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, Jennifer Rubin's Employer, Washington Post, Kamala's Celebrity Supporters, Media Stress-Promotion, Kamala Characteristics, Bitter Ex-Wife Vibe, Democrats For Trump, 5th Circuit Ballot Receipt Ruling, Trump Rogan Interview, Fine People Hoax, Brett Samuels The Hill, Mark Cuban, Kamala Unrealized Gains Tax, JFK Files Prediction, George Packer Atlantic, Brainwashing Educated People, Government Lying, Multiple Source Brainwashing Coordination, Buffalo Run Stories, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, because that's what it is.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to the levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cover mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
See, I made that sound like a stage play.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens just about now.
So good.
So, so good.
Well, new research, according to SciTech Daily, shows that oceans absorb more heat than previously thought.
Huh.
Let's see.
The climate models are good the way they are, but also they have misdiagnosed the heat in the ocean.
Do you know where most of the heat is?
It's the ocean.
90% of all the earth heat is in the ocean.
And that's the part that they got wrong.
They got wrong the ocean heat part.
But hey, those climate models are good.
They're so good.
Yeah, yeah.
Let's make some trillion-dollar decisions.
Oh, by the way, the variable that's 90% of it, we got that wrong.
But we're going to fix it.
I want to be right next time.
Nothing to worry about here.
Meanwhile, Israel has struck Iran in another pretend war.
A pretend war is where you make sure you don't hurt anybody, and you make sure you don't destroy anything that's too valuable, and you make sure that whatever happens, it doesn't cause more fighting and doesn't do anything useful whatsoever.
So pretend war is raging.
Oh, no.
I hope the pretend war doesn't extend into a pretend nuclear attack or something.
So it looks like we don't have to worry about World War III right away.
But if I were Israel...
And I were looking for a time to attack my enemies in a way that was maybe more than other people wanted me to.
I would do it the week before an American election.
So I don't know what Israel has in mind.
Apparently they're not planning on a decapitation strike.
But if they were planning on it, this would be the week to do it.
Now I don't think they're planning on it because they've already done their retaliatory attack.
In a theatrical, fake way that nobody thinks is a military way.
But anything could happen.
Still a week before the elections.
Now, one of the funniest things in the news is that when the LA Times decided that uncharacteristically, they would not endorse any candidate.
Now, you thought they're going to do what they always do, which is endorse a Democrat, Kamala Harris.
But they did not.
And that caused at least one of their editors to quit.
And who was praising the editor who quit?
Well, one of them was a writer for the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin.
Very famous, well-known political writer.
And Jennifer Rubin was quite vocal on X, and she was shaming people who didn't quit, because in her view, if you work for a newspaper that decides not to endorse anybody this time, well, you should just quit.
Did I mention that Jennifer Rubin works for the Washington Post?
And then she had a little bad luck right after she went in public saying that you should be ashamed of yourself unless you resign should your newspaper not endorse a candidate this time.
You know where this is going, right?
The Washington Post, her employer, the next day, decided they would not endorse a candidate.
Now Jennifer Rubin is on record as saying that anybody who has any character whatsoever would resign immediately.
So she resigned immediately, right?
Right, people?
Make sense?
She went public saying if you were ever in this exact situation, you're working for a newspaper, your newspaper decides not to endorse Kamala Harris, you quit.
And she didn't quit.
Glenn Greenwald is having a wonderful time just spanking her in public for her lack of response, lack of disavowing her own employer, and just pretending like maybe none of it happened.
Am I seeing something?
All right.
So, here's my take on it.
Why would Jennifer Rubin, who works for the Washington Post, say that you should quit your employer if your employer doesn't do it, and then her employer doesn't do it, and she doesn't quit?
Why would she do that?
Well, I have a hypothesis.
Maybe Washington Post is who pays her, but maybe that's not her boss.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
Maybe she's paid by the Washington Post, but maybe they're not her boss.
Maybe her boss, is what all the people who are smarter than me say, is the, I don't know, deep state, CIA. It's long been rumored that the Washington Post is not exactly like a regular newspaper, but rather an entity of the deep state in some way.
And that if you thought it was a newspaper, something like the LA Times, that's more like a newspaper...
Then you should expect the people who work there to act like the other people who work at a newspaper.
But if it's true, and I'm not smart enough to know this, but if the people who are smarter than me are correct and the Washington Post has never really been a real newspaper, it's been a propaganda entity, then Jennifer Rubin doesn't exactly work for the newspaper.
So you shouldn't be surprised if she doesn't resign because she doesn't have a problem with her bosses.
You know what I mean?
She only has a problem with the people who pay her.
And if they're willing to keep paying her, what's the problem?
All right.
Keep an eye on that.
So Leonardo DiCaprio is endorsed to Kamala Harris for president and also Beyonce showed up at her rally last night and people were sad because Beyonce did not sing.
She only talked for four minutes because, you know, if I know Beyonce is going to be appearing, I say to myself, I hope she talks and doesn't sing.
No, I don't say that, but I just have a question.
Have all of Diddy's regular party guests now, have they all endorsed Harris?
See, Leonardo DiCaprio, he was Diddy's favorite.
Beyonce, yeah, inner circle.
Okay, is there anybody who's been invited to any of Diddy's parties who had any opinion other than Kamala Harris is a good president, let me tell you.
Let me tell you, nobody can be better than that.
Well, do you think it's a coincidence that everybody invited to a ditty party is very pro-Kamala Harris?
Is that a coincidence?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Could be.
Anything's possible.
All right.
According to study finds, over 60% of the people surveyed said that the election this year is going to damage their mental health, 60%.
But do you think that is evenly distributed?
No.
Gen Z, 66%.
So two-thirds of Gen Z thinks they'll be mentally disabled by the election.
Millennials, 64%.
Gen X, 63%.
46% say they have feelings of anxiety.
37% are stressed out.
Now...
Is this because the candidates are so bad?
Is that why everybody's stressed now?
Well, not exactly.
No, not exactly.
The reason it's so stressful is because we have a media business model that makes more money if they make you more stressed out.
So the more stressed out they can make you, the more money they make.
Basically, it's like one of those old Star Trek episodes.
Do you remember there'd be like the original Star Treks?
There would always be some alien entity that That would be feeding on their anger and hatred.
So it would try to make them angry and hateful and it could feed on us somehow.
But that's our media.
The media wants you to make you angry and hateful and anxious and sad and that's how it sucks the money or the attention out of you and then get money from it.
So of course people feel like that but it probably has little to do with what's actually happening and a lot to do with how it's being handled by the media.
Well, the Gateway Pundit has this question on one of their headlines.
Is she drunk?
Now, imagine being running for president and people legitimately are asking.
It's not just campaigning.
People are legitimately asking when she talks to the press, is she drunk?
Now, I ask that question a lot.
And I actually, it's a serious question.
I actually don't know.
I'm not saying it just because it would be an expedient way to make her look bad and I like the other candidate.
It's not that.
I mean, those things are true as well.
But she looks drunk.
To me, she looks drunk.
Now, I keep asking myself if this is some kind of confirmation bias, but the reason I don't think so is that she doesn't always look drunk.
In fact, most of the time not.
So, you know, 80, 90% of the time, not a trace of anything that you say.
But there's yet another video that the Gateway Pundit serviced Where if you look at her, she's just got that drunk face where it's sort of like her face is moving before she answers the question.
And then it takes her a long wind-up to get into the question.
And then, have you ever noticed she enters the word salad?
But then when she thinks she's nailed it at the end, she has that satisfied look on her face.
But you realize because you're not drunk that she didn't nail it at all.
So it'd be like, what would you do about taxes?
Well, she's thinking about how to start and she's like, middle class has got to be Some fairness, and Trump's a Nazi.
As you can see, look at her face.
Nailed it.
I nailed it.
Nailed it.
Yeah, it's so good.
I feel like I might say it again.
Oh my God, I nailed it.
It's the look like she nailed it that kills me.
That's also the thing I hate about TikTok and Instagram reels, where the attractive woman does her little act in front of the camera, but then the last thing she does is she laughs at herself.
Like, I'm not serious.
You're like, I'm beautiful.
I'm beautiful.
Oh, I'm so beautiful.
Look at my butt.
Oh, I'm so beautiful.
They're beautiful.
And then the last thing.
And then she turns it off because it's not serious, people.
It's not serious.
Oh, my God.
Does that grate me when I see it?
Well, I get the same thing from Kamala.
So...
Worst case scenario is that that's her natural way of acting.
The best case scenario is that she's drunk a lot.
So, there's that.
She went full mind reader, as you know the Democrats do.
Normal people would say, my opponent has this policy, but I have a different policy.
My policy is better in a variety of ways.
Let me list them.
That would be what normal people would say.
If you're losing and you've got absolutely no way to win, what you do is you imagine something in the other person's head.
So she said at her most recent rally, Just imagine.
Oh, and I'm going to emphasize theatrically the word stewing.
So when I read her quote, I want you to watch my theatrical rendition of how she sells it.
Oh, does she sell it?
Are you ready?
Just imagine the Oval Office in three months.
It's either Donald Trump in there stewing.
Stewing!
Over his enemies list?
Or me?
Working for you.
Checking off my to-do list.
Oh, nailed it.
Look how clever that was.
Oh, I want to pat myself on the back so badly right now, but I don't want to.
Because I said he was stewing, and I'm doing my to-do list.
It's the stew list versus the to-do list.
Whoa, it just keeps getting better.
I'm killing it.
I'm nailing it up here.
Okay.
Let me tell you the energy I'm getting from this.
Trump goes on Joe Rogan.
Kamala Harris has Beyonce not singing.
Here's the energy I'm getting.
I'd like to do my impression of Trump.
Now, this is my theatrical, just energy impression, right?
This is not something that either of them have said directly.
They've been in the general territory.
So here's what it feels like, but it's not what they're actually saying.
Trump.
On Joe Rogan.
I'm thinking about replacing income taxes with tariffs, as was done in the McKinley era.
So that's the energy I'm getting from Trump.
Here's the energy I'm getting from Kamala Harris.
He's putting cats and dogs and all of his enemies in his stew!
A stew!
A stew!
That's the energy I'm getting from her.
Trump, we need better border security.
Harris, he's going to put you in a death camp like Hitler.
He's going to put you in a death camp.
Hitler!
That's the energy I'm getting.
So, to me, Harris sounds more like a bitter ex-wife every day whining about Trump only thinking about himself.
Where do you hear this the most?
You're talking to your friend who's in a bitter divorce, and your friend says he completes the sentence.
It's your friend who's female.
She's talking about her bitter divorce.
From her husband is a narcissist.
That's correct.
Yes, the ex-wife always calls the husband a narcissist.
And what does the narcissist always do that's different from other people?
He always, complete the sentence, is always thinking it for himself, about himself, right?
It's all about his selfish needs.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not what politicians are supposed to be saying.
This is what a bitter ex-wife says about every husband that has ever been left.
They're always a narcissist, and they're always just thinking about themselves.
And that's what she's settled on.
But she also has, and I think her unhappy female base must love it, they're like, yeah, my ex-husband's a narcissist too.
Let's get them both.
Rah!
Let's get them both.
So it might work.
Who knows?
So I have coined the term Hail Mary.
So a Hail Mary is when a football player, the quarterback, throws a last-ditch, you know, it's the last-second play into the end zone, hoping just by luck somebody on his team will catch it and win the game in the last second.
That's called a Hail Mary, based on, you know, the religious praying to Mary, basically.
But the Hail Mary is where you pretend that you're seeing Hiller everywhere, But it's sort of a tough one because you have to pretend that the nation of Israel can't spot Hitler.
So you have to pretend, oh, totally Trump is a Hitler.
And yes, Israel loves him so much they're naming towns after him.
But here's the reason.
The entire nation of Israel, they can't spot a Hitler.
I don't know why.
It's weird.
You'd think they'd be good at it.
But according to Kamala Harris, they're supporting Hitler.
Don't even know it.
So I feel sorry for Israel having gone through the Holocaust and now so close to going through another one and don't even recognize the Hitler that's rising.
Not only that, not only does Israel not know it, but 100 million voters in the United States.
No idea.
No idea that Hitler is rising.
As I think it was Chris Sinudu pointed out, do you really think 100 million people are voting for Hitler?
Is that what you really believe?
Well, he said half the country.
Do you believe that half the country is voting for Hitler?
Which, by the way, the more I thought about it, remember Chris Nunu's father was famous for being literally a genius?
I assume some of that trickled down, because that's the smartest I've ever seen anybody answer that in public.
The smartest politician answer for the Republicans is, do you really think half the country is voting for Hitler?
I mean, really?
It's the really thing.
Really?
Really?
You don't have to use really if you're implying it, but really?
You think half of the country looked at this and they said, oh, there's some Hitler.
I've got to get some more of that.
Is that what you actually think is happening?
Or is it more likely that brainwashing and hyperbole is in the mix?
I think it is.
And so the Hail Mary play is to accuse him of being Hitler, sort of a desperation attempt.
But it's funny because there are some Democrat candidates who are trying to tie themselves to Trump because they think it'll help their chances of getting elected.
So there are some Democrats, Bob Casey, And so Senator Bob Casey and Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, they're both running ads in which they're overtly, it's not subtle, they're embracing Trump-like policies and saying so directly.
Now, are there two Democrat senators who are supporting Hillary?
Or is Harris just full of shit and making stuff up?
Well, I think it's all pathetic.
Now, compare that to Trump, who did three hours with Rogan.
And by the way, the Harris campaign said they were talking to Rogan, but they had a scheduling problem.
A scheduling problem.
He has an audience of 50 million people who are exactly the audience she most wants to talk to to convince young men.
And she had a scheduling problem.
Is that the president you want?
Okay, you're only two and a half hours by car away from his office.
He said yes.
He would almost certainly move his schedule around yours.
And it's exactly who you want to talk to and it's 50 million and it's the most important time you could ever do it.
Oh, I've got a scheduling problem.
Yeah, that's the president you want to solve all your big problems.
The one who couldn't solve how to get on Joe Rogan when he's invited her and she's just a short car ride away.
Oh, I couldn't figure it out.
Now, that was a lie, of course.
Some people are saying that he wouldn't agree to some restrictions.
That sounds likely, but I don't know if they actually had that conversation.
Or if the Harris campaign was just maybe pretending that they were interested, so that later they could say, yeah, we were totally interested, but something came up, which is what they did.
So Trump does three hours on Rogan, and then he goes and does a whole rally.
Do you know what we don't talk about anymore?
Remember when we used to think the age would be an issue?
And that Trump, you know, maybe can't keep up?
He obviously has more energy than Harris does.
I mean, he's clearly doing far more than she is.
And when he does cancellations, they're strategic.
So if you see Trump canceling something, it's because something better came up.
He doesn't cancel things because he's just, he was tired.
Something better came up.
So anyway, so Trump goes on.
So you compare the things that Harris says.
Let's say she's mind reading, that he's selfish, and that he's going to be Hiller.
So that's her main closing argument.
Literally hallucinations.
Now compare her literal hallucinations with To what Trump says at his rally.
He goes on there, he goes, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security benefits.
And then he asked the crowd to cheer for the one they liked best.
Come on!
Come on.
Come on.
Do you know how perfect that is?
Well, let me explain the technique that he wrapped into that one little message.
First of all, he listed three things that are certainly popular with some people.
No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security.
That is laundry list persuasion.
Which is not logic.
It's just really persuasive.
So you hear three things.
At least one of these things is going to appeal to you, right?
At least one of them is going to appeal to you.
So you've got something to like.
And then he says, cheer for the one you like best.
Oh, my God.
He's getting them to think about which one they like best.
That's thinking past the sale.
The sale is, I've got three things for you.
You know, the sale is, what do you like of the three?
He's already getting you to cheer for the one you like the best, meaning that you've already decided there's something on the list you like.
He just wants you to cheer for the one that's the best, meaning that they're all good, but what's the best?
That is perfect persuasion communication, but it gets better.
He combined that with asking them to do something.
The do something is to cheer for the one you like the best.
If you can get your audience to do something, it doesn't matter what, stand up, do the wave, cheer, cheer for this, vote for that, raise your hand, any of those things, that is really, really, really, really good persuasion.
Because if you can get somebody to move their body on demand and then watch all the other people move their bodies, On demand, in a similar way, even if they're competing for which of the three, it's a similar way.
You just hypnotized, what were their 10,000 people?
I mean, if you were to write a book, and I have, it's called Winn-Bigley, second edition, about how to do persuasion, you'd put that right in the first chapter.
And that's his closing argument.
He's peaking.
He's peaking.
His closing argument is the sharpest, cleanest, most succinct, most easily understandable, most actionable, most activating, most summarized, most perfect you'll ever see.
I mean, maybe there's a Kennedy who could do better.
But my God, My God, this is so good.
You know, just from persuasion.
I'm not even talking about the economics.
Just from persuasion.
I mean, you can't get better than that.
All right.
But Kamala Harris is not nearly as clear as Trump is.
However, she has some good news, too.
She's been asked to be on the cover of a major magazine.
You may have heard it.
It's called Vague.
So she'll be on the cover of Vague.
No, it's not Vogue.
Vogue is a different thing.
Vogue is more about fashion.
Vague is more about not being able to explain your policies.
Cover of Vague magazine.
Yep, dad joke.
That's your dad joke for the day.
Well, are you ready for some maybe really big news?
It's possible that you woke up this morning and you did not hear that some news was made in the courts.
Or possibly you heard it but you didn't know its importance.
You ready for this?
This is a big one.
If you haven't heard it yet, get ready for some good news.
All right?
The Fifth Circuit Court just ruled that ballots must be received by Election Day.
Period.
And any state that says you can count those ballots after Election Day, if they've been received after Election Day, is violating federal law.
And now this is specific to three states.
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
However, since it's the Fifth Circuit Court, it will certainly influence all the states, because every state that's thinking that they want to do this is going to look at the court's opinion and say, oh, shit.
All it takes is one lawyer to say, um, hey, stop.
Hey, Fifth Circuit, we've got to conform.
Because we know that if we take it to the court, the court will say the same damn thing they said last time.
We just told you.
We told you it was true for three states.
Did you think we were going to say the other states are fine?
Did you think we were only talking about three states?
We're the Fifth Circuit!
No, if we say three states can't do it because it's illegal, it's illegal everywhere.
So there's that tiny...
A bit of technicality to it, but in a practical sense, the ability to cheat by including things that came in after the date may have been taken away.
Now, there's still some, you know, maybe some ways that you could game that system.
For example, they didn't say you couldn't count after Election Day.
They said you couldn't receive and include in the count the certain things that came in after.
But is anybody going to really know when it came in?
Is there a way to just keep counting and say, it's going to take us four days to count them all, and then they're still trickling in, and then they just count them all?
And then somebody says, but you're not allowed to count them all, and they'd say, I don't even know what you're talking about.
Well, we think you counted once it came in late.
Really?
No, we didn't.
No, we're pretty sure that you counted once it came in late.
Really?
Take it to court.
All right, we will.
So they take it to court.
And what's the court say?
You don't have any standing.
Or the court says, how many do you think they did?
And you say, well, we don't have time to audit it, but we think they did.
But do you have evidence that it would have changed the outcome?
Well, not evidence, because I don't know how many.
I mean, maybe.
And then the court will say maybe.
So you don't have standing, and you don't have a claim that it would have changed the election.
Get out of here.
So, don't be too happy about it before you see how it can actually play out in the real world.
Because remember, we don't have a system that can catch and correct an election mistake.
Mistake as in rigging.
So that's the most important thing you need to know.
If you believe that we have a system that can catch and correct mistakes in our elections, you're in a whole different world that all of your assumptions are wrong.
We don't have anything that can do that.
It is designed so you can't do it.
It's designed so the courts largely don't have to determine who the winner is, which has an appeal.
So, Trump goes on Rogan for three hours, and one of the things he, as I noted, he did float that idea of tariffs instead of income tax.
I don't believe there's really a chance that that can happen.
And only because it would be such a big change, and we wouldn't know how much money we'd be getting, and your products would all go up by a tremendous amount.
You'd still be paying your taxes.
It's just that when you bought a piece of gum, it would cost $12.
So you're going to say to yourself, he's taking away my income taxes?
I love this!
Until you buy a piece of gum and it's $12.
And you go, oh, I get it.
He just inflated all the prices for all my goods, so I paid the taxes that way.
Well, at least you'd have the option of not buying things, but that's not ideal.
So I don't think that's going to happen.
I love the fact that he's, you know, even at his current age, I love the fact that Trump would think of a brand-new, entrepreneurial, out-of-the-box idea and just float it out there.
I like that part, the fact that he's mentally flexible.
I love the part where Joe Rogan called out all the hoaxes.
So Rogan called out by name the very fine people hoax, the Russiagate, And then I think Trump added the bloodbath.
You know, there's going to be a bloodbath for hoaxes.
Now, so Zerogin actually said, quote, the very fine people hoax, the Russian gay hoax, all these things you've tried to pin on you, it's a clear distortion.
How do you think I feel about that?
Thank you.
Let me read that sentence again.
And then for those of you who have been with me a while...
You tell me how I feel about this.
Joe Rogan, potentially 50 million, maybe more, maybe 100 million people are going to hear it.
And he says to Trump, with nobody chatting over him, plenty of time to hear it.
As clear as day, the very fine people hoax, the Russia gay hoax, and then Trump threw in the bloodbath hoax.
My work is done.
Seven fucking years of pushing the public to understand that the fine people hoax was a hoax.
Now, of course, other people work very hard on this too.
Steve Cortez.
He wrote a fine piece on that.
Joel Pollack has been all over it since the start.
And the three of us have made sure we stay in touch whenever we hit on it so that we can all three hit it at the same time.
And all I wanted to do Was to make it common knowledge.
And I wanted people to refer to the find people situation with the word hoax.
And I wanted somebody to be able to say the phrase find people hoax and have enough people listening to it and know what that means where it didn't need to be explained.
It didn't need to be explained, people.
Joe Rogan called it the fine people hoax, and nobody needed to have that explained.
He used the word hoax.
He didn't just say they lied about what you said.
He didn't just say they edited it.
He called it a hoax, the fine people hoax.
This is everything I was trying to do.
And then he landed it a week before election, and he put it in front of 50 million men.
And the men who don't know that that was a hoax, or that they lived in a hoaxocracy, just found out from one of the most credible people in the United States, Joe Rogan.
Do you think that's persuasive?
Yes.
That's a 10.
That's a 10 out of 10.
That's exactly the right audience in exactly the right frame of mind a week before the election.
It's exactly the right two people, Joe Rogan and Trump.
Because Rogan is the sort of the height of credibility in terms of, you know, he's not lying to you.
He could be wrong, like maybe you'd like some specific conspiracy theories that you don't like, but he says that clearly too.
He tells you when he's doing it recreationally and when he's doing it seriously.
So the most credible person to the most important demographic, which is young men and people who are going to watch that show, just laid it down like a fact.
We're done discussing it.
It's a fact.
It's the fine people hoax.
And if you don't mind, I'm going to take a victory lap.
Because when you work that hard to get something done that's this big and it lands, I feel great.
I just feel great today.
So, Joel, And Steve Cortez, good work.
Good work, guys.
And to all of you who have been forwarding it and boosting it all these years, good work to you.
Appreciate it.
All right.
Meanwhile, in the Hill, I did a little test to see if people could find the brainwashing part in that.
So here's something in an article by Brett Samuels.
Now, if you're writing for The Hill, you're one of the writers, is it fair to assume that you're probably college educated?
It's kind of rare for a famous writer to not be college educated.
Matt Walsh is probably the, you know, maybe the best writer I know who's not technically college educated.
But here's something that was said by Brett Samuels, talking about Trump.
Trump said on Joe Rogan about the 2020 election, he didn't get into it deeply, but what Trump said is, quote, what I'd rather do is, we'll do it another time.
I would bring in papers that you would not believe.
In other words, evidence of rigging in 2020, allegedly, according to Trump.
And then this is what Brett Samuels, the writer in The Hill, summarizes it this way.
He says, the election was so crooked, Trump said, at one point repeating the false claim that he did not lose in 2020.
The false claim that he did not lose.
Now, remember, the claim is not that the system didn't pick Biden.
He's not arguing that.
He's arguing that if the system had looked at the votes correctly and counted them correctly and without any rigging, that he would have won.
Now, of course, Brett Samuels understands that context.
But Brett Samuels interjects that he did not lose in 2020.
Does he really not know that that's unknowable?
You can't know who won.
We don't have a system that produces that kind of information.
Not even close.
In fact, it's designed so you couldn't possibly know who won the election.
You know what the official numbers are, but you don't know anything that went into it, what's behind it.
You don't know if anything was faked.
You don't know if anything was hacked.
So, what would make This highly educated writer say something that's so obviously not true.
I mean, like super glaringly, incredibly obviously not true.
Because everybody who's got a college education knows that everything that has technology in it can get hacked.
Right?
If I gave you a quiz and said, hey, do you think everything important can be hacked?
They would all say yes.
For example, there's a story that Trump and Vance's cell phones have been hacked by China.
Did you hear that?
That's brand new news.
So if China can get into Trump and Vance's cell phone, and China can get into, as Christopher Wray says, maybe our entire infrastructure, Does Brett Samuels think that our election systems are impenetrable?
Of course not.
Like, why would you say it in public when if anybody asked you that question, you'd say, of course not.
Everything digital is penetrable.
I mean, just look at the fact that when Iran's nuclear program was taken down by a cyber attack, What could have more security on it than your nuclear facilities, especially if they're secret nuclear facilities?
And somehow, Israel penetrated that.
So if you think election systems are the one impenetrable thing, where'd you learn that?
Which college told you that?
All right, I'm going to go deeper on that.
But first, so Mark Cuban has this fascinating position, so he's supporting Harris, but he's very much against her idea of an unrealized gains tax, where you get taxed just because your assets increased in value.
And Cuban's take on that is it would be terrible for the economy, it would destroy the economy, but don't worry, because she's definitely not going to do it.
Her campaign begs the difference, to differ, and they say, oh, she's definitely going to do that.
So imagine being one of her main supporters, and in order to support her, you have to say out loud in public multiple times, no, she's not going to do that thing that's right at the top of her list of most important things she's going to do.
Now, is that fair?
Is it fair to say that don't worry about that, it's not going to happen?
Totally.
Don't worry about that, it's not going to happen.
Because she can't do it herself and there's no way that the Congress is ever going to agree to it.
There's not even any chance.
There is zero chance that Congress would approve that.
So yeah, he's right.
But he's also supporting somebody who's saying something that's clearly a lie.
She's not going to do that.
Now, you might remember that I did something very similar.
In 2016, when Trump was saying, I'm going to deport every single illegal alien, and people would ask me, Scott, how can you be in favor of that?
To be people who have been living here as Americans for decades, and they're here with their kids, they've had children in America, they pay their taxes.
How in the world are you in favor of deporting them?
And I would say...
He's not going to do it.
And people would say, it's his number one thing.
It's the main thing he talks about.
And I would say, he's not going to do that.
It's hyperbole.
He's going to deport as many people as he needs to to get the criminals and the ones who are the most problem out.
And when you get the criminals out, the public is going to say, now we're thinking about other things.
So he never really needed to deport 20 million people, or whatever the number was then.
He needed to close the border enough, which he did.
He needed to deport the worst people, enough of them, which he did.
And then America, being the reasonable place it is, said, oh, okay, well, it doesn't look like it's the end of the world now.
So, yeah, okay, some of us wish you'd deported more, but, you know, it's not bothering me at the moment, and I've got somebody to mow my lawn, and somebody's picking the fruit, and all right, we can live with it.
Now, that made sense.
That was just hyperbole.
But there's no, I don't think there's a hyperbole Way to say you're going to tax unrealized gains.
That's sort of binary.
Because there's no amount of taxing of unrealized gains that's okay.
Not any amount.
That's completely wrong.
Whereas some amount of deporting clearly made sense.
Some other amount made less sense.
Anyway, so that's happening.
Trump also said he'd release the JFK files.
And I love this statement he said, quote, I can't tell you whether, this is what Trump said to Rogan, I can't tell you whether or not they're going to find anything of interest, meaning in the JFK files, but I was asked not to do it.
And I thought that was a reasonable ask.
But now I'm going to do it.
I'm going to do it very soon, Trump said.
Do you know what that means?
So let's put this together and see if you can predict what happens next.
So the files exist.
Trump wanted to release them.
Somebody, presumably the CIA, said, hmm, bad idea.
Could you please not release these?
Trump, maybe not knowing everything that's in there, possibly, said, all right, okay, that's reasonable.
I won't release them.
Now he says he will, and I suspect he might.
So now put it forward.
What happens next?
Well, one possibility is they assassinated him, like JFK, because that would solve the problem.
And that's probably what the files say, is that the CIA killed JFK. Probably.
Don't know for sure, but probably.
But here's what's more likely, because if they assassinate him, it's too on the nose.
If they assassinate him, there's going to be violence, right?
The public is not going to take that leg down.
Let me be as clear as I can.
I don't recommend this.
But if Trump gets taken out by our own people a week before the election, or even before getting sworn in, or any time after, the guns are coming out.
Right?
I'm not recommending it.
But let's be honest.
If they take Trump out, the guns are coming out.
I don't know what will happen.
I don't have a prediction.
But the guns are coming out.
So just think about that.
Again, not recommending it.
If you take your gun out, you're probably going to be dead or in jail.
So highly not recommended.
But it's just a fact.
That would be a level that at least a third of Republicans would say, well, that's a line.
The line was very clear.
We could not have been more clear where the line was.
We didn't have to say it out loud, but we couldn't be more clear where the line is.
So, the CIA knows that.
They know it'd be too big a risk.
So what's going to happen?
Game it out.
Let me tell you what's going to happen.
Those JFK files are going to be accidentally deleted.
Now you might say, are you fucking kidding me?
There's no way they can just accidentally delete them.
Yes, they can.
Why do you think you haven't seen the Epstein files?
Why do you think you'll never see the ditty tapes?
Why do you think Hillary Clinton could, what was it, whitewash or clean wash or files and throw them away?
Why is it that the, why is it that some ballots that we can't look at that are behind the locked door It's all the same.
The Democrats have a very long history of literally just saying, whoops, I lost it.
I was sure it was behind this door.
Oh, there were files.
Oh, we recorded over the files.
So I'm going to make this prediction for the first time.
Trump will try to release the JFK files.
You're not going to see the JFK files.
They're going to be deleted.
And I'm not even sure it's the wrong thing to do, because whatever's in there is really bad.
And I'm sure it's not too far from what we assume is true, right?
So we're acting as if we're assuming we know what it is anyway.
But no, you're never going to see the JFK files.
They're going to disappear, or you're going to get some files, and you're going to know things are still redacted or still unavailable, and that will be the good stuff.
But even if Trump says, give me every one of those files, you're not going to see them.
Because obviously whatever is at stake is just too big.
Too big.
Well, there's a writer for The Atlantic, George Packer.
George Packer.
I wonder what his middle name is.
George Packer.
I don't know what his middle name is, but it could be something funny.
Anyway, he writes for the Atlantic, which is a propaganda outlet pretending to be something else.
And he claims that Black and Hispanic voters are shifting toward Trump, but that's not the real story.
It's not about race.
It's more about education.
And that...
The fact that the Black and Hispanic voters, on average, have lower educational accomplishments than other groups, that's why they're moving.
So it's not about their color or identity.
It's that Trump only attracts the uneducated.
So that's what an educated person wants you to know.
Well, and he said, quote, he says, the sharpest divide in our politics today is education.
Whether you have a college degree or not, that's the likeliest determinant of whether you like Trump or Harris.
Well, I pity the highly educated in America because they are also the most brainwashed, all right?
So here's the hypnotist filter on that opinion.
As a hypnotist, I can tell you the following is true for sure.
Highly educated and smart people are really easy to hypnotize.
Uneducated people can be hypnotized too, but there's a little bit of a difference in how they operate.
For example, if the government says something that's ridiculous on the surface, what do uneducated people say about it?
They go, well, that looks like a lie, because it's absurd on the surface.
And they figure the government usually lies, and they can get away with it, so why wouldn't they do it again?
So the so-called uneducated people get the right answer almost every time, because the government is lying to you almost every time, even when the thing they want to do is good for you.
They still have to lie to you to sell it, right?
Maybe the infrastructure thing was good, but if you call it a, I don't know, saving the green new world or something, you can get people to say yes.
So even when it's good for you, they lie to you.
So when the uneducated people hear something from the government, they automatically say, well, that's another lie.
I don't know what's true, but that's probably not true.
And then they really, really have a good track record of being right.
Now, let's compare that to a highly educated person who's getting their news from the New York Times.
Ah, that's some smart stuff there.
That's some, oh, you read the New York Times, you're reading smart stuff written by smart people, and you're getting all that smart stuff into your smart head.
Wow, you're so smart.
And then you cross-check it with some other things, because, you know, you don't want to rely on one source.
Educated don't do that.
The educated will look for multiple sources.
So in addition to the New York Times, they might go to, let's say, the Atlantic.
Yeah.
And then they might go to, let's say, the Washington Post.
And then they turn on the TV and they look at MSNBC. And they say, I pity those uneducated people.
Oh my God, they're so darn dumb.
They don't know that the election was fine.
In which I say, wait a minute.
The dumb people, according to you, the uneducated people, they know that every digital system can be hacked, and they've never heard an argument for why you have digital systems in the first place if they're slower, more expensive, and less credible.
What do all the educated people say?
I read the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Atlantic, and they all say the elections were perfect.
So, I'm glad I'm an educated person because I get all the right answers.
I hate to be like those uneducated people.
Hey, how about those vaccinations?
How about those masks?
Listen to science, people.
Listen to science.
Oh, I think I'll go out and measure accurately the temperature of the planet.
Because I read in the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Atlantic that you can do that and they get an accurate answer.
No.
There is a structural reason why the educated people know the least.
There's like a design reason.
Our system is designed that if you're educated, what do you get more of?
Brainwashing.
laughing Brainwashing.
You get more of it.
And if you think that, if your view of the world is that the smart people are living in this world with lots of brainwashing, but they have this little force field of smartness around them, so all the bullshit's bouncing off, oh, that's not happening.
No.
No, if you're living in a complete immersion of brainwashing, you're brainwashed.
So the so-called uneducated, simply by paying less attention to the sources of brainwashing, they're not reading the New York Times.
They're not reading the Atlantic.
They're less brainwashed.
So on the big stuff, they're more often right.
And they're right because the brainwashers are always lying, even when they're trying to do what they think might be a good thing.
thing.
They're still lying.
So a highly educated voter would say something like, thank goodness our election systems are never hacked the way the phones were hacked for Vance and Trump.
That's what the educated people would say.
Thank goodness the only thing that never gets hacked is our voting systems.
The uneducated say, it looks like everything gets hacked.
Who's right?
The uneducated.
Of course they're right.
Of course they're right.
It's not about IQ. It's not about education.
It's about how much brainwashing you absorbed.
The more you absorbed, the dumber you got.
And the educated absorbed the most by far.
Because they don't even know that their sources are brainwashing.
So, you might ask me, Scott, but what about all those exceptions?
Because there are, in fact, educated people who support Trump.
To which I say, there's a reason for that.
It's because the hypnotists got him out of the brainwashing.
When you listen to the people who have gone over to Trump, listen to how they talk.
Bill Ackman says this.
I believe the fine people hoax.
And as soon as I found out what they did to me with that, that it was just a bad edit, then that opened him up to all the other brainwashing.
And then it was easy for him to say, oh, my God.
Yeah, Trump's the obvious choice.
How about Elon Musk?
He knows which things are hoaxes.
How does he know?
Well, he heard it from people who knew.
He looked at what they said, looked at the original stuff, and realized, oh, the people who say it's a hoax are right.
Right?
How about the all-in pod guys?
You know, three out of four anyway.
I don't know their transition story, but I'll bet at one point there was somebody who was a hypnotist who had surfaced something as a hoax, And then it came to their attention, huh, is this a hoax?
People say this might be a hoax.
Then they look into it.
Sure enough, it's a hoax.
And then they're unhypnotized.
And then all the other brainwashing becomes part of their vision.
So this, of course, is the hypnotist's view of the world.
But my belief is that the intelligent people on the political right...
Have a set of hypnotists, actually literally trained hypnotists, who are a little bit more immune from brainwashing because they can see the gears of the machine.
Like, you can see it coming at you.
So you could go, oh, that's one of those things.
It's easier to avoid the brainwashing when you see all the mechanism.
If you think...
In the news, well, then you fall for it pretty quickly.
But if you can say, oh, you're doing the laundry list, you're doing the thing where you're making us act at the same time, you're doing the social proof thing, and you're doing the making me think past the sale, nice job.
That's a good job.
There's no brainwashing there because you see all the mechanism.
Now, I've trained a lot of you To now see the mechanism, and I'll bet all of you would say, yeah, I can see it now.
Not every time, maybe.
You're not all experts, but you see it more often than not.
I think that the biggest story...
Of why smart people are coming to the political right is the hoax, the people calling out the hoaxes.
And so again, I would also call out Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec.
You could come up with, I'm sure, you could come up with 10 more names of people who are calling out the hoaxes.
But a lot of that came from hypnotists first.
It's just you wouldn't necessarily be aware of that.
Anyway, here's a recreational claim about the election.
All right, so beware of the Krakens.
So a Kraken, or also, as we've learned, the Buffalo Run, is a play in which if you're trying to hide something and the other side is onto you, you feed them a fake story to ruin their credibility.
So when they start talking about the real one, the people go, ah, you lied the last time.
So look out for the bad guys giving you fake election rigging stories.
That you talk about and then you find out, oh, they made that up and then you're done.
But here's one that I don't know what to think about it, so I'm going to create it.
I'm going to say it's a recreational belief, meaning I don't know that this is true, but it sounds really cool.
And it goes like this.
This is one you've heard before, but it's just so interesting.
So Jerome Corsi is writing about this in The American Thinker.
That there's a PhD, Andrew Paquette, who looked into, I think it was New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, some other states, and he examined their voter registration databases.
And he discovered, he says, an algorithm, and I don't know how well I'll describe this, but he says he can see the code, And so, I mean, he's just looking at it.
He's not speculating.
His claim is, I'm looking right at it.
And this code would do the following things.
Now, remember, this is a recreational claim.
If I were to put in odds of it, you know, checking out and being in context perfectly, low.
But that would be true of all the big election claims.
Any of them individually, I don't know, probably not.
But Overall, it's a system that guarantees it's rigged, I think.
You just don't, you won't necessarily know how, but our current system guarantees rigging because it's not auditable fully.
Anyway, so here's why he claims that they've got an algorithm which would allow them to add false voters to the voter rolls.
Now, normally that wouldn't be a problem, because if they're false voters, they would be called in the normal process of getting rid of voters who have moved or died or things like that.
But they put a bunch of false ones on there, and then the algorithm, allegedly, covertly tags them for easy retrieval later.
So that would be something that allegedly he could see in the code, that they're treated special.
And that false registrants, meaning the fake people on the voter rolls, can then request absentee ballots because the system thinks they're real because they're on the voter rolls, but they're really being sent to fake people who are going to fill them out.
Then the fake ones are gathered and they fill them out at central places.
And then the false voter records are updated to reflect the false votes.
And then after certification, the false voter records are manipulated to disguise their purpose and history.
So the claim is that you can look at the code, and it's the same in these several states, not all the states, but several states, and that you can just look at the code.
And you can see it's obviously for the purpose of rigging an election.
Now, the reason that I don't say, this is proven, this is true, we got them, is because it's probably the 10th time I've heard a story that sounds like this, with different details.
But, oh, we found the truck full of ballots, but we lost it.
You know, it's gonna be like that.
So, I'm not sure I believe this one, but it's out there.
So, sharing it with you.
The larger picture is, if we don't know if that's true or false, how do you know if anything else is true or false about the election?
So, ladies and gentlemen, those are my comments for today.
A wonderful day of news, it's been.
And I'd like to talk now to the private, wonderful people on the Locals platform.
By the way, you can only be on that if you go to scottadams.locals.com and sign up, and then you get to see my special cartoons and my naughty stuff and my naughty Dilbert cartoons and my Other political opinions and live streams from a man cave every night.
So if you're lonely, it's the place to go.
It turns out, and by the way, I didn't create the locals platform as a place for lonely people to meet each other, but it turned out that way.
So there's a sort of a rule in business that you don't tell your customers what business you're in.
They tell you.
You could take a first draft and say, I'm in the business of showing you some comics that you haven't seen.
And then I think that's what business I'm in.
And then people sign up and they say, oh, thank goodness you're doing a live stream tonight because you're my only social outlet.
And then I say, oh, well, I guess I'm a service for helping lonely people.
And then other people say, oh, I read this book or this reframe and it changed my life.
And then I say, oh.
Well, I guess I'm an advice giver.
So I just become what the audience tells me they need.
So that's what Locals is.
So whatever you need, that's what I'm there for you.
All right, everybody, on YouTube and Rumble and X, by now you know that the 2025 Dilbert Calendar...
It's available but only at Dilbert.com.
The link there will take you to the only place you can buy it.
