at the same time?
So, sounds fascinating.
Can't wait to look at it.
And thanks for joining, Joshua.
Book is Bulletproof, available now.
Go get yourself a copy.
All right.
Thank you, Scott.
All right.
Thanks, Joshua.
Sure thing.
All right.
Back to me.
That looks like that'll be interesting.
All right, well, four astronauts have returned from the International Space Station splashdown.
It's funny that we're treating that as routine now.
We just got four people out of space who were there for 232 days.
Do you think you could stay in the International Space Station for 232 days without being batshit crazy?
I don't believe I could.
I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that.
And I also wonder how long it takes you to get your muscles back.
Do you ever think about that?
If you spent over 200 days in a weightless condition, walking would be really hard, wouldn't it?
Like, it'd be hard to walk upstairs.
I wonder if it takes a year I bet it takes a year to get back to your normal stuff, unless they do weight.
Maybe they do resistance training up there.
Oh, maybe that's it.
Maybe they do a little resistance training before they come back.
Well, here's some good news.
You know, we're always thinking there's not enough lithium in the world.
But there's a new technology that would double the extraction efficiency, according to SciTech Daily.
So now you can get your lithium from places that previously was not economical to get your lithium.
It reminds me of fracking.
You know how...
I'll make sure this is...
It reminds me of fracking in the sense that You know, we had a way to get oil, but then it wasn't good enough.
Or at least in the United States, we couldn't produce enough that way.
But we got the fracking.
So it looks like there's something that would be not similar in technology, but something that would maybe have the same effect on lithium.
Hey, there's a new loneliness cure.
I like to remind you, because loneliness is one of the biggest killers in the country.
But it turns out that New research shows that having a group reading, a reading group where you read the same book and then you discuss it, is apparently some really special way to handle loneliness.
Now, if there's one thing I can tell you about loneliness, it's this.
The only way to make friends is through activity.
Let me say that again.
The only way to make really good friends, the kind you really have a deep relationship with, is through shared activity.
So if you're not taking a walk, exercising with them, joining the club, they're not your coworkers, they're not your relatives, it's just really hard to just make a random friend because you met somebody on the subway.
I've never seen anybody do that.
But this idea of doing reading groups Seems like that would work great because you could put all kinds of different people together in a room, people that you would never pick out as your friend.
But if you read the same book and you wanted to talk about it, you would have a good time.
And apparently people feel a real connection when they do this.
So I'm not surprised.
But every time I see that there's a new way to defeat loneliness, it always has in common that you have to be organized.
So I tell you again, if you want to be special in the world of robots, The robots are going to be lifting all the heavy things and doing all the chores and writing the code.
But somebody needs to organize people.
And I just don't think the robots are going to have the charisma or the special magic to do that.
So if you can become one who organizes groups of other people for anything, I would work on that skill.
Add that to your talent stack.
You want the largest group of cool people that will go where you want them to go because they've learned that doing what you want them to do is a good idea.
So do that.
Speaking of which, there's an article in The Conversation by Brad Cannon.
Now, this shouldn't surprise you.
That having the right kind of friends is a secret to building wealth.
And the right kind of friends in this context, what Brad Cannon's writing about, is people who would know things like how to use the stock market.
Because if you didn't know anybody who had ever bought a stock, chances are you wouldn't either.
But suppose you did.
And you put any money in the stock market when you were 20 years old.
You're probably pretty happy about it today if you're 65.
So, I'm volunteering to be your wealthy friend.
So apparently if you have wealthy friends, they talk about what they do with their wealth and then you say, really?
What do you do?
And then you learn how to do it and you're more influenced because it's somebody you know.
So one of the reasons that I start this live stream lately by telling you what the stock market is doing is that reason.
I'm your basic digital virtual friend And I can do for you what maybe you don't have locally, which is I can expose you to some good ideas for wealth building.
And so I'd like you all to know that the stock market is a good place to be if you're diversifying.
I never recommend buying individual stocks except really special cases.
But diversification is how you can make money and then wait.
So there, I just took care of a whole bunch of people who did not have a smart friend.
Now this, by the way, as well as education, Are what I consider the number one problems of systemic racism.
If you didn't have any friends who were investing in the stock market, how would you know how to do that?
I mean, I was influenced by my father, who was influenced by his father.
So, you know, there would be lots of conversation about buying stocks in the living room of my lower middle class family home.
So I just picked it up naturally.
And you need to do that, too.
But if you're a black person, And you're a lower socioeconomic group.
That probably is something that has rippled from the time of slavery to today.
And it's very fixable.
In terms of systemic racism, the most fixable thing is to make sure you have contact with people who know how to do stuff.
That's pretty fixable.
Join a book club!
Join a book club.
Meet some people you wouldn't meet otherwise.
Join the gym.
Yeah, so make sure you rub elbows with people who know how to do stuff you don't know how to do.
Steve Bannon's going to be out of jail on October 29th.
Some people think that will make a difference in the election.
Do you?
I feel like by October 29th, the decisions will have been made.
But it's going to feel good.
Won't it?
And one of the things that you just can't put a number on is the animal spirits.
And the animal spirits are sky high right now.
The animal spirits, the thing you can't define, the weird energy, I don't know, is it the charisma, the magic in the air?
Whatever it is, the energy is There is a ton of it.
And by far, it's overwhelmingly in the right direction.
Now, of course, there's energy competing, but oh my goodness.
Now, one of the things that is in the news a lot is that the Republicans are doing unusually well in early voting.
Now, everybody who's smart and talks about this, the first thing they do is they say what I'm going to say now.
It doesn't predict anything.
It just means the Republicans wised up.
They're listening to their leaders.
Their leaders said it's going to be important this year to vote early, and so there's a lot of voting early.
It does not predict who's going to win just because there's more early voting.
That's what all the smart people are telling you.
They're all wrong.
It does predict he's going to win.
It absolutely predicts it, but not directly.
So everybody who says the early voting does not predict who's going to win, they're correct in terms of directly.
It doesn't directly tell you.
But here's what it does tell you.
Republicans are listening to their leadership.
So the leadership of the Republicans said, you better vote early.
And then we observe Republicans obeyed.
Now, they don't obey because they're obedient.
This is an important thing to know about Republicans.
No, they didn't obey because they are obedient people.
They obeyed because their leaders made sense and that their leaders acted like leaders, and then they wanted to follow them.
When you see the enormous change in behavior from something that's a lifetime habit, you know, voting is a lifetime habit, and they changed.
They changed because their leaders were credible, and their leaders showed up, and they needed them, and they recognized the need.
When you look at Scott Pressler's success in registering people in Pennsylvania, part of it is that Scott Pressler is apparently a force of nature and just does an amazing job doing hard work, you know, the things that we don't want to do, and he's successful at it.
But the substory is that Scott Pressler is a leader.
And the Republicans who signed up with him said, you're a credible leader.
I will follow you, not because I'm obedient, but because you're awesome and you're leading me in the right direction.
Now, when you see how many people have registered, when you see that Elon Musk is risking his fucking life and When you see the number of pirates and, as Jordan Peterson is calling them, the X-Men, which is kind of a great frame, actually, the people who have joined the pirate ship, the Trump ship, the people who are putting their entire careers on the line, because this time it matters, more than it's ever mattered before.
I think that the voters have decided.
I think that the early voting is not, again, it's not by itself predictive, but it is predictive of people accepting leadership as credible and worth following.
And I don't think they have that on the other side.
You know, they may fall in line and might be a little bit more follow the leader.
But I don't think it's thought out.
It's just sort of mindless following things.
And I do think that on the left, more and more people are recognizing that that plan hasn't worked out.
You know, just going left hard all the time.
So, my suspicion is that if you feel the animal spirits, you feel the energy, you watch what leadership is happening, the people that are taking the amount of risk that they're taking, I'm positive that Trump has the votes.
And I'm also positive that I can tell you he has the votes and you won't stay home.
Yeah.
You know how they always say, don't get too confident because people will stay home?
Nope.
Not this time.
Do you know why?
Because your leaders are telling you very clearly, you need to win the popular vote.
You need to beat the cheat.
You've got to be too big to rig.
So no matter how fucking confident you are, if you're a Republican, you have been trained in a good way by your leaders.
That this time it matters.
You think you're a Californian, so it doesn't matter if you vote Republican?
Oh, it matters.
You got me to vote this time.
I actually voted.
Do you know the last time I voted?
I don't even remember.
Don't even remember.
But I voted.
And I made sure that I made sure that at least a few other people voted because I made them vote.
Not made them, but encouraged them, I guess.
How many of you, uncharacteristically, something you've never done before, went out of your way to make sure at least one other person voted?
In the comments, you tell me.
Tell me in the comments, how many of you went out of your way, uncharacteristically, to get somebody else to vote?
You'll see the yeses screaming by.
This is not like your other elections.
Do you know the big movement of men?
Here's something that I believe to be true, but maybe you have some counter examples.
If there's a big trend and it's something that women are doing, it can be really, really big for women.
It's less likely to attract men if it gets identified as sort of a thing women are doing.
Men are likely to say, well, that's for women.
We have our own thing.
But what I observe is that when men all start leaning in one direction, it often brings women.
For example, football.
Football traditionally was a big male sport, but I think at this moment there might actually be more female watchers of football and sports in general.
So there are lots of examples where men lead unintentionally.
They're not trying to.
They just found a sport they like to watch on TV. And all of a sudden, it's the most popular sport.
So when you see that the men in droves are moving toward Trump, I believe that they are biologically activated by a number of things.
Number one, they see real risk.
Most elections don't look like a real risk.
It looks like, well, you can't even tell if it's a Republican or a Democrat, and it all looks the same.
This one doesn't.
This one looks like you could end the American experience if you pick wrong.
I mean, it really does feel that way.
Hyperbole aside, it does feel like this could be the end of it.
And I've never said that before.
As much as I disliked Hillary Clinton, I just thought she'd be bad for me.
I didn't think she'd end the country.
And I still don't.
I don't think there was any chance she would have ended the country.
But Kamala Harris is a different animal.
There is a real risk that she could ruin it all.
And I've never seen that before.
And I do believe that men are recognizing it.
And they're being biologically triggered to fix it.
I've often said that if there's an explosion, half of the men are going to run toward it to see if they can help, to see if there's danger.
They will risk their life running toward an explosion, trying to help.
And what you're seeing is the men running toward the explosion.
In this case, the explosion is Trump.
And they're recognizing him as a real leader.
They feel the leadership.
They know it's focused in the right direction.
And I think they're going to bring more women with them than you know.
I'm not entirely sure that the, you know, the polls are registering anything right at this point.
And we can expect that the number of Republicans who are lying to the pollsters may be as big as you think.
I saw a poll, you know, just a poll on X that suggested a lot of Republicans are lying to pollsters.
And that, too, would be mostly men who have decided how to win.
So if you're a Democrat and you're worried about losing, you should be really, really worried.
Because I think you don't have a chance of winning the vote.
Now, what happens?
I was seeing Insurrection Barbie, an account on X, talking about what's likely to happen.
Well, if it's really close, then probably the Democrats will play games and say, well...
These votes don't count, and these do, and somehow they'll end up making their candidate win with trickery and lawfare and basically trickery.
But what's going to happen if it's a blowout?
The worry is that the streets will be filled with protesters.
However, it's not going to work this time.
Do you know why the street protests aren't going to work this time?
It's the same reason that the October surprises didn't work against Trump.
Do you remember?
Did you see this?
There were like three of them this week, right?
There were three October surprises.
There was a very non-credible woman who claimed some groping 32 years ago.
What was your first reaction to it?
Nah.
Your first reaction was, it's October, some Democrat is claiming that Trump did something decades ago.
No way it's true.
That was your first reaction, right?
Your first reaction is, that's not true.
Then you heard that these same liars who created obvious lies in prior cycles, that Jeffrey Goldberg guy and that General Kelly, the two least trustworthy people in politics come up with a few more Hitler things.
To which you say, oh come on, it's the same people.
How many times have I told you, if you know what is happening, you don't know anything.
If you know who's doing it, you know everything.
Suppose I told you there was a complaint that Trump privately loved Hitler.
You'd say to yourself, whoa, I'm sure worried that might be true.
Suppose I told you it came from General Kelly and Jeff Goldberg.
Oh, now you don't have to worry about it, because you know it's not true.
If you know the people, you know the story.
If you only know what is claimed to have happened, nah.
Now, remember in 2017 and 2018 when Black Lives Matter and Antifa were raging through the cities?
And you thought it was some kind of spontaneous, organized, but It's spontaneous, and it's because of the situation, and it's because of Trump, and it's because there are too many white supremacists hiding in the hills, and maybe there's really something wrong, and these protests are so big, it's really telling you that you can't have a President Trump.
Now, suppose it happened again.
Maybe the names of the organizations change, but they act the same.
How are you going to act this time?
Are you going to send Kyle there with his gun?
Nope.
You're gonna get the fuck out of there.
You're gonna leave them alone, and you're gonna let them rage.
And you're gonna let them rage, and you're gonna let them rage.
And you let them rage as long as they need to.
You let them be as bad as they need to.
If you own property...
Well, you've got another problem.
You might need to do something if you own property.
But if you don't, and you're just watching, like most of us will just be watching, put it in perspective.
Treat it like it's an op, because it will be.
It will be an op.
It won't be real citizens who are mad about real things.
Although the people in the groups don't know they're part of an op.
Most of the people think they're with their friends and they're trying to save the world.
None of that will be true.
I believe any protests in the streets would be, let's say, discredited as quickly as the October surprises.
Why?
Because now we know the op.
We've seen this op.
We know how it works.
We know the media will line up in one fake narrative.
We know that Soros will be funding some people to march in the streets and pretend there's a big public outcry.
We know it all.
We know that Jamie Raskin will try to get Trump put in jail.
We know they'll be talking about new scandals and new things that you've never heard of.
We know it all.
We know the whole play now.
That's why it's not going to work.
This time, it's not going to work.
And I would like to point out that the Trump-loving side of the world has gained what I call an immune response.
There was a time when the news would be infected with some fake story about Trump, and even Republicans believed it.
Remember the fine people hoax?
Republicans believed that.
Not all of them, you know, maybe half, but that's a lot to believe something that's completely made up.
But now I think conservatives have an immune response, meaning that, well, just this morning, so moments before we were live here, I saw somebody commenting about a video that It alleged to show somebody who has black hands, and of course that's just to make it seem a little bit too on the nose, right?
That the blackness shouldn't matter, except that it's political, so everything matters in the political sense.
And it would show somebody purporting to rip up, fill down ballots that were for Trump.
Now, the moment I saw that, I said, that's fake.
That's just so obviously fake.
But some other people weren't sure.
And so they asked me, and then I said, oh yeah, that's fake.
Now, because there are a number of pro-Trump people who have made a reputation in calling out fakeness, you have some trust that if I say something's fake, it probably is.
Now, I'm not foolproof, so I'm not claiming 100% of anything.
Nobody has 100%.
But if you ask two or three people that you knew had been good in the past, so if you ask me about that video and I said it's fake, you might say, hmm, not sure.
So you check with Cernovich.
You say, does that look fake?
And I don't know what he says about it or if he's seen it.
But let's say, for example, he said, hmm, I don't feel comfortable with that one.
Now you've got two, and you're like, I still think it's real.
And then you ask, who?
You know, whoever is your third best person that you trust, and they say it looks fake too.
Now what happens?
You change your mind.
Or at least you soften your belief, which would be fine as well.
So I think that what is really different is Is that Republicans were 100% susceptible to hoaxes in 2016, and 2020 wasn't as better as it could have been.
But now it feels different.
It feels now that everybody is trained on the right.
They're all trained that if they hear a story that sounds sketchy, they know exactly who to go to to say, does this sound sketchy?
Do you believe this one?
I mean, if you're watching TV, you're going to look for Gottfeld, right?
Because, you know, he's a reliable history of catching bullshit early.
You're going to look for, you can name half a dozen other people, but you'll have your favorites.
Bongino, Dan Bongino.
If Bongino says something's fake, are you going to ignore that?
You better not.
If Bongino says something's fake and I thought it was true, I would immediately change my mind because he's credible, right?
So once you know who the people are who can see around corners, it depends on the domain, right?
Bongino can see around corners in a lot of domains.
Not everyone.
Maybe somebody else can see around the corner.
Maybe Dr.
Drew could see around corners about some new medical claim.
Okay.
But we all know who to call now.
Everybody knows who to check with.
That's different.
This is new.
So there's an immune response like the left has never seen, and the immunity is to fake news.
And Trump, of course, gets most of the credit for that.
He's the one who destroyed the illusion of news.
Well, meanwhile, Trump has said he'll fire special counsel Jack Smith within two seconds of getting elected.
Now, how many think that's a good idea?
So the special counsel is, you know, selected by prior administration, and the job is to investigate Trump, and then if he becomes the president, he can just fire this person.
Does that seem fair?
I say yes.
Yes.
Because I don't even need to look at what Jack Smith has for evidence.
Because again, if you know what happened, you don't know anything.
If you know who's involved, you know everything.
If you think Jack Smith is an independent, unbiased member of the legal community, then you might believe everything he's coming up with.
If you know a little bit about his history, And his biases, at least apparent biases, then you would say to yourself, oh, this is not a legitimate process.
And so, yes, Trump should fire him immediately.
So, here's one possibility.
It is possible that in a fairly short number of weeks, you'll have a President Trump who gets rid of Jack Smith and a Steve Bannon who is free.
That might happen.
Everything's heading in the right direction.
Let's look at the polls.
You all know that the big polling entities, they have to get either to, oh, it looks like a tie, so that the rigging can happen, right?
Now, we've all been trained that the polling is not real.
And that it becomes real only in the last weeks.
This is something we didn't all know before, right?
But every one of you knows it now.
Think about how different that is.
Imagine when you thought that the polls actually were real and that they were just coincidentally converging at the end.
And now you know a year in advance they will converge at the end.
Because they have to remain credible.
But before that, they could be just working for their team, which is, look at all the voters for Kamala Harris, you people who fund elections.
I mean, she's looking good in the elections, so you should give us more money and guarantee she wins.
So the early polling, and this would not be true of every single polling company, but I'd say the majority, Are not really in it to give you the right answer.
And then toward the end, they know they need to be, because that's what they'll be measured on, so they'll converge.
And so the New York Times, how surprised are you that their final poll, see if you can guess what it is.
What's the final poll of the New York Times?
Tie.
It's a tie.
How much in advance could you have predicted that the New York Times poll would be a tie by Election Day?
It was the most predictable thing in the world.
Now, in 2020, Biden was up by nine.
Which, of course, was fake.
And Clinton was up by four in 2016, which wasn't enough.
I mean, she was added in the national vote, but it wasn't enough to win the swing states.
So, what else we got?
CNN's polling guru...
Harry Enten, who's very entertaining.
I really like him in his position.
He's saying that the odds of Trump basically taking all seven swing states is pretty good, or at least five out of seven.
So it's looking like, even though the numbers seem close, Harry Enten says, very real possibility it will be a landslide.
In the Electoral College, it'll be a landslide.
So the total vote will be in that probably 4% or closer range.
But the Electoral College could be a landslide.
Now, let's see.
Wall Street Journal poll.
The latest one says that...
Trump has taken a narrow lead over Vice President Kamala Harris.
So basically a tie.
He's pulled out in front 47 to 45, but I think that's within the polls margin of error.
So that's a tie.
So let's see.
The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both have it basically within the margin of error.
Does that sound real?
Well, here's what I call the October surprises that didn't work out for the Democrats.
You've heard the Hail Mary in football, a Hail Mary play.
It's the last second of the game and you've got one chance left and you're just going to throw the ball as far as you can into the end zone.
Everybody's going to be there.
You hope one of your players gets lucky and catches that last second play.
That's called a Hail Mary, because it's like you're praying to God that it helps.
Hail Mary!
But I think that if the last thing you do before Election Day is come up with some more Hitler hoaxes, it's more of a Hail Mary.
Hail Mary!
And it didn't work.
It just died in his crib.
And it died in his crib because...
Trump supporters have been educated and we know exactly how the hoaxes are done.
We know who doesn't.
We know when they happen.
You could have predicted a year ago I don't think anybody did, but you could have predicted a year ago that this week Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic would write an article about an anonymous source or somebody like General Kelly saying that something happened behind a closed door that nobody else heard and it had something to do with Hitler.
You could have predicted that a year ago.
So it hits differently when you know the whole place.
All right.
According to polls, I think this was Rasmussen.
The support for political parties for photo ID for voting.
98% of Republicans want photo ID for voting, but also two-thirds of Democrats and 84% of the independents want photo ID, and yet we don't have it.
Let's see.
We're allegedly some kind of a federal republic with democratic processes driving things.
And we have the most important question in our system, which is who gets to vote.
The most important question.
And an overwhelming, just overwhelming majority on the same side.
There should be voter ID. And yet we don't have it.
Is there any other way to interpret that other than the Democrats' plan to cheat?
No, there's not.
There really isn't any other way to interpret it.
How do you interpret that we use machines when nobody can tell you a reason that we use machines?
It's exactly what you think it is.
Right.
Yeah.
So if you have no voter ID when all the public overwhelmingly wants it for all the obvious reasons, and then you have machines that only probably less than half of the public even believes, and you know exactly how to fix it all, and you don't.
What else can it mean?
I don't even know what would be another hypothesis.
I don't know how to even explain it.
Like, you know, normally I can steel man the other argument.
You know, normally even if I think I know what is the truth, I can say, well, but they're making a claim that, you know, it's hard to check and, you know, maybe there's something to it or maybe it's a little half-truth.
No.
No.
The voter ID thing, there's no other side to that.
There's no other side.
The Democrats who say that they don't care, you know, one-third of Democrats, they are not saying that they don't think voter idea is important.
They're saying they want to win the election, so therefore they're saying the voter idea isn't important.
There's nobody who thinks it's a bad idea to have voter idea.
There's nobody.
You cannot find me one person in the entire planet who, in their private, honest moment, is against ID for voting.
There are only people who think their side will win if they don't fix it.
That's it.
You can count on that.
There's always some crazy people in the 2%, maybe.
So everything seems to be set up for an election that nobody trusts.
So I would say that the most likely scenario is that the people who want to retain power will go to the whatever is Plan C. And Plan C could be wet.
It could involve violence.
I mean, I sure hope not.
And I recommend that nobody do any violence.
Nobody do any violence.
Don't do any violence.
But you sure wonder what the Democrats are planning if all of their current plans aren't working.
Meanwhile, the worst people in the world have all emerged.
I feel as though the worst human beings are all like locusts.
They just sort of hibernate until it's time for an election.
When was the last time McConnell was in the news?
Mitch McConnell?
Oh, suddenly he's in the news.
He's got a book that says that Trump should be impeached for what he did on January 6th, and that Trump is a sleazeball narcissist.
Now, where has McConnell been all the times we were paying him to do his job?
And the only thing that I even know he did is this, just this, you know, this douchebag thing.
And then we've got 82 Nobel laureates in chemistry, medicine, physics, and economics.
They wrote a letter strongly supporting Kamala Harris.
Yeah, here's what they said.
They want Kamala Harris for president.
We write, Trump would jeopardize advancements in our standards of living.
What are some of the things that Trump would do to jeopardize your advancements in our standards of living?
What exactly would that be?
There's a lot of smart people who signed on, but why can't they talk to me in a way that makes sense?
Are they so smart they can't communicate?
What would be an example of that?
What kind of news are you listening to that says Trump would jeopardize advancements in your standards of living?
What?
And then they go on and it would slow the progress of science and technology.
It would?
How would Trump slow science and technology?
What part of Trump is not pro-science and pro-technology?
I can't think of anything.
Elon Musk is his biggest supporter.
Do you think Elon Musk wants to stop the progress?
But it gets better.
It says that Trump would impede our responses to climate change.
Oh, there it is.
They found 82 people who were smart enough to win Nobels and dumb enough to believe that climate models are real.
So they're actually just idiots.
These would be the easiest people you could ever fool or hypnotize.
Because they've got, first of all, obvious TDS, the first part that Trump's going to lower your standard of living and slow down science and technology.
There isn't the slightest...
You know, Trump likes crypto.
He likes AI. He likes nuclear power.
He likes space.
He started Space Force.
He always brags about his uncle, who was some kind of engineer scientist.
So they've got massive TDS, and they're not smart enough to recognize it in themselves, and they think that climate models are actually accurate and or that the warming and the CO2 is going to kill us before we fix it.
These are not smart people.
These are people who might know a lot about their domain, but they don't seem too smart to me based on this.
Anyway, speaking of models, Good News Network says that the climate models need an upgrade because plants absorb 31% more carbon than previously thought.
Huh.
So you got your climate models, and one of the biggest variables is how much carbon gets absorbed by the plant life on Earth.
One of the biggest variables.
I mean, the sun would be the biggest one, I guess, but one of the biggest variables.
And they were off by a third.
And they just found out.
Off by a third.
Meanwhile, 82 Nobel laureates are depending on those models.
Meanwhile, there is a hackathon for the climate models.
So there's a group that's looking at all the climate models and they're comparing them and they call it a hackathon, but basically they're looking to improve the models.
Why?
Why are they improving the climbing models?
I've been told that they're already good enough to commit four trillion dollars.
Are you telling me that the climate models are good enough for me to commit $4 trillion, but they're not good enough to just sort of be used the way they are?
They got to be hacked and fixed and tweaked?
And maybe they'll do something about this 31% error in the...
Carbon.
Well, what about, did you hear the story about the instrument, the temperature measuring, what would you call them, kiosks or little buildings?
So if you're measuring the temperature for climate change, you put your very sensitive temperature gauge in an enclosed structure, a very small enclosed structure.
And it's important that you do the enclosing part for reasons, I don't know, But it turns out they found out that you paint them a certain color, but when the paint gets worn off and it changes color, then the building itself changes its temperature.
You know, just as you knew, if you have black tile on your roof, you get a different result than if you had a white tile on your roof.
If it's black, it's going to absorb the heat.
If it's white, it's going to bounce it back.
So they build these little enclosures.
They paint them white.
And they're, I think, probably all the same white.
And that's good.
So now you've got something that's, you know, all the same.
But then some of them get worn out and turn a little browner or less white.
And the temperature of the building changes.
And it's going to change in the direction of less white, which would be warmer.
Right.
If the nice white color starts to fade, then it won't be resisting the heat as well as it was when it was new.
So you've got thousands of these thermometer things out there, and every one that hasn't been recently painted should show warming, no matter what the weather is doing.
Now, I didn't know that specific thing until recently, but I lived in the real world, and the thing that I keep telling you that sounds outrageously provocative, we can't measure the temperature of the Earth.
I just had Joshua Lysak on talking about his book with Jack Posobiec, and it's called Bulletproof, a new book about the assassination attempts.
And you look at the level of competence that was displayed there.
Now, even if the level of competence was not the whole story, if there's more to find out, and certainly...
There certainly does seem to be some indication there's more to find out.
But that was considered, you know, our most capable people in the country.
Well, the Secret Service would never...
Well, okay, they did.
But I'll tell you one thing.
These professional Secret Service people, they would never...
Well, okay, they did that too.
But there's one thing they would never...
Okay, they did that as well.
That's the real world.
The real world is highly capable people who are doing really stupid things like these 82 Nobel laureates who are highly capable people who are doing something that, in my opinion, is objectively and obviously stupid because they don't understand their own confirmation bias.
They don't understand probably that the news is fake.
They probably believe the news.
Imagine being a Nobel laureate but thinking that news is real.
Yeah, think about it.
I'd like to do a survey of the 82 Nobel laureates and ask them where they get their news.
Do you think that would be funny?
Oh, I do.
Yep, yep.
It would be hilarious because you would learn that the 82 Nobel laureates are fucking idiots and that they don't even know that the news they're reading is all made up.
That's what you would find out.
I guarantee it, that most of these people think that they have good sources of news, and you have bad ones, and that's why you're getting the wrong message.
That's right, you're getting the wrong answer.
They also believe climate models, so they'll believe anything.
Anyway, a former archbishop Somebody who was a Roman Catholic archbishop.
He was excommunicated, so he was on the ounce with the Catholic Church.
But he's very pro-Trump.
And he says there's no question that Catholics should vote for Trump.
And he says, because Vice President Kamala Harris is, and I quote, an infernal monster who obeys Satan.
All right, well, there you go.
I've been struggling to find a reason that would be persuasive as to why you should vote for Trump over Kamala Harris.
But it turns out God has a message that he's sending through this excommunicated former archbishop that Harris is an infernal monster who obeys Satan.
Infernal.
Now, it's very different.
Trump is an energy monster.
He collects energy, and then he tries to use it productively.
But he's running against somebody who's an infernal monster who obeys Satan.
Never obey Satan.
If I could give you just one piece of advice, don't obey Satan.
All right.
Putin is defending his possible use of North Korean troops.
Putin always makes me laugh because he's so capable.
Every time Putin does something, it's almost like he plans it to make me laugh.
I loved when he was asked who he'd support in the election.
He said, well...
We think Joe Biden was a nice, stable, normal president.
We could work with him.
And if he thinks that Kamala Harris is his natural successor, then we'll just agree with Joe Biden and we'll back the natural successor because Joe Biden's a legitimate president and he backs her.
Now, to me, that is hilarious.
Because you know that Putin is only saying things for a fact, right?
And I'm sure he doesn't think that Kamala Harris is a strong leader that he can deal with.
But it is a hilarious answer because it makes you think about, wait a minute, we got rid of Biden because his brain doesn't work.
But we're going to take his recommendation about who to replace him, even though the news says that maybe he thought it was a terrible idea and he could have done better.
And oh, my God.
So it's just funny the way Putin inserts himself with plausible deniability, but just enough to make your brain explode.
He's really good at it.
Now, for those of you who are possibly NPCs or Democrats or not very bright, I would like to explain the following thing.
It is possible to say that somebody who is a murderer and a despot does some things well.
Yeah, without actually supporting the despot.
Did you know that?
And now I'm speaking only to the stupid people.
The rest of you can take a break.
I'd like this message only for dumb people.
Dumb people, it is completely legitimate to say that somebody is a great athlete, but they beat their spouse.
Right?
That could both be true.
You could be totally against beating the spouse while noting that their stats are good.
You can actually do that.
Yes.
And I know how mad it makes you, but you can do it.
You can.
So Putin is a very skilled operator.
Trump says it all the time.
And then the dumb people say, well, why do you love Putin so much?
Well, I didn't say I love him.
He's just very good at his job.
Oh, why don't you kiss him?
You love him so much.
Well, no, really, nothing like that.
It's more that anybody observes that he's doing sort of a good job for his country, not us.
Well, why don't you just have sex with him then?
Okay, not getting through.
So I do love it when Trump says that President Xi is brilliant.
I do love it when he says that Putin is a strong leader and that he can work with him.
He's just negotiating.
He's simply negotiating.
Because if they return the favor, which is what he would hope, reciprocity, then they should be saying things, should he get elected?
Probably they'd wait until he gets elected.
But if he gets elected, then Putin will say things like, well, you know, honestly, I can work with Trump.
And President Xi will say, you know what?
You've got the strong leader over there.
I can work with him.
So this is exactly...
All right, so we've got a drunk in the comments on Rumble.
My vote almost didn't count.
Over half of the country's votes almost didn't count.
Trump told Pence to overrule.
Overrule.
Please, sir.
So he's spamming with the same all-caps message.
I assume you're drunk, right?
Too rab?
Doing a little morning drinking?
I think you should just paste your ranty, crazy message a thousand times, because 500 wasn't enough.
Yeah, he looks pretty drunk.
I don't have a way to block him, but calling all engineers.
If you can block two Rab on Rumble, he seems deeply drunk and out of control, and he's ruining the chat for everybody.
This is why joining locals is good, because all the locals' messages are not ruined, but the person on Rumble has decided that all of you will have a bad time now.
Oh, it looks like you got deleted.
All right.
I guess that worked out.
All right, everybody, that's all I have for my prepared remarks.
If you didn't already know it, Yes, the Dilbert Calendar is available for sale, but only at Dilbert.com.
Follow that link to the only place you can buy it.
It is not on Amazon this year, and not in bookstores this year.
It is only online, made completely in America for the first time, and comics on both sides for the first time.
Twice as good as it ever was.
So, you need it.
All right, Two Rab.
Your drunkenness is noted.
You can go away now.
All right, that's all I got.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately and we'll get rid of two rab.
