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, Cenk Uygur, Mehdi Hasan, WaPo Credibility, Jeff Bezos, Victim Mentality, WaPo Robert Kagan Wife Victoria Nuland, Media Landscape Whiteboard, Comedy Policing, Puerto Rico Cleanup, Paul Graham, Brainwashing vs. Intelligence, Election Integrity, Ballot Drop Box Integrity, President Trump, Trump Gaetz Little Secret, Ryan Girdusky, 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
Because I'm not such a good investor, it turns out.
I wish I were, but I'm not.
So don't be like me.
Although I must say, my early years didn't go well because I did some high-risk stuff, but lately it's been just fine.
All right, we've got a show for you today.
Boy, do we have a show.
Whoa!
Whoa!
Oh no!
I have a problem.
Ruh-roh.
Scott's got a problem here with his notes that apparently have been printed out of order.
If I don't fix that, it's going to be a really weird day.
Fixed.
Do-do-do-do-do-do.
Do, do, do, do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a better time in the whole stinking world.
But if you'd like to take your...
Experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
And this one goes to Steve Bannon, who is freed from jail, I believe, at this very moment.
Steve, this one's for you from all of us.
Good stuff.
It's all coming together now.
Can you feel it?
It's the golden age.
Mm-hmm.
Can't be stopped.
You can stop it if you tried.
But you won't.
Well, here are some things that are happening.
Yesterday, I was a guest on Cenk's show.
Cenk Uygur on the Young Turks.
And he asked me to explain my support of Trump, and I did my best in our half hour that we had together.
But I would like to just give a public shout out and compliment to Cenk for number one.
I'm hosting a number of people who disagreed with him, you know, separately.
I was separate from them.
But his treatment of me and my opinion was completely professional and admirable.
I'm glad I did that.
A lot of you were warning me, don't do it, he's going to talk over you, and There was none of that.
There was no talking over.
Now, one of the things I try to teach my subscribers that I'll tell the rest of you to, if somebody's talking over you, sometimes that's on them.
You know, there's some people who are just talking over us, but it doesn't really happen to me that much.
And I think it's because you can manage it.
The first thing you have to do is make sure that you listen to them and not talk over them.
The second thing is don't say crazy shit.
If you say crazy stuff, people will talk over you.
If you act like you didn't hear what they just said, they'll say it again and talk over you.
So there's just some basic communication tools where you make sure you're listening to them.
You make sure you hear them and then make sure that you know that they've heard you.
You pace them a little bit.
And then the most important part is don't be an NPC. Because if all you're doing is throwing in the same talking point that everybody said 100 times today, you're going to get talked over.
Because nobody needs to hear it.
And people are thinking, okay, it's just a talking point.
Let me talk over it.
So you have to be a little bit interesting and different so people want to know how you finish your sentence.
You've got to give the same consideration to whoever you're talking to that you don't over-talk them.
Which, by the way, I did.
So I'm going to give Cenk a double compliment, because he didn't once try to over-talk me, but a couple times he said something that I couldn't let go, that I tried to over-talk him a little bit.
So, great job.
Thank you.
And Ban is out of jail, as I mentioned, so we're going to be hearing from him, and I feel like it's a sign.
Yeah, sure, it was scheduled.
You know, we knew for a long time that Bannon was going to get out and about now, but still it feels like a sign, doesn't it?
Can you feel it?
Did you feel every single poll turning in Trump's direction?
Did you feel Peter Navarro get out of jail?
Bannon get out of jail?
Trump's lawfare collapsing?
Biden collapsing.
You feel it now, don't you?
Yeah, something big is happening.
Well, let's talk about some surveys in science.
According to Medical Express, there's a survey that finds Americans are more afraid today...
Than at any time in recent history.
And when I say afraid, I mean sort of afraid of everything in the world coming to get them.
Now, they could have saved some money just by asking Scott, because I could have told them that, and I would tell them why.
Why are people more afraid?
Number one, we can see all the problems in our immediate environment, which is the way we evolved, but now we can see all the problems everywhere in the world.
I didn't even know there was a supply chain problem happening somewhere in another country that's going to make me starve to death, maybe.
So the fact that you know where all the problems are and you're predicting problems 80 years in the future with climate change, yeah, you're simply being exposed to a thousand times more problems.
How about the fact that every time you open your phone, The way that anybody gets clicks is by scaring you.
So not only do you have physical access to a thousand problems, but they're going to go right to the top of your attention feed because those are the ones that get clicks.
Of course you're more afraid.
And so as long as hate is being monetized, and then the last reason we're more afraid is that we understand more.
If you didn't know anything about the national debt, wouldn't you be happier?
Because there's nothing you can do about it.
So if you just didn't know we had any national debt, wouldn't you be a little happier?
Yeah.
So the more you know about how our election systems are run, how money flows, how real decisions are made, How the medical world decides what treatment they're going to give you and whatnot.
Once you learn that stuff, the world is scarier because we were treated like children for most of society.
But lately we're not being treated like children because we have access to the hard stuff.
All right.
There's a study by something called Cathay.
Really?
That's the name of the entity that has this cathay that sounds like caffeine.
But anyway, it's about brewing up benefits of coffee.
Did you know that coffee, among its many, many benefits, might preserve muscle mass as we age?
Yeah, I stopped exercising years ago and just doubled up on coffee.
And my muscles are just twice as big now.
So I'm just sucking up coffee to make my brain stronger and my muscles bigger, and that's how I'm playing it.
There's a study by the University of Cambridge that says if you apply magnetic fields to both sides of the brain, you get rapid improvement from depression.
That's amazing.
So just magnets on both sides of your head.
Well, I'm not going to let that science go by without testing it.
So I got a magnet out of my closet because I have a closet where I keep a lot of magnets.
Yes, I have a whole closet that has a lot of magnets.
Get over it.
I like magnets.
They're really cool.
Look what they do.
They pull them apart, and they come back together.
You can't do that.
It's cool.
So I thought I'd test it, see if I get anything.
Now, you should not do this at home.
So I'm going to do magnetic therapy on my head to see if it cures my depression at all.
Now, apparently, I need to hold it on both sides of that.
They've done it with just one device, but there's something about having it on both sides that seems to help.
So I'm going to give you a live demonstration, see if it cures my depression at all.
You ready?
First, we'll get the baseline.
How am I feeling?
Eh, well, actually pretty good.
I think the golden age is coming.
I think Trump's going to win.
I think all of our problems are going to be solved.
Okay, so I'm not a really good candidate for testing for depression since I don't have any.
But maybe, maybe it'll make me even happier than I am.
So, hold on.
We're going to apply the magnets and see.
Ah, oh, oh.
I think it's working.
I support Kamala Harris for president.
What did I just say?
I don't remember.
I don't remember what I just say.
I hope it made sense.
Did it make sense?
I hope it wasn't crazy shit.
Don't tell me I screamed out some crazy shit.
No, I don't want to know about that.
All right, well, but more importantly, scientists have created a revolutionary ultra-thin film that absorbs 99% of electromagnetic waves.
Did you know that?
99% of your electromagnetic waves can be absorbed by a thin film.
It's ultra-thin.
It's not even thin.
Now, you want to know something cool?
If that ultra-thin film that absorbs 99% of electromagnetic waves If it also made magnets not attracted to each other, let's say you put it between two magnets, if you could put it between two magnets and make them not do that, You would have free energy forever.
Because I've already designed an engine that is only one missing part because nobody's invented it yet.
A thin barrier that can go between two natural magnets.
That does not exist.
There's no such thing as something you can put between two magnets unless it's a magnet itself.
And then that will just divert the magnetic field.
But there's nothing...
There's nothing that's a material that you could put between two magnets to even reduce their amount of attraction, even a little bit.
Wouldn't you think that, oh, okay, if I put something thick in there that's not magnetic, like lead, or a piece of gold or something, You'd say, well, there's no way it's going to be exactly as magnetically attracted, but it is.
It's exactly the same, even with like a thick barrier between them.
This is the thing that got me most interested in understanding reality, and that maybe everything we think about reality is wrong.
How in the world could no barrier slow down magnets?
It just suggests that what you think is reality is probably way off.
Probably way off.
Here's another study that says, Intelligent men exhibit stronger commitment and lower hostility in romantic relationships.
According to SciPost.
Huh.
Huh.
How could they have saved some money on this study?
Well, you could have asked me.
Because it seems to me that in every situation that requires thinking, work with me here, smarter people do well.
Did you know that?
Yeah.
If you take a smart person and you say, hey, we're going to try to make some lawyers.
Who does better?
Smart people.
You take some smart people and say, we're going to make some doctors out of you.
Which ones do better?
Smart ones.
That's the smart ones.
If you want to do some advanced math, do you pick smart people or dumb people to do it?
Smart people.
Smart people.
If you want to have a relationship in which people Work at it and figure out the nuances of it and really try to understand each other and try to master the skill of communicating in a way that's not offensive and all those other things you have to do to make a relationship work.
Do you think that smart people do better?
Or do you think that dumb people just nail in it?
No, it's the smart people.
It turns out that being intelligent...
is beneficial in a wide variety of domains.
I know!
Who knew?
Right?
Who knew?
I was just seeing an interview with With Conor McGregor.
And someone was asking about how he knew something about how a fight was going to go, because apparently he predicted the exact exchange in the fight, and then he did it in one.
And you hear Conor McGregor talk, and the first thing you say is, oh, this man does not have a PhD.
The second thing you think is what he's saying is making a lot of sense.
And then the longer he talks, the more sense it makes.
And then you end up saying, oh, I get it.
He's really smart.
That's why he's Conor McGregor.
There are a lot of guys who are strong and fast and tough and can take a punch.
But I think he's smarter than them.
And that's probably why he's the richest one who ever did that.
All right, what else is going on here?
So, I saw a clip.
It was an MSNBC clip in which one of the propagandists was making the point that if there were five generals that worked for Trump, and all five of them say that Trump said bad things behind closed doors...
What are the odds?
I mean, what are the odds that all five generals lied?
I think it was Mehdi Hassan who was saying that.
Now, let me do it the way he was doing it.
I mean, what are the odds?
All five.
Really?
Really?
You think all five generals, like the most trusted people in our military, that's how they became just, you think five of them, all five of them, Just made stuff up and lied to the public.
Is that what you think?
To which I replied on social media today, well, We had 51 intelligence professionals lie about Hunter's laptop.
We had hundreds of government and media pros lie about Russia collusion when they knew it wasn't true.
We had thousands of government and media pros lie about the fine people hoax and dozens of other hoaxes.
Thousands.
Thousands.
Fucking thousands of people lied about the fine people hoax.
Thousands.
Thousands.
We had millions of medical professionals lie during the pandemic.
Millions.
Fucking millions.
Fucking millions lied during the pandemic.
And we've got millions of scientists lying right now about the reliability of climate models.
Now, I won't get into the debate on climate science, but clearly they're lying about the reliability of the models.
At the very least, they're lying about that.
So...
Yes, five lying generals is the lowest...
Bar you could ever get.
Because first of all, generals are waiting for the big paycheck, right?
All the generals want the big paycheck after, you know, retire it and get on that big board and sell some weapons.
You know what I mean?
So first of all, I don't trust generals because they didn't get there the normal way.
They got there through political appointment.
They are political animals.
And every other entity that has officials has lied to us.
Getting five generals to lie the same lie about Trump is probably the easiest fucking thing you could ever do.
So no, I don't trust the five generals.
And if you give me 25, I'm not going to trust them either.
We don't have a world in which we can trust our five generals.
Sorry, I don't make the rules.
They may be the five generals who have the most influence on whether we go to war, but that doesn't mean I have to trust them.
And I don't.
Well, the Washington Post story is getting more interesting, so Jeff Bezos weighed in.
As you know, the Washington Post decided it's not going to endorse a candidate, even though many of the employees wanted to endorse Harris, and some of them quit in protest.
So Bezos wrote a letter to his, I think it was to his own employees, but we got to see it.
And he said, among other things, quote, it would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility, but a victim mentality will not help.
Complaining is not a strategy.
We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.
I'll tell you.
See, that's one, two, three.
Three sentences.
Can you tell why he's one of the richest people in the world?
In three sentences, you can tell that Jeff Bezos is one of the richest people in the world.
Or if he isn't, he's going to be.
The level of just...
Pure intelligence that comes out of everything he says is sort of hard to miss.
Let me point it out here.
It would be easy to blame others and have a victim mentality.
What's that sound like?
That sounds like everybody who was ever successful.
As soon as you allow the victim mentality and you're dead.
That's rule number one.
Rule number one is you got to get rid of the victim mentality.
Now, that happens to also agree with, I'd say, more of a Republican conservative point of view.
Is he also signaling that he's not going to be a slave to the left?
I feel like it.
I feel like he told us two things.
One is don't have a victim mentality.
That's good.
That's a good entrepreneurial management thing to say.
Good leadership.
Secondly, he's not your slave.
That's basically declaring his freedom.
He just said, I'm not your slave.
In a way.
He said, complaining is not a strategy.
Okay, that's a good reframe.
Complaining is not a strategy.
In other words, you can do it, but I'm not going to listen to it and it won't make any difference.
If you have an idea, I'll listen to an idea.
And if it's a good idea, I might even do it.
But complaining is not an idea.
Complaining is not a strategy.
I swear to God, I want to go take a job working for Bezos now.
Like, I just want to apply for a job at his paper.
And then he says, we must work harder to control what we can control.
Yes.
Control the parts you can control and stop complaining about the things you can't control.
Yes.
That is perfect.
No wasted words of that.
What else he said?
He pointed out how it used to be that the reporting profession, the news, was the second least respected entity.
But now Congress was always number one least respected.
But apparently the news business has now surpassed Congress as the least respected entity in the United States, which he points out.
He also says that presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales.
And no undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, I'm going with the newspaper A's endorsement.
None.
What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias.
A perception of non-independence.
Ending them is a principled decision.
Okay, do you see what he just did?
He left the world of fact, and he went into the world of perception.
Persuasion.
He said, we're doing anti-persuasion.
We're persuading people that we're biased.
Because when you say this is how you should vote, what am I supposed to think?
I'm supposed to think your entity is biased.
So even if it's not biased, don't do things that make you look biased.
Is that good advice?
Yes!
Yes, that's really good advice.
Is it true though that the newspaper endorsements don't tip the scales?
Yes and no.
I'm going to say he's close enough to a yes that I'll give him the yes on that.
The no would be that there's a groupthink element that's not addressed.
If you mean if only one newspaper made one recommendation, would it make much difference?
No, because other newspapers are doing other things, etc.
But if the newspapers collectively...
Look at the big ones like the Washington Post and say, ooh, we don't want to be on the other side of the Washington Post.
Then it might make the majority of newspapers lean in one direction.
And if the majority is leaning in one direction, that's telling you what is acceptable civil behavior.
So it could collectively, but not individually.
Here's something that I didn't know about.
According to Ian Miles Chung, one of the editors, the then editor-in-chief, was a guy named Robert Kagan.
I think he might be one of the ones who just left.
But he's married to Victoria Nuland.
Did you know that?
That an editor at the Washington Post was married to The person who is most often identified as the source of all government evil.
Now, I don't personally know too much about her.
I'm just saying if you listen to Glenn Greenwald or Mike Benz talking about who's starting the wars and who are the neocons and who are running the plays behind the scenes and overthrowing countries and doing all the bad stuff, it's always Victoria Nuland.
She's the major name that comes out of all those conversations as the centerpiece of all that.
Now, her husband was also one of the main decision makers at the Washington Post, which is one of the main newspapers.
Now, remember what I always tell you?
If the only thing you know is what's happening, you don't know anything.
You don't know anything.
If you know who the players are, well, suddenly it all makes sense.
This is one of those cases.
Now, I also wondered, somebody also mentioned that the Bezos divorce, you know, his wife took half his fortune and is pouring it into Democrat lefty stuff.
It might be that Bezos has some reaction to that, meaning that he might feel at the very least he might want to balance it out.
Maybe it's personal.
We can't read his mind, so we don't know that.
There's no evidence that's personal, but if you put any of us in that situation, it would be personal.
Am I right?
If you switch places with Bezos, and your wife just took $100 billion from you that he earned and she didn't, and she's pumping it into things that he doesn't agree with, You don't think you'd take that personally?
Your ex-wife spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stuff you don't want to be spent on after you earned it all?
I would take that personally.
Now, that doesn't mean he is.
There's no evidence of that.
But, wow, you put me in that position.
I don't think I could be objective.
Anyway, there's another newspaper.
The USA Today is joining the Washington Post and LA Times in not endorsing a president this time.
So, I thought it would be a good time to give you a little whiteboard explanation of what the media landscape has looked like and what it is becoming.
Now, this is the sort of thing that I sometimes forget that normies don't already know.
Now, normies would be people who just consume the news.
Most of my adult career, I've been associated with newspapers and publishing, so I've been sort of semi-inside the circle, and so I get to see it a little differently than you do.
So that's why I get to explain it to you.
Let's start with the legacy situation.
Legacy meaning, how has it been up until now?
Let's get you all centered up there.
So in the old days, which are still partly the current days, Here's how I learned it when I learned about how everything works in the real world.
There are or have been two entities called news makers.
That would be the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Now, a news maker is somebody who, if they have a major story, then all the other news people have to cover it.
If a local newspaper broke a story, the big ones could just ignore it if they wanted to.
And that happens a lot.
But if either the New York Times or the Washington Post decides to make a big deal of it, then all the others will fall in line because, hey, news just got made.
The rest of the media, I will call them boosters.
So once the big entities tell you, this is the news, this is what you should think about and talk about, then the others say, okay, this is what everybody's going to think and talk about today, so we'll do that.
And they fall in line.
Now, this does not require any phone calls.
It requires no messaging.
It literally requires all the other people to just read the other papers, which they do.
Pretty much everybody in the news business is gonna make sure that they're looking at at least The New York Times, but certainly the Washington Post.
Now, Wall Street Journal sometimes is in this category, but the Wall Street Journal is a little more finance-oriented and a little more independent, a little more balanced.
Doesn't quite fit here, but sometimes it does.
The boosters, I would say, are not doing a lot of original work.
They're just copying work from other people and boosting it.
And then it gets to what I call the propagandists, the people who talk about it, and they frame it a certain way, and they leave out context.
So they're opinion people, but really they're propagandists.
Very few of them are trying to give you their best honest opinion.
They're promoting a side, basically.
So MSNBC doesn't really even pretend to be news.
They use the news to add opinions to it, but they're not really a news organization.
They're propaganda.
The Atlantic, the Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, and pretty much all the pundits that you see all day long are propagandists.
Now, under this model, how hard is it for the government to control the entire media landscape?
Do you see how easy it is?
They only need two people.
All they need is whoever makes the decisions at the New York Times and whoever makes the decisions at the Washington Post.
If you want to learn more about that, I can't remember the movie, but I think Meryl Streep played the owner of the Washington Post in Kennedy's era.
I forget what that movie is, but there's a movie you can find that's only a few years old.
And it's fascinating because you could see, for example, that Kennedy would invite the top people who owned the newspapers on his yacht.
Imagine being a newspaper professional and somebody as charismatic as a Kennedy invites you to be their personal friend and spend the weekend on their yacht.
What are you going to write about them?
Right?
It was completely corrupt.
They should not be riding on anybody's yachts if they're going to write about them.
So in the old days, the government, in that case, I don't think it was Kennedy so much.
It might have been the deep state that killed them that was running things.
But all you had to do was get literally just two people.
And how hard is it to get two people on your side if you're a government?
Well, you have all of the bribery possibilities, all of the jailing possibilities, all of the access to resources, access to interviews.
You have all the power.
So there's no problem at all to get two people to do whatever you want if you're the government, right?
Any government can make any two people do anything they want.
But enter Elon Musk.
And look what happens.
Yes.
Here's a model of how things are evolving.
You got fake news.
And then you got some real news.
And it's coming from everywhere.
So it's coming from not only the news makers, but everywhere else.
And a lot of independent journalists.
Now we have much more, far more independent journalists.
But both the fake stuff and the real stuff is being fed into the X platform.
And then it gets light.
Basically, the light is shined on it, and then the fake stuff gets called out.
Not as fast as I'd like, but it does get called out.
And the truth gets essentially adjudicated through X. And everybody pays attention to X if they're in the media, so it makes a big difference.
Now, they don't get the truth every time.
Sometimes it's wrong, but they get a lot closer than the media that is designed to be fake.
The stuff on the other side of the whiteboard is designed to create fake news, to hold the country together and have one narrative.
It's designed to be fake with a little real stuff sprinkled in.
But the Musk X platform is putting the truth back into the hands of the public because the public fights it out on X and something like the truth emerges.
Thank you.
Now enter Jeff Bezos.
What he says is he wants to add credibility and he wants to add some conservative voices.
What does that sound like to you?
What if he takes it to the extreme and actually gets rid of all the people who are just propagandists and instead replaces them with people who are credible but can represent the left and then some people who are credible who could represent the right and then maybe have them fight it out within their internal pages to give you another sense of truth.
Now here's the problem.
Suppose he succeeds, and I do expect he will, because he has the resources, the brains, the energy, the magic, the skill, everything.
So what if the Washington Post gets resurrected from the trash heap of history where it is now and becomes an actual place where people go, okay, okay, I could go to X and get a version of the truth, Or I could go to Washington Post and get a version of the truth.
But they're both pretty good because they're both trying to get the truth.
Do you see the problem yet?
Here's my problem.
They're both in the space business in a big way.
rockets.
They kind of have to do what the government wants them to do.
They have two businesses, or really you could argue all of their businesses, are completely dependent on the government's not taking them down.
So are we really safe when billionaires who depend on the government for some huge part of their business life are the ones designing the systems of truth?
I'm not terribly comfortable with that.
You know, if you tell me that Musk is one source, and then there are other sources, but they come from all different kinds of worlds, I would say, oh, that's good.
That's a competitive market.
So I won't worry about this one person having a connection to the government, you know, and having to get approval for rockets and stuff like that, because there are non-rocket people also involved.
But what if there aren't?
What if the truth becomes two billionaires who depend on the government to say yes or no on their rockets?
That's not exactly where you want to be with your information network.
So, you know, it's good to have them, but I think you'd want a lot more.
So, that's where we're headed, and it also tells you why the government and lots of people, the Democrats especially, are panicked about X because it's creating, for the first time, An alternative path of news and knowledge.
So that's happening.
Well, the joke by Tony...
What's his name?
I can't remember the comedian who told the off-color joke at the Trump rally in Madison Square Garden.
Hinchley?
Tony Hinchley?
Is that his name?
I've never seen him work, actually.
Um...
But apparently the Democrats have succeeded in making his joke a national problem and getting all the Puerto Rican Americans all angry so that they'll vote against him and stuff.
But now Trump is going to be in Pennsylvania, in an area that apparently has a sizable Puerto Rican-American, well, Puerto Ricans are Americans, but Puerto Rican population, and people are asking him to apologize.
Now this will be fun.
So you got Trump, the man who doesn't apologize.
And you've got a few days before the election.
It's really tight.
And an important group of potential voters is saying, we need an apology.
And they're asking the man who doesn't apologize.
But maybe he needs to, to win the election.
What do you do?
What do you do?
Well, here's what I'd do.
Everybody's going to give him advice, but Trump's going to do it Trump's way, and so far that's worked for him.
I mean, he's knocking on the door to a second term, so I don't think that we should be so arrogant as to imagine that if we gave him a suggestion on how to handle it, that our suggestion would be better than whatever the hell he's going to do.
But it's recreationally fun to come up with, what would you do if you were in that situation?
So this will be more what I would do.
What he does is going to be better.
It's going to be the Trump thing.
But I'll tell you what I'd do.
I'd do something like this.
If I were the man who couldn't apologize or don't want to, and I had this situation, I'd listen to the question and be blah, blah, blah.
You know, do you apologize for this?
Blah, blah, blah.
Here's what I'd say.
I don't think it's a good idea for me to police comedy.
First sentence.
I don't think it's a good idea for me to police comedy.
It's not really what you want your government to do.
In fact, you probably want your government to get as far away from that as possible because free speech is where you don't want me.
So I'll give you my opinion, but don't ask me to police comedy.
If you're asking, was it a mistake to let that joke go off in public?
Oh, I think we all agree on that.
Yes, that wasn't ideal.
So we can agree that a mistake was made.
But we don't police comedy.
Comedy is not about hitting a home run every time, and we don't expect it to.
So policing a bad joke or a joke that went too far, that's not really where you want me to be involved.
But I'll tell you what I will do.
One of the things that Tony brought up is the fact that there's an enormous problem in Puerto Rico that I don't think all of you were aware of, which is partly why people are angry.
There is a massive problem Environmental problem in Puerto Rico that's not being addressed.
So I'd like to announce today that should I become president, I'm going to make that a priority, and we're going to clean that up.
So here's the apology I'll give you.
I'm going to clean up your island.
Hingcliffe is his name.
Tony Hinchcliffe.
Sorry, if I had the name wrong.
So how's that?
Because you know what the president should be promising Puerto Rico?
To help them clean up that ship.
They should help them clean up.
I mean, I had no idea it was so bad.
My entire attitude about Puerto Rico went from, I don't know anything about Puerto Rico, to why aren't we doing more to help Puerto Rico?
Who did that?
Tony Hinchcliffe did.
Why am I talking about, I think we should put more money into Puerto Rico?
A comedian.
So Trump can be right twice.
He can say, I'm not going to police comedy.
But you know what?
He did raise an issue that's important enough.
I think we should all care about it.
Why don't we help Puerto Rico?
And just don't police comedy.
What do you think?
That's a winning message.
I'm not going to police comedy.
I'm going to fix your island.
What else do you want?
Right?
What else do you want?
Nothing.
That's everything you want.
What else?
um You probably heard that Kamala Harris, and she was talking to Governor Whitmer, and they did a little stage scene where they were sitting at a bar pretending to drink beers and saying stuff, and Harris said something about they need to get men.
But here's my point.
Yes, it's true that the Harris campaign needs to get more men if they want to win, but why are men the only demographic that don't get pandered?
Every other group gets some pandering.
I literally just suggested some pandering for Puerto Rico.
Black Americans get some pandering.
Women get some pandering.
Hispanics get some pandering.
Where's my pandering?
I'm just asking for a little pandering.
I feel like my demographic, men, get lectured to.
Everybody else gets bribed.
But I get shamed and lectured to.
How about a little pandering?
Why don't you get rid of DEI? Pander me a little bit.
How about that?
Here's my lesson to you on how persuasion and intelligence are not related in the way you think they would.
You know, earlier in my program here, I mentioned how intelligence helps you with everything.
Here's my exception.
It doesn't help you with persuasion.
If somebody's brainwashing you, they can do it just as well, sometimes better, if you're smarter.
And part of the reason is that the smart people are confident.
If you give me somebody confident, I can really brainwash them.
Because they'll be confident that they weren't brainwashed.
Someone who knows that you have some superior, let's say, knowledge or intelligence And that you're trying to persuade them?
They're going to think that maybe you did.
So they're going to try to just reject everything because they're not confident that they can sort out what's true and what's not.
So as sort of a default, they're just like, I don't trust you, everything you say.
And that can work out pretty well, actually.
So smart people are really easy to brainwash.
I'm going to give you an example.
Now, I'm going to use an example from somebody that I like and respect.
Because I think that's important.
Because otherwise you would get the message, oh, but really you're making fun of this person.
They're really kind of stupid, but maybe they got a few smart things, but they're kind of dumb.
No, this is a genuinely smart person.
Smart from top to bottom.
All right?
I'm talking about Paul Graham.
Now, he would be a famous investor, Silicon Valley type forever.
And I think everybody would agree that he would be one of the smart people in Silicon Valley.
Now, being one of the smart people in Silicon Valley is way better than being one of the smart people almost everywhere else.
So we're talking about way smart, right?
Not normal smart.
We're in the upper levels of smart.
And he's decided he likes Kamala Harris as his first choice for president.
And in and of itself, that's just a difference of opinion.
So, if there were no reasons that went with it, then I'd say, okay, just a difference of opinion.
And I would ask myself, is there something wrong with my opinion?
I would wonder that because he's smart enough that if he disagrees with me, the first thing I say is, oh, maybe I should rethink this.
You know, if Elon Musk disagreed with me on something important, my first impression would not be, well, Elon Musk is dumb.
My first impression would be, oh, maybe I should rethink this.
If Naval Ravikant Came up with an opinion I didn't agree with, which I think has never happened.
But if he ever did, the first thing I'd say is, oh, I must be wrong.
And then I would definitely, you know, dig into whatever the hell he was talking about to figure out why I was wrong.
So, Paul Graham is one of the people that if he disagrees with you, your first instinct should be, what's wrong with me?
And then you understand him a little better, right?
There are some people your first instinct should be, what's wrong with me?
If they disagree.
So here's something he said.
And my point here is that brainwashing And intelligence unrelated.
Brainwashing will go right through intelligence like it didn't exist.
He said, quote, talking about Trump, he said, the worst thing he did, in my opinion, was when he tried to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election.
He knew he lost, but he called Mike Pence and blah, blah, blah.
Where did he get the information that he lost the 2020 election?
Where's that come from?
We don't have any way to know that.
And we certainly don't know that Trump knew he lost because half of the country thinks he didn't lose.
And why would his opinion be different than half of the country that agrees with him?
I'm going to be going over some election irregularities next.
It'll be next in my presentation here.
But Anybody who has been brainwashed into thinking that we know who won any of our elections, our system is not even designed so you could know.
It's intentionally designed, and I say intentionally because you wouldn't keep it the same way for decades and decades unless you meant it.
It's intentionally designed so you can't tell who won.
Now, how would Paul Graham not know that?
Now, the answer is brainwashing.
How would he think that he could read Trump's mind and even though half of the country looked at exactly what Trump's looking at and came to the same conclusion as Trump, that Trump alone would be the one that's lying, but 80 million other people who have exactly the same opinion because they looked at exactly the same outcomes, they're not lying?
But he's the only one?
How would you know that?
So these are both examples of thinking past the sale.
So Paul Graham is thinking past the sale of what did Trump do once he knew he lost the election?
That is not the situation.
Nobody smart, if they were working without brainwashing as a force, nobody smart would take as an assumption that we could know how the election went and that it was fair for sure.
We do know that the courts, which are not designed to tell us if an election is fair or not, did not find anything wrong.
Now, Cenk mentioned that yesterday when I talked to him.
He said that the courts didn't find anything wrong, 60 cases or something.
If I'd had another 60 seconds to talk to him on that, I would have said, but nobody thinks courts have the tools to know whether an election is rigged.
Nobody thinks that.
If a state actor got into the machines and Change the result.
What's the court going to do?
Nobody even brings them that case.
The court never hears of it, neither do you, because the state actor was good at hacking.
So how do you catch the thing that nobody catches?
It doesn't make any sense that you could have certainty about the election outcome.
Nobody can.
And you definitely can't have certainty about what Trump's thinking about it.
And if you were going to guess what he was thinking about it, the smarter guess is that his guess matches the 80 million people who have the same bias that they wanted him to win and watch the same outcomes.
They'll watch the same happenings.
So, Paul Graham, if I took an IQ test and he took an IQ test, he would beat me.
He's smarter than I am.
He knows a lot more than I do about business and lots of other things.
But this is a case of brainwashing.
So if you looked at this and you said, but Scott, he's dumb on this one little area.
Nope.
Nope.
There's no lack of intelligence displayed.
This is pure brainwashing.
And you can see that it got everybody.
Tell me the truth.
Who besides me did you ever hear saying, That we don't have the ability to know who won.
You've heard people say, oh, it was definitely rigged, which we don't have evidence of.
And you've heard people say it definitely was not rigged, which we could not ever know.
Who besides me said, no, if you believe you have certainty about the outcome, you're being brainwashed from one side or the other.
It doesn't matter where your certainty is coming from.
But if you have certainty about a system that was designed to prevent you from having certainty, that's brainwashing.
Yeah, it's very clean and clear.
This is one of those cases where you don't have to wonder, you know, is something else going on?
No, this is pure, pure effective brainwashing.
And it took me a long time to figure out how to get out of it.
It wasn't until I realized, wait a minute.
Nobody knows if any of our elections are fair.
How could they?
Because how could you know that somebody did something and got away with it?
Getting away with it is getting away with it.
So, anyway.
U.S. Intel, according to Wired Magazine, the intelligence people in the U.S. say, That the threats of the election are going to come from the inside, and that we have insider threats.
Now, an insider threat would be somebody involved with the election who decided to cheat.
Okay?
So, the U.S. intelligence is saying that our elections are vulnerable to To insiders cheating.
Now, if it were true that you couldn't cheat, you know, without being easily and immediately caught, would the U.S. intelligence people say it's our biggest risk if they knew it was no risk at all and you would be caught immediately if you tried to do something as an insider?
Obviously, it's a real risk.
They wouldn't bring it up if it weren't a real risk.
I mean, why would they?
It would be opposite to their interests.
So, okay.
So, even our intelligence people are saying that we can't know if we got hacked.
Because if we could know, then they would say, don't worry about it.
If anybody tries to cheat, you know, we'll catch it immediately.
But they didn't say that.
They said it's the biggest risk.
If it's the biggest risk, they're also telling us they can't catch it immediately.
And if they don't catch it immediately, that's the same as never catching it.
Because we're going to swear in the president.
And once the president's in, all the investigations end, because it's just better that way.
Also from Wired, cybercriminals pose a greater threat of disrupting US elections.
So the idea that foreign adversaries would try to hack our elections, Wired is downplaying that, although the foreign adversaries are definitely trying to, you know, they're trying to be involved, but not as grossly as changing the vote count.
So it seems like they might be trying to influence and send in some memes and maybe game some things around the edges.
But according to Wired, and I agree with this, by the way, it's less likely that China or Russia, for example, or Iran...
Would hack into a machine, change the vote, and hope they could get away with that.
Because I think they would say that the United States would take that as way over the line.
It's one thing if we find out Russia did some memes.
We're like, oh, don't do those memes.
Putin, you and your memes.
But then we look at the memes and they didn't make any difference because they were so stupid and they weren't viral.
So we're like, okay, memes.
But if we found out that Russia actually got into a machine and actually changed the results and it actually changed the outcome of the election, that would look like war.
So I agree with WIRED that it's unlikely that their adversaries would do that.
But cybercriminals might.
Meaning that if you were, let's say, just a rich person and you wanted to rig the election, could you find a cyber criminal who would do it just for money?
They don't even care who wins.
And the answer is, I would assume so.
Are you telling me that a billionaire and the best Black hat hackers can't hack our election systems with any amount of money to be able to obtain and test systems.
You're telling me that a billionaire and the best hackers in the world wouldn't be able to get into our systems?
Of course they would.
Of course they would.
And would we know if they did?
Of course we would not, necessarily.
We might, but not necessarily.
So you've got that risk.
So you've got the risk of the insiders coordinating.
You've got the risk of the cyber criminals and the billionaires or whoever they're working for.
And these risks are coming from our own government.
This is not me, the podcaster, Saying, oh, I think there's a risk.
This is our own intelligence people saying, here are two risks that if things went wrong, we wouldn't necessarily catch it.
Then we've got, let's see, according to the Griot, we have some flaming ballot boxes.
So, where'd that happen?
In Oregon and in the state of Washington, a couple of ballot boxes were set on fire.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, it's only a few ballot boxes.
And that's probably true and probably wouldn't change the election much.
But my understanding is there's also a lawsuit, is it in Georgia, to prevent cameras on drop boxes.
Why would they want to prevent camera surveillance on drop boxes?
I think the argument is it would decrease votes.
From who?
Who exactly would be worried about dropping their own ballot and maybe their spouse's ballot or even their neighbors too in the drop box because it's being watched by cameras?
Do you think somebody would not vote?
The entire world is watched by cameras.
Obviously, if you're trying to get the cameras away from the drop boxes, you think that they're corrupt.
Now, this is not a suggestion, but it's a semi-prediction.
There may be in this country enough people who don't want drop boxes to be part of the election that they will make them not part of the election by setting them on fire in numbers big enough to remove it from the system.
How many drop boxes would have to blow up or catch on fire before the entire election would be canceled?
We got two.
How about ten?
What if ten drop boxes caught on fire?
Because they weren't being monitored by cameras.
So anybody could just walk up with some fluid and a match and drop it in and boom.
Suppose around the entire country, 10 drop boxes caught on fire.
And maybe even some of the people got arrested.
Would 10 be enough to say, oh, stop the election?
Probably not.
Probably not, because somebody would say, well, this dropbox had only this many, the election was this many.
What happens if it's a hundred?
If a hundred dropboxes got set on fire, would the election be canceled?
Maybe.
Maybe.
If a thousand of them got caught on fire, would they cancel the election?
Yes.
Yes, they would.
Is it possible that a thousand drop boxes could be set on fire if the results of this election don't look like they were legit?
Yes.
I don't recommend it.
You're going to go to jail for a long time if you do this.
Do not, do not, do not commit any crimes.
Don't do anything violent.
Don't set anything on fire.
But we live in a world in which two of these have been set on fire, and once the idea gets out there, it's hard to put it back in the box, right?
So you could easily imagine that there will be a vigilante who says, I'm going to personally get rid of mail-in drop boxes.
And I'm going to drive around the country and just for the cost of gasoline, some for my car and some for the drop boxes and matches, I'm going to get rid of drop boxes forever.
And you just drive around and set them on fire for two weeks.
And it probably, probably would take it out of the system.
So that might happen.
But So that's a small problem that could become a big problem.
And again, don't do that.
Don't do that.
Very bad idea.
In York County, in Pennsylvania, there's a report that 421 mail-in ballots may have gone to the wrong addresses.
Well, that's not too many, right?
421.
But that's just the ones that got reported.
If over 400 got reported...
How many were not reported?
It's going to be a multiple, right?
Five to one?
Two thousand?
Maybe two thousand votes that might not be right?
All right, let's see.
Also in York County, according to the George account, one of my favorite accounts on X, you should follow George.
They received thousands of potentially fraudulent voter registration forms from some third party group.
First happened in Lancaster County and now in York County.
George asks, what's going on?
George also says he's getting information from sources that says it's happening in more counties and that these seem like obvious frauds.
Well, I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe it is.
But Paul Graham is sure that our last election was fine.
In Virginia, the government wants to take 6,600 non-citizens off the voter rolls, but because there's a technicality that is too close to elections, it has to be outside of 90 days, that the government's not going to do it.
So now we know for sure that there are at least 6,600 non-citizens that if they had a ballot, they could vote and probably wouldn't get caught.
Is 6,000 a lot in Virginia?
I don't know.
Then we've got, yeah, three of the states were suing to prevent Dropbox surveillance.
Georgia is one of them, I guess.
So that's sketchy.
Over in Berkeley, my neck of the woods, according to the SFist, some mail-in ballots were robbed by a mail carrier and didn't make it to their destination.
Now, the current thinking is that that wasn't about the election.
It was just somebody stole a mail truck, maybe for the other stuff in it.
But stuff's happened.
So that all looks like maybe not the most secure election system, but really the elections are determined by the news, I would say.
Could you say that's true?
So just as I showed you the old legacy news system, the government would control the newsmakers, New York Times and Washington Post.
They control all the other news, and the news tells you who to vote for, doesn't it?
Now, if the news doesn't care, or let's say the people in charge don't care who gets in because they're both going to be easy to work with, then you get this 50-50 election, and maybe it doesn't matter who wins.
But according to MRC Newsbusters, television hits on Trump were 85% negative news versus 78% positive for Harris.
If that's the only thing you knew, That one of the candidates had overwhelmingly negative news coverage and one had overwhelmingly positive.
That's a rigged election.
Right?
Because our information comes from the news.
The news determines how we vote.
So if the news is rigged, and this is clear evidence of a rigged news, then it's a rigged election.
Because if you say that the news...
Business is separate from the election business, so it doesn't matter what happens in the news business, that's not about the election rigging.
Well, that's not true.
The news is the election.
The reason that the news entities do the debates are because the news is part of the election.
Our system, the news is part of the election.
So if the news is rigged, the election is rigged.
That's how it works.
If the news tells you the Hunter laptop is fake, well, that is a rigged election.
You know, you could tell me, but technically it's a different industry.
The news is separate.
No, they're not.
They're completely connected to the people who are running in the elections.
There's no separation there.
Let's see.
Then we've got this undercover video.
Steven Crowder's got another undercover video of what is alleged to be a Democrat operative who is explaining to somebody who's got an undercover camera.
Democrats allegedly stole the 2020 election in Georgia.
And he talks about kicking out the GOP poll watchers.
He talks about ballot harvesting and the 2000 mules thing, etc.
Here's my take on that.
Not credible.
Sorry.
Not credible.
It sounds like somebody who watches television And then pretended that they knew this stuff on their own.
It's just all the television stuff.
If he came up with something that wasn't already on television, but it just sounds like he's bragging or making it up.
So I can't say that it's all false.
That I don't know.
Because that would be a level of certainty that's inapplicable.
But if you're asking me if I think they have the goods, my answer is no.
This does not look like the goods.
This is closer to the kraken, meaning that it's closer to something that seems artificially too good to be true.
And then if you go out there and say it, then a week later you find out that this guy's just a prankster or something.
So I'm going to say don't believe that one.
Yeah.
I should have interviewed Dinesh.
Well, I think the 2000 mule thing fell apart because they didn't have video that supported the claim.
And the people who looked at the phone traffic said it was too unreliable to make the claim.
That's all I know.
So there would be no point in interviewing him because that's the whole story right there.
Anyway.
Trump said something that's just magnificently Trumpian, because he likes to tease things and make you all curious.
So he said at the Madison Square Garden thing, he said, Donald Trump, well, he teased that he and Matt Gaetz share a, quote, little secret that's set to give Republicans an edge, saying, quote, our secret is making waves.
We'll reveal it once the race is won.
And I think our little secret, we're going to do really well with the House.
Our little secret is having a big impact.
He and I have it, and we'll tell you what it is when the race is over.
Huh.
So he has a little secret that involves, I assume, elections for the House.
What could that be?
I'm going to speculate just for fun.
I'm going to speculate that there might be some Democrats who are going to win their election and then switch to Republican.
Because I can't think of anything else that would fit the hint.
And you saw that there were at least two Democrats Who are running as Democrats, who are using their agreement with Trump as part of their argument for winning as Democrats.
You're aware of that, right?
So if you've got any Democrats that are pretending to agree with Trump to get elected, I would say they're at least on the fence about whether they should be Democrats at all.
Could it be That the thing that Matt Gaetz knows is that he's talked to several of them, and he's already convinced them to turn Republican.
Maybe they've got some deals for some good committees or something.
I don't know what you can offer them.
But it could be that if the election comes down close in terms of Democrats and Republicans, that there's going to be a second wave Where some of the Democrats that just came in just flip over to Republican and the House flips.
Now that would be a hell of a secret.
That would fit the category of it's already happening because all the mechanisms would be in place.
And it would fit that it's a secret.
They wouldn't want to talk about it until the people got elected.
And Matt Gaetz would be an obvious person who could be potentially a front person for that sort of thing.
And it could be big and it would involve the house.
So that's my recreational guess.
If I had to put money on it, I would not.
So I wouldn't bet on myself because there are too many possibilities of what it could be.
But I'll throw one out because it fits the hints.
So it's just fun.
All right.
If you didn't see a panel discussion on CNN that almost came to blows, you really have to watch it.
So CNN had what they call a pro-Israeli analyst, Ryan Gurdusky, and what they call an anti-Israel analyst, at least whoever wrote this post whose name I forgot to write down.
And I guess...
I guess, let's see, Mehdi made a reference to the Madison Square Garden thing as a Hitler kind of a situation.
And I guess Gurdusky did not like being lumped in with Hitler.
And so in response, he asked Mehdi Hassan, he hopes his beeper doesn't explode.
Now, a beeper exploding would be a suggestion that you're a Hezbollah terrorist.
I think Mehdi said he was Palestinian, but no indication he has any terrorist connections.
But here's my take.
If you call anybody a Nazi who is not a Nazi, they can call you anything they want.
Have I told you the rules about self-defense?
There are no rules of self-defense.
There are laws.
If you break a law, you go to jail, even if it's self-defense.
If you do something that would kill you professionally, well, there goes your job.
But there's no ethical or moral limit on what you can do in self-defense.
There are laws, but no ethical or moral limits.
So if you go on television and somebody says you're a Nazi, and you respond by accusing them of being a terrorist, all good, all good.
That is absolutely acceptable.
Not true, by the way.
I should remind you that there's no evidence that Mehdi Hassan has any, you know, connections that you should worry about.
But yes, you can say that.
He could call him a pedo if he wanted.
Again, he'd probably get sued if he did that.
But there's no rules.
If somebody calls you a Nazi on television...
You can go, you can unload your entire verbal clip.
Verbal.
Verbal.
Yeah, don't do anything physical.
That's the rule.
I think we just have to agree on that.
There are some rules that if it's self-defense, remember, Gerdusky wasn't the one who started the name-calling.
If he had started it, I'd have a different opinion.
But if he's sitting there and he's invited on a show and somebody wants to call him a Nazi on a national TV show, you can say anything you want, including calling somebody a terrorist.
Absolutely.
He had it coming.
But it's not true.
And that, ladies and gentlemen...
Is everything I had to say today.
So I'm going to talk to the people on the Locals platform.
By the way, if you're not on Locals, you don't get to see all of my comics that are better than ever.
And a lot of the political stuff that I don't do on here.
And we do the evening show to cure your loneliness.
I can cure your loneliness with the Man Cave livestreams every night.
So, I'm going to say hi to them, and I'm going to say bye to YouTube and Rumble and X. Thanks for joining.
