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, Traditional Media Broadcast Licensing, Traditional Media Talk-Over, WaPo Endorsement Neutrality, Jeff Bezos, CNN Promotes Drinking Bleach Hoax, Kamala Name Pronunciation, President Trump MSG Event, Kamala's Campaign, Michelle Obama's Kamala Support, Van Jones, Progressive Political Policy Failings, Kim Dot Com, National Debt Payoff, Anti-Trump Hitler Smear, Israel Iran Pretend War, J6 Propaganda, Free Speech Suppression, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's going to be the best time you've ever had in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take this up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
The sippage is excellent today.
Okay.
But what else is happening?
Well, one of the things you've probably been asking yourself is, sure, they can make robots, and they can make robot dogs.
But can they make a robot dog that walks underwater?
Yes.
Yes, they can.
It's called the Honey Badger.
According to The Bite, these engineers have a quadruped robot dog that's about a foot long and it can walk under your pool and it can hide underwater.
Now, I can't think of anything scarier than seeing robot dogs come out of water.
If I'm ever by a stream and a robot dog ever comes out of that stream and starts coming at me, I'm going to run very, very fast.
But then the other robot dogs will catch up with me and overtake me and put me in a cocoon and harvest me for energy.
I assume.
I mean, I don't want to read too much into it, but I do think robot dog walks underwater, harvest me for energy, giant cocoon.
I think it follows.
And now, according to Science Blog, scientists can create cancer patients as digital twins to predict how well something will go.
That's right.
They can create your digital twin, and then they can put that digital twin in some digital medical study, and then they can see how you do as a digital twin before they do it to your real body.
Which raises some interesting questions, doesn't it?
Such as, how many digital twins will you have for every base reality you?
Might you have a digital twin for each kind of problem you might have?
For example, might I create a digital twin that figures out how to solve all the water-related damage in my house every single day?
It could be that you're already a digital twin and that you've been created just so the real person who is you can see how your solutions work.
And so, having a digital cancer twin Makes perfect sense.
And by the way, there are a number of efforts in the world where people are trying to figure out whether medicines are working the way they're supposed to work for your cancer patients and other people as well.
So, digital twin.
Now, when they talk about it, they don't mean it's like a simulation digital twin, but it will be.
Your digital twin should not only have the same, let's say, DNA that you have and the same comorbidities, but it should live the same lifestyle.
So if you eat a carrot, your digital twin should eat a carrot because it's all part of the...
Part of the, did you do enough?
Did you exercise?
Apparently, people taking Ozempic, the weight loss drug, they have a far lower Alzheimer risk so far.
I'm surprised they know that, because that drug hasn't been around that long.
But they say a 40 to 70% reduction for people who have type 2 diabetes, which apparently suggests that you have a higher risk of Alzheimer's too.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to think that obesity is bad for your health.
Is anybody picking that up?
How's your pattern recognition?
So, whenever people are overweight, it seems that there's a wide variety of problems they have, and some of them include the brain.
Oh, how many times do I tell you that your body is your brain?
That's right.
If your body's doing type 2 diabetes things instead of what it should be doing, your brain's going to be degraded.
So one of the smartest things I did in my, let's say, late teen years is I decided that my body and my brain were the same thing and that if I exercised and ate right all of my life, I could get to my old age and my brain would still be working.
Here I am.
I'm old and my brain is still working.
So, so far, so good.
I don't know what will happen tomorrow, but today, brain working.
Did you remember that Vivek Ramaswamy is the second biggest shareholder now in the septic tank piece of crap called BuzzFeed?
That's an online publication.
Now, I did see a report that he visited them and he's maybe trying to convince them to have some conservative writers I don't know if that's going to happen, but he's the second biggest shareholder, so he's an activist.
I would think there's a good chance he'll get what he wants.
That was reported by George on the X platform, and I would love to know what Vivek has as a plan, but I would like to point out That it does seem that traditional media is dead, as a number of smart people are saying.
The fact that the Joe Rogan broadcast with Trump I think he did three hours and he's got, last I checked, 17 million views.
Kamala Harris went on the second biggest podcast in the world and got under 700,000.
So 17 million in just a few days and more coming versus 700,000, which isn't bad either.
But a lot of people are saying that the traditional media, the CNNs and the MSNBCs and the ABC News and CBS, that they're basically dumb.
And there's even thinking that they should give up their airwaves, you know, their radio, what do you call it?
Spectrum.
So there's some thinking that the traditional media should give up its spectrum.
And you know what the reason is?
The reason is that they don't serve the public anymore.
It's actually a good reason.
The reason that the TV networks have, I think, free, they all get allocated their own little spectrum that is rare.
And I think, I believe the reasoning is that the public gets a benefit from having the networks have this access especially the news but now that the news from the networks is really just nothing but propaganda and we recognize it as such and the only place you can get anything useful is from independent journalists Why exactly do these big entities have free asset from the country,
the bandwidth and the, what would you call it, the spectrum, if they're actually bad for the country?
So, I'm not sure they were ever good for the country, but at the moment, it's super, super obvious that the mainstream news is fake news, it's propaganda, it's bad for the country.
So why do they get free assets?
To be bad for the country?
Because I think that's not even controversial at this point.
Even people are mad at their own preferred sources.
You know, people are mad at the Washington Post.
They're mad at the LA Times.
They're mad at the CNN. And they're mad at their own side.
So it's not like we're arguing that the mainstream media is good for one side and bad for the other.
As both sides say, hey, what happened to you guys?
You're worthless now.
So we'll see what Vivek has in plan for BuzzFeed.
If I were a younger man, I would say, Vivek, BuzzFeed needs a columnist like me, but I'm not.
Anyway...
Do you think mainstream media is dead?
I think it's premature.
I think people are actually a little bit more wishful thinking.
I think it's dead.
But the reason that the traditional media exists is not to make money.
So you can't predict their fate based on economics.
Because they're clearly, their propaganda is obviously the purpose of them.
And I don't see any reason that they'll go away.
If money isn't the reason they exist in the first place, and propaganda is the reason they exist, they're not going to go away because they're losing money and their propaganda.
So I'm going to go counter to all the smart people who are saying, my goodness, Joe Rogan has made all the traditional mainstream media garbage.
Eventually, yes.
But next year?
No.
Next year will look exactly like this year.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, maybe 1% difference.
Why is the Joe Rogan thing better?
Well, lots of reasons.
Number one reason is that there's a long time period.
So people are really, you know, they've got all the time in the world to answer questions.
A podcaster such as Joe Rogan has all the time in the world to follow up on a question.
There's nobody sitting there talking over them.
Now, let me compare that to three episodes of CNN. So there were three separate clips just this morning about CNN, and they all had the same quality to them.
A conservative tried to say something that was both true and obvious and well-known and on point, and the liberals and or liberal who was there with them talked over them so they couldn't talk.
Now, that didn't happen on Joe Rogan, did it?
Was anybody talking over anybody?
Didn't need to.
Three hours.
But I was watching Scott Jennings on CNN, and somebody mentioned the drinking bleach hoax, like it was real.
And Scott Jennings says, well, you know, that's a hoax.
And suddenly, five different panelists started talking over him so that the audience couldn't hear him say that it was a hoax.
And I thought, that is fascinating.
That's something you don't see on a podcast.
You'll never see a podcast where somebody is completely talked over to the point where the topic changes.
And then I watched, there was another segment where, again, the conservative got talked over until the time changed.
And then I watched Jake Tapper interviewing J.D. Vance, and Tapper was using the really play I've taught you the really play.
It's where you don't have to give an argument sometimes.
Sometimes you just say the thing that somebody believes and you look at them and you go, really?
Really?
Really?
That's what you believe.
And it can be really good as a persuasion thing if the person would have trouble explaining why that's really what they believe.
However, it didn't work with J.D. Vance, because the question was, why are all these ex-staffers of Trump now turning against him?
And Jake was trying to make the point, you know, really?
Are you saying that all of these people, all of these people that turned against Trump, really?
Really, they're all bad?
You're saying there's something wrong with all of these people?
Really?
Really?
And J.D. Vance looks at him and goes, yes.
And then he explains they're all neocons.
And yes, there's something wrong with every one of them.
Now, you could debate the accuracy of that statement.
You know, are they all neocons and there's something wrong with them?
But they all had some reason to be mad at Trump.
They were either fired by him or there was something they didn't like about him or they're neocons or something else.
But the key point was that as J.D. tried to explain his point of view, Tapper just kept talking over him.
So I watched three different segments that were all really interesting and I would have wanted to see the actual exchange, but I couldn't.
Because CNN wouldn't allow the person they were talking to to talk.
Now, did you see that even one time on any conservative podcast that you've watched lately?
The last time I saw it was I was watching also Megyn Kelly appear on Bill Maher's show, and I swear he was talking over her.
Now, because it's Megyn Kelly, and it's not your average person, she didn't let him get away with talking over him, which is hard to do, by the way.
Unless you're really, really good at media, getting talked over is hard to get out of.
But, you know, Megyn Kelly's a force of nature, so she does.
But watching the...
It seems to me that the Democrat argument has turned into, I need to make sure you don't talk.
Have you noticed that?
So it started with the Twitter files and trying to get the social media to censor you.
The whole NGOs and Soros funding them to get the Europeans to shut you down.
Because they don't want conservatives to even have a message.
But then when they invite them on, they talk over them.
I mean, just grossly talk over them so they can't say a thing.
Now, you could argue that the same thing happens if a liberal goes on a conservative show, there might be the same thing.
But my larger point is that the traditional media is a talk over media.
Here's my summary.
Traditional media is about talking over somebody until you run out of time.
Nobody cares about that.
I don't want to see anybody talk over somebody until you're out of time.
Why?
What good is that?
So yeah, traditional media is completely broken at this point.
Nicole Shanahan's video geniuses have another good one called The Big Cheat.
So it's a campaign ad.
Again, it's really, really well done.
Whoever is making her videos is highly talented.
But it's called The Big Cheat, and you think it's going to be about, you know, 2020 cheat, but it's not.
It's about how Bernie Sanders was cheated out of his place at the party.
It was about how the 51 intel chiefs were cheating at the end of the election.
It's about how Biden was dethroned, and it was about how Kamala was installed.
And once you see how the Democrats treat other Democrats, it's really hard to imagine that the election itself is not rigged because everything that the Democrats are doing to themselves is rigging.
I mean, they're rigging each other.
So to imagine that they would rig each other right in front of the whole world but not rig the election to actually win it is kind of a stretch.
It'd be kind of hard to believe.
Really?
Really?
That you're not going to do anything sketchy?
So, there's more news on the Washington Post not endorsing anybody, which is a rare thing.
They normally endorse the Democrat.
And there's some reporting that maybe Jeff Bezos reached some kind of a deal with Trump.
I'm not sure I'm ready to believe that.
I would believe that if I heard it from Bezos or from Trump.
But I would believe it from literally nobody else.
I don't want to hear about somebody who was in the room, somebody overheard a conversation, some anonymous source.
So I don't trust anything about that story, but it seems to me that you don't need a conversation between Trump and Bezos for this to happen.
Here's why.
Number one, has Bezos been active in politics so far?
Not really, right?
I can't think of Bezos doing anything overly political.
His wife, however, which I'm sure he's just really happy with, did take many billions of his dollars and put them heavily into left-leaning things that he may not completely agree with.
So, you have to wonder, and somebody speculated this on X, you wonder if this is marriage-related.
As in, the one way you could really, really bug your ex-wife, who just spent billions of your dollars on things you didn't want to be spent on, Could be.
It was just a big F you to his ex-wife.
Now, he'd have plenty of cover for why he'd have other reasons to do it, which is you should just stay out of politics.
He doesn't want to get Bud Lighted, doesn't want to get Target Stored, doesn't want to get Disney'd.
Yes.
He has an absolute responsibility that if you're a conservative author, you still want to use Amazon.
If you're a liberal author, you still want to use Amazon.
If there were one person that I would really, really, really want to not be involved in politics, it's Jeff Bezos.
Because he's like the person who can control what algorithm shows you what books.
I mean, that's way too much power.
To come down hard on one side of politics.
So, Bezos being a genius, simply doing what smart people doing, stay out of it.
Now, if you look at Elon Musk and you say, but how can they both be smart geniuses when they're doing opposite things?
I think if you look at what Elon's doing, he's far more, let's say, far more willing to take a risk.
And I think he thinks there's more at stake, probably.
So I don't mind either opinion.
It looks like they're coming to their decisions in different ways, but they're both smart.
And I would respect both of those.
I think I respect that equally.
I respect Bezos staying out of politics as much as I appreciate Musk getting into politics.
Because they don't seem to be doing it in a dumb way.
They seem to be doing it for what seems to be perfectly good reasons.
Anyway, can you believe that CNN doesn't know the drink bleach hoax is a hoax?
And they sold both the host and the guest argued with Scott Jennings that the Trump did in fact say drink bleach.
How could you have a job in news?
And think that happened in the real world.
You know, we finally beat the fine people hoax.
That's now common knowledge that that was a hoax.
But the drinking bleach one.
Oh my god.
How anyone believes that Trump suggested drinking bleach or even injecting any kind of liquid disinfectant.
If there's anybody new to the feed, the real story is he was talking about light as an antiseptic.
He started by talking light, then he talked about it, and then he bookended it by talking about light.
But the other experts didn't know he was talking about light or missed that point, and they talked about other things.
He never talked about anything but light.
And so light was actually being trialed as a disinfectant in your trachea and a disinfectant potentially in your lungs.
If they could stick a light source into your lungs and irradiate it with UV light, that was the idea.
And that was actively being tested when Trump talked about it.
And then the news turned it into drinking bleach.
And then years later, CNN still reports it like it's news.
I mean, you can't be more pathetic than that.
That's pathetic.
Yeah, it's just pathetic.
Anyway, Jack Posobiec has a scoop that the White House insiders are saying that Biden is telling advisors the election is dead and buried and Kamala is an innate sucker and, well, he's not happy.
Now, remember I always tell you That you can't believe anonymous insiders in the White House.
So you can't believe it when they say something about Trump.
You can't believe it when they say something about Harris.
And you can't believe it when they say something about Biden.
It's just a general rule.
One anonymous insider is like nothing happened.
But it isn't hard to imagine...
That Joe Biden is having a hard time with this.
You can't really think of any scenario in which he's okay with it.
You also can't think of any scenario in which Biden wouldn't be talking about it.
You know, he's not going to be quiet about it.
And he probably wants her to lose.
Because honestly, if I were running for president and I got replaced...
I would want my replacement to lose so that I could always say, you know, yeah, I get I was a little behind in the polls, but I had a chance of coming back.
You replaced me with an idiot.
I mean, she's sort of a moron.
So then I saw an image that I think is real, but I saw some people questioning it, that the teleprompter for the Kamala Harris rally, and I think the teleprompter was for Beyonce, Showed how to pronounce Kamala phonetically, as in the word comma-law.
Now, I think that's important because so many of her supporters can't say her name right, and they've already come down on the point that if you can't say her name right, you're probably a racist or a sexist.
But it turns out that one of her big supporters, Bruce Springsteen, also known as The Boss, calls her Kamala.
So do at least half of the black supporters that anybody talks to on the street.
As do maybe 25% of every one of the supporters of hers that shows up on MSNBC or CNBC. So the Harris people start out with this, if you don't say your name right, you're obviously a bad person and you're doing it intentionally.
So Trump, instead of conforming, because he's not a conformer, You know, he doubles down and goes with full Kamala.
And then a lot of his surrogates and stuff, they go full Kamala.
And so they've got this thing they can do.
Oh, they would never do that with somebody else.
They're only doing it because they're racist.
That's why they use her name wrong.
And then the number of times that her own supporters pronounce her name wrong is getting hard to ignore.
I mean, Bruce Springsteen, on stage, endorsing her, doesn't know her name.
She's being endorsed by people who don't know her name, like actually don't know it, because when they try to say it, that's not actually her name.
The minimum requirement for endorsing somebody for president of the United States should be you know their name.
Just to make us feel like you've done a little bit of work.
So let's look at how the two campaigns are doing.
Let's see.
Today, ex-President Trump will be in Madison Square Garden, going into the enemy, sort of an unfriendly territory in the sense that Democrats usually win New York.
But Trump has been in the past.
Highly popular in New York.
More popular now than he's ever been since he's been running for president.
He'll probably sell out as well as having a lot of street action around it.
It's going to be this enormous, enormous event.
And the visuals are going to be insane because it'll be such a big event and so much action, so much energy.
And let's see what Kamala Harris is doing.
We have some video of her at a bar with Gretchen Whitmer drinking beer and cackling.
Okay, we must admit that Kamala Harris' campaign hates her guts.
Because if your candidate looked like a drunk and she was a cackler, you would not have her seen in a bar.
Whatever you did, you would keep her as far away from a drink in a bar as you possibly could.
And they put her in a bar and they put a drink in her hand.
Oh my God!
Now, I'm not exactly some, you know, political expert consultant, but am I wrong that that was the mistake of the week?
Can we conclude that Trump wins today's competition?
Now, I think the bar was last night and the Madison Square Garden will be today, but That's a bad 24 hours.
The only thing I remember is she was drinking and cackling and that Beyonce had to be paid a huge amount to endorse her and didn't sing and made everybody mad because they thought Beyonce was going to sing.
And then Michelle Obama shows up and what was wrong with Michelle Obama?
Did she have an allergy?
Did she just get done doing lines of coke?
What was wrong with her?
There's something wrong with her, but I don't know what it was.
I mean, it could just be health-related.
But she gets up and she tells women, she says, women have every right to demand the men in our lives do better by us.
That's exactly what you didn't need.
You didn't really need screechy Michelle Obama to be added to screechy Kamala, to be added to screechy Hillary Clinton to tell us that all the screechy women think men suck.
We get it!
We get it!
You hate our fucking guts!
We get it, but we have somebody we can vote for, so we can just go our separate ways.
So men, the women in the Democrat Party genuinely don't like you.
I mean, they really, really don't like you.
If you don't believe me, would you believe Van Jones?
Because Van Jones said this yesterday, I think.
Quote, if progressives have a politics that says all white people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil, it's kind of hard to keep them on our side.
If you're chasing people out of the party, you can't be mad when they leave.
Hmm.
Let me read that again, because he said it so well.
Van Jones said this on CNN. If progressives have politics that says all white people are racist, all men are toxic, And all billionaires are evil.
It's kind of hard to keep them on your side.
If you're chasing away, you can't be mad when they leave.
You know, I feel like they were mad when I left.
Because I kind of said the same thing when I got canceled.
I kind of said that if you're going to say all white people are racist, then I don't want to have any association with you.
And I got canceled worldwide.
Interesting fact.
In the depth of my cancellation, there were some people who supported me.
Some privately, some publicly.
Do you know one of the people who supported me privately?
Van Jones.
He actually called me.
And said, what the hell is this all about?
And then I told him.
And he listened.
You know, wished I had not worded it that way.
Was not supportive of my message whatsoever.
Just to be clear.
He was not supportive of what I said.
But he was supportive of me.
Personally.
And said, in direct language, I don't think you're a racist.
But didn't love what I said.
Now, that's all I wanted.
That's all I wanted.
I didn't want him to love what I said.
So, he's a voice of reason.
Listen to him.
He knows that the Democrats are chasing people like me away and didn't need to.
I mean, I was basically Democrat leading all of my adult life.
I got chased away.
I mean, I ran from the people who said, well, we don't like you.
Maybe a little less of you would be great.
And I said, fine.
How about less of me?
Works for me, too.
I reached my limit.
So that's why, if you wonder why I say good things about Van Jones, it's because I think he sees the whole field.
And it's okay to be partisan.
Partisan's okay.
You know, everybody's partisan.
But...
He can see the whole field.
All right.
And I appreciate it.
Here's something Kim.com posted today about paying off the national debt.
Now, before I tell you this, I should remind you in the most obnoxious way, so you're sick of hearing it.
I do have a degree in economics, and I have an MBA from a top school.
I should be able to understand what Kim.com says about paying off the debt.
I do not.
Not even close.
But I want to see if you do.
Or at very least, can we agree that nobody has any idea how to pay off the national debt?
All right.
So here's what Kim.com says.
Now, by the way, I'm not saying he's wrong.
I have questions.
I don't know.
Would this work?
I don't see how it would.
He goes, the only way out about the national debt is to print $40 trillion, settle all debt, use gold reserves to get Americans through hyperinflation, and issue a new digital currency with limited supply and no mass surveillance, abolish the Fed, and ban all interest on loans.
A bit of pain, but problem solved.
Question.
If you printed $40 trillion, that would make cash worthless, but you'd use your gold reserves to get Americans through that hyperinflation.
How do you do that?
How would you use your gold reserves?
Would you do what?
Give everybody a little gold?
Back the dollar with gold?
What does that even mean to use our gold reserves to get us through the hyperinflation?
And then how would issuing a new digital currency with limited supply help us?
Because that would, in addition to the $40 trillion, we would be adding a new form of money on top of the $40 trillion.
So our hyperinflation should go into hyper-turbo extra hyperinflation, wouldn't it?
Abolish the Fed.
I'm not sure how that's exactly related to all of that.
And then ban all interest on loans.
How could you have a functioning economy if you banned interest on loans?
What's the alternative to that?
And again, there might be an alternative to that.
Because remember, I'm starting with the assumption that Kim.com is very smart.
Because, you know, that's my impression of him.
So if he's very smart and he's saying stuff I don't understand, I don't automatically assume the problem's on his end.
So I'm curious enough about it.
Is there enough to what he's saying that other people are saying, yes, yes, I know exactly what he means?
Or is it just several concepts in the same place that don't fit together?
I don't know.
I do think the only way we can survive...
The national debt is if Elon Musk can immediately cut spending so that we get that part under control and that we increase our growth rate beyond anything we've seen before.
Both are possible and both of them will require Elon Musk.
You're going to need Elon Musk for all of it.
Because the growth will require robots and AI and electric cars and self-driving cabs and maybe spaceships.
So it's kind of on him.
He's got a lot going on for the future.
So he would be the one behind the growth, or at least a lot of it.
And then he would also be the one behind cutting the costs.
To me, it's unbelievable that this election is close.
Now, I get how people say, oh, Trump, Trump, Trump this, but how do they explain that RFK Jr., Musk, Vivek, Tulsi, I could go on, How do Democrats explain that they haven't noticed that Trump is Hitler and that they think he has the best economic and practical plan for solving problems?
How do they explain that?
I would just love to spend some time saying, but do you think RFK Jr.
couldn't spot Hitler?
Well, no, he's got some interest, blah, blah, blah.
Well, okay.
But you know Israel likes Trump, right?
Yeah.
And you know that Israel is really good at spotting the Hillers.
They're really good at it.
Yeah.
And you know that Israel likes Trump so much they named a town after him.
He's Hitler.
Okay, I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying.
Anyway, so the pretend war between Israel and Iran has gone to its logical conclusion.
So Israel, instead of doing something that would increase the chance of a response, they did something that would decrease the chance of a response.
Now, The level of intelligence that Israel is bringing to this fight, I'm getting tired of complimenting them, you know, from the pager thing to pretty much everything, at least since the poor defense of the Gaza situation.
That was suboptimal.
But the way they've pressed the war is really impressive.
And So they, of course, they had to attack Iran because Iran did the massive 200 missile strike.
You can't let that go.
But they managed to, as far as I know, kill zero people.
Is that right?
I think the death toll was zero of a fairly massive...
Completely controlling the airspace over Iran, didn't lose a single asset, and destroyed practically all of Iran's air defenses.
So the first thing Israel did was show Iran, and this is the important part, that they could easily destroy Iran's entire air defense.
If you destroy their entire air defense, can Iran win a war?
Well, it'd be kind of hard.
Iran has also demonstrated that even a massive missile attack, they can basically shoot down enough that they were largely unscathed.
So now Iran has the following knowledge that it did not have before.
Number one, if your proxies go after us, we will not just shoot back We will destroy the entire country that they're in.
That would be Gaza.
And if you think Hezbollah is gonna be safe, not so much.
We're gonna blow up every one of their leaders.
We're gonna keep trimming their leaders for as long as it takes.
And we're gonna blow up every military asset that they have in their country, no matter how long it takes.
So that's new.
So then they proved that Iran's missiles aren't going to work, and then they proved that Iran has no defense, because they don't have any air defense.
Israel took it out in one day.
I think that was the big story.
The big story is, you see we're up here, right?
We're now above your entire country.
There's nothing you can do to shoot us down.
Do you want to keep this up?
Pretty good.
But the thing that's amazing about this is the level of civility that got into war.
War is normally more like Gaza.
It's messy and civilians are dying.
But somehow, two countries made a deal to do a fake war.
And then they fought it, and it was conclusive because it's telling Iran, okay, I guess I'm not going to make this a bigger war.
And some think that maybe Israel reduced their ability to make more rockets for another year or so.
But here's what it almost feels like.
I always use this, it feels like an old Star Trek episode.
But here's what they could have done.
Both sides could have created a fake army base.
And tell the other side it's fake.
Say, hey, Iran, we're going to build this army base.
It's going to be completely fake.
The F-35s we're going to put on it are cardboard.
But we are going to put our best defense.
So the missile defense is going to be our best stuff.
But the things on the ground are just cardboard and plastic and just looks like a base.
We'd like you to build one, too.
What?
Why would we build a fake base?
Trust us, just build a fake base just like ours.
But do put your best defense.
So make sure that you have real rocket defenses.
But the base itself should be fake.
Why do you want it to be fake?
Well, we don't hurt anybody.
We simply need to, every now and then, compare our technologies.
So here's what's going to happen.
You attack our fake base, and we'll try to shoot down as many of your drones and missiles as we can, and we'll see how you did.
Okay, all right.
Two got through, not much damage.
What did you learn?
Well, we learned that if this had been a real base, that we also would not have damaged anything.
Exactly, exactly.
Now, in a couple days, when we're ready, we'll let you know when, but we're going to attack your fake base, And make sure you got lots of cardboard planes there, because we really want to make this a good test.
All right, we have many cardboard planes, but use real defense.
All right, your defense against our military and our planes, that should be real.
Yes, it'll be totally real.
How'd you do?
Oh, we lost 100% of our anti-aircraft defense.
Okay.
Iran, what have you learned?
Okay.
Well, we learned that when we attack you, we don't really blow up anything.
You just blow our bombs out of the sky.
And then what else did you learn, Iran?
Okay.
We learned that anytime you want to, you can knock out all of our air defenses and we're helpless and then you can pick us all off.
Exactly.
So what should we do about this?
Well, same as we were doing before.
No.
No.
Maybe we should fund Hezbollah less?
That's it.
That's it.
Fund Hezbollah less.
Yes, do that.
Because if we have to blow up another one of your fake bases, we'll do it.
We'll do it.
Oh, yeah?
Well, if you blow up another one of our fake bases, we're going to send missiles at your fake bases that you'll shoot out of the sky before they even reach the ground.
So that's the kind of war I want.
I want a war where nobody gets hurt.
There wasn't really any chance anybody would.
It's all very civilized.
And when you're done, you've learned something really important.
You've learned if you fuck with Israel, they're going to mow your lawn.
And you're the lawn.
And if you take it to the next level, you're really, really going to be sorry.
Message learned.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to say today, because we're coming into the final turn.
Let's see.
On Tuesday, it'll be one week from Election Day.
And how do you feel about the polls?
So, as you expected, there will be enough polls that say it's a tie.
That cheating is completely on the table.
We do know that there are so many reports of irregularities.
I don't know how many are true and how many are not.
That there's no way that the public can trust the outcome of the election.
And we know that our politicians on the losing side will tell us that the election was rigged.
Doesn't matter which side loses.
Now, I did see Bill Maher, and I've seen some other people argue, that January 6th is still the big problem, and Trump tried to overturn the country, or take over the country.
Here's my best sure argument for that.
Number one, what day was the peaceful transfer of power scheduled to take place?
January 20th, right?
Is it 20th or 21st, the actual transfer day?
Give me a fact check.
It's like January 20th or 21st, I forget.
But that's the day of the peaceful transfer.
Was there a peaceful transfer?
Yes.
Yes, there was, on the day that it was planned.
What the Democrats keep doing is conflating January 20th with January 6th.
January 6th is when our system allows you to still argue about who won.
Do you know why they allow you to argue about who won?
Because we have courts and we have free speech.
If you have free speech and you have courts, All of that time between Election Day and January 20, it's fair game.
You can protest.
You can complain.
You can demand audits.
You can take things to court.
You can fight as hard as you want to fight, you know, in the political sense, not the physical sense.
And there's nothing wrong with any of that.
Now, did some people take it to violence?
Yes.
Do both sides wish that that didn't happen?
Yes.
Were they representative of the larger amount of the crowd?
No, not even close.
Fewer than 1% of the people there did anything violent.
And there's no evidence That the mass part of the crowd, any plans to do anything violent, they just didn't like the election outcome.
So the first thing you got to know is that everything Trump did, if he believed the election was real, was very bad.
And that's where the Democrats start.
They start with the assumption that Trump knew the election was lost on his part.
That's not just wrong, it's stupid.
And we've been allowing them to do that stupid thing for four years.
And I've not seen one person say, hold on, you're starting stupid.
So we don't need to talk about the rest if your base assumption is that somehow the country could know if the election was rigged or not.
And that somehow you believe that Trump is not like half of the country that believes it was rigged.
In what way would you imagine that he doesn't know Or doesn't believe it was rigged when I believe it was rigged.
I do.
Half of the country believes it was rigged.
I believe all of our elections have been rigged, at least in my lifetime.
And I believe that the way our system is designed, it's for the purpose of rigging.
Because if you want to do it for the purpose of keeping it honest, it would look completely different.
And everybody knows that.
So every time I see somebody get in a conversation about January 6th, they let the bad guys make them think past the sale.
The sale is what did the protesters and Trump believe about the election.
If they genuinely believed it was rigged, and it was obvious it was rigged, everything they did was appropriate.
That's it.
And then you say, but violence.
And I say, I don't care.
Because if it was rigged, and 99% of the people were nonviolent, but 1% were, that's just the way the world works.
I'm not in favor of violence.
I'm just saying that if you rig an election right in front of the public, expect some violence.
Expect some violence if you rig it right in front of the public.
Now, I'm not saying it was rigged because I don't have proof of that.
I'm saying that it was designed for the purpose of rigging and it has every hallmark of being rigged and every election I've been involved with probably was rigged.
And if the elections are the only things that can't be rigged and aren't be rigged in the United States and every other institution and major organization from healthcare to finance to everything else is so obviously rigged, If you believe this is the one thing that's not, when it is the most rigable thing that we've ever had in this country, You're not a smart player.
You're just not putting much brain power into the conversation.
So, those are the key points.
Don't let anybody assume that anybody knew the election was good, because that was just not the case.
I've never talked to anybody that was involved with a protest who thought that Trump actually lost.
Have you?
Have you ever spoken to one person, even one, just one, because there were like 20,000 people there, it was a big number, just even one person who said, I protested, but, you know, honestly, I thought Trump lost fair and square.
Even one?
If you can't find one person in that entire crowd who believed Trump lost, why do you think Trump believed it?
Of course he thinks he won.
Of course he does.
And imagine why he's seen that you haven't seen.
Can you imagine how much stuff you see when you're president, when you find out what the CIA has really been doing?
Suppose you knew that your country had overthrown 80 other countries.
I think we did like 80 coup attempts.
I don't know how many of the 80s succeeded, but let's say 60 out of the 80s succeeded.
If you knew for sure That we could overthrow countries and get away with it and not get caught.
How would you think it wouldn't happen in our country?
In what world would they not apply the same skills to control this country?
And you listen to the Democrats like Kamala Harris, and they'll say it out loud.
They'll say out loud that we can't allow the free speech.
If you can't allow the free speech, you also can't allow free elections.
You know that's the same thing, right?
If you say that, as Harris does, that Elon Musk's a bad person because he lets people say whatever they want on social media, if you can't have free speech, you can't have free elections.
Like you couldn't possibly be in favor of free elections if the person running isn't allowed to talk.
The people running should be allowed to talk.
And obviously she would censor them if she said things that her side said were not true.
So Kamala Harris wants...
You know, like on paper, she'd say, yes, anybody can run for office, but she would want one of those people to be uncensored and the other to be censored because it disagreed with her party.
It sounds like I'm making that up, but she says that out loud.
So what would be the point of running for office if the things you said could be censored by the other side?
She's pretty much telling you she doesn't want elections, or at least not real ones.
But maybe that's not so different than how it's been.
All right, I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately.
And if you're on X or YouTube or Rumble, thanks for joining.
I will remind you that on Monday, that would be tomorrow, I'll be appearing on The Young Turks, talking to Cenk.
On Monday, I guess the show starts at 8 p.m.
Eastern Time.
So that's 5 p.m.
my time.
And I think actually you might be surprised by the outcome of that.
And the prediction is just because Cenk is genuinely interesting.
And he's genuinely brave.
And if you put those two together, interesting and brave, and then you throw me into the mix, because I got nothing to lose.
And I think both of us would want to create something of value.
Like, you know, if we're just yelling at each other, neither of us could be happy about that.
So I think there is some chance we'll maybe move the needle or at least be interesting enough that you'll want to watch it.
So I recommend it in advance.
All right, everybody.
And remember, the Dilbert Calendar can only be acquired at the link at Dilbert.com.
