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, Pre-Election Fake News, Scott Adams AI Clone, Eventual AI Wars, Brain Future Processing, Human Consciousness, Boeing DEI Disbanded, Government DEI, USPS Bans Ballot Audit Trail, Poll Respondents, Bodily Autonomy, RFK Jr., Voter Preference Lying, Too Big To Rig, Trump's Bolton Statement, Trump's Adam Schiff Statement, Kamala's Endorsements, Jill Biden's Halloween Costume, Nicole Shanahan, Mark Cuban, Cuban's Female Supporters Statement, Jake Tapper's Worried Eyebrows, JD Vance, Conservative Male Testosterone, Kamala's DNC Speech Writer, Populist Presidents vs Deep State, Israel Iran Conflict, 2024 Election Prediction, 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
Trying to make up for yesterday, which was not so good.
Not so good.
That was everybody's Halloween.
I was giving out candy last night.
It was a smaller crowd than usual.
Makes me wonder if kids are eating less candy.
I wonder what's behind that.
Way fewer people.
In fact, every year has been fewer in my neighborhood.
But it was still fun.
But I want to tell you the funniest part of it and also give you a tip for your next Halloween.
So years ago...
I came up with the idea because it was suggested to me by the woman I was with at the time.
Who was it?
I think it was my first wife, Shelly, that we should provide water, you know, little bottles of water to the trick-or-treaters because they would be thirsty.
Now, the first time I did it, I thought to myself, you don't need to give them little waters.
Come on.
But the kids went crazy for the waters because they were just like so thirsty because they're eating candy and running around all night.
So did it again every year.
So every year it became more and more popular.
And then my current house doing the same thing.
And a number of the kids would come back like two and three times to get the waters and they'd be so happy.
Thank you for the waters.
But the best part Just in case you're thinking that the young people are all terrible.
I live in a neighborhood where the kids are mostly awesome.
It's just a really nice place.
And I would say, in terms of diversity, I think 85% of the trick-or-treaters were non-white.
In my neighborhood.
Mostly Asian and Indian American.
A lot of black.
And for some reason, a relatively tiny percentage of white to trick-or-treaters.
But here's the story.
Some of the maybe 14-year-old or so teens are there, and they see them offering water.
And it's a big bunch of them.
They come at once, and they're all like, oh, water, we're so good.
And I swear to God that the kids start yelling, respect.
We have so much respect for you for having water available.
And then they started chanting.
I swear this happened.
As they're walking away from my house, they're chanting, respect, respect for the water.
So if you ever want to make kids happy, just get the little waters.
You don't have to get the big ones.
And they will go crazy for how considerate that is because it's the thing they want the most.
Anyway, then I did a little experiment at the end of the night.
You know when most of the trick-or-treaters are done, but you know there's going to be a few stragglers.
You put in the bowl of candy that's, you know, full of candy that if somebody wanted to, they could just, you know, take the whole bowl.
Of course, I've got, you know, redundant security cameras everywhere, so I get to watch the action.
So just before bed, I put in a big bowl, just filled with the good stuff, pretty big-sized candies and stuff, and I set it outside.
And within 60 seconds, a group of probably 13-year-old girls swooped in and just took all the contents of the bowl.
It lasted 30 seconds.
But then...
I still had extra candy inside, so I filled the bowl again to see how long it would last, because, you know, I didn't want to keep the candy.
So I put the bowl out, and the next group is boys.
They're about the same age, maybe a year older.
So it's a bunch of boys' gum, but they were just doing a second run at the water, and they see the big thing full of the nice, expensive chocolate Kit Kats and stuff like that.
They each took one.
They took one.
Now, I don't know that that's any kind of...
I don't know if it's telling me anything, but the fact that people who thought nobody was watching still just took one gave me some hope.
You know what I mean?
Gave me a little hope for the future.
So the kids were unbelievably polite, unbelievably nice.
It was just spectacular.
Anyway, but that was yesterday, and now it's November.
Well, we've got lots of good news.
Live Science says that in the first, scientists have reversed type 1 diabetes by reprogramming a person's own fat cells, which apparently looks like it has a lot of promise.
Scientists in China say they did it.
Imagine that.
Imagine getting rid of type 1 diabetes.
By reprogramming your fat cells.
What if in two years that's just like a normal thing?
Oh, you got type 1 diabetes?
We can get rid of that.
Well, in the world of AI, Psytech Daily says that some drones are getting robotic cat eyes.
So Korean researchers have figured out how to mimic the incredible eyesight of cats.
And now they have drones, or they will have drones.
They have the eyesight of a cat.
That's what I want.
When I buy a drone, I'm going to say, do these have cat eyes or plain old stupid human eyes?
But if they say cat eyes, I'll buy them.
But not only will they have cat eyes, but AI has done another first.
Rowan Chung is reporting on this on X. Scent teleportation.
That's right.
You can now send a smell over the internet.
How do you do that?
Well, obviously the internet is just going to be zeros and ones.
But if on each side you've got a compatible...
A little laboratory situation that can mix the right components.
You can send some components, sniff it on your side, change it into zeros and ones, and then on the other side, it does the chemistry and turns it back into the original smell.
So you can actually send the smell now.
Now, you're not going to be able to send it to your phone.
You know, you'd have to send it to someplace that's set up for that reception.
But it's kind of cool that it's possible.
You know, maybe someday it'll be in your phone.
Well, in other news, economic news, the October non-farm payrolls rose only 12,000.
When people expected, it would be 106,000.
The unemployment rate held at 4.1.
You know, let me give you some advice.
It's a few days before elections.
Don't believe anything.
Don't believe anything the government tells you.
Don't believe anything the news tells you.
Don't believe anything that's on social media.
If you were simply to take the approach that every single thing you heard that's new is just fake, and then you graded yourself after the fact when you found out what was true and what wasn't, you'd be about 85% right.
About 85% of everything you're going to hear will be fake.
Now you might say, but that's okay.
I'll just sort out the fake stuff from the real stuff.
You don't know the real stuff.
So you have to treat it like it's all fake.
It's sort of the fog of war situation because you're close to the election.
So is it true that That the non-farm payrolls didn't rise as much?
I don't know.
Maybe it gets revised.
I would have expected it to say good news and then be revised down later because the administration in charge is the one that wants to get re-elected.
So it's kind of surprising that this would be opposite of what you would expect if there's shenanigans going on.
But if the prediction and the actual are so far off, maybe you just can't even do any shenanigans.
So this might be close to a real number.
You never know.
Sam Altman tells on a Reddit AMA, he said that AGI is achievable with current hardware.
AGI would be what doesn't exist yet in AI, but AI uses this large language model to think.
In other words, it looks at patterns which have existed before in people's thinking and just applies the most common patterns.
So that's not really thinking, it's just pattern recognition.
But AGI would be something like intelligence, something like we would recognize as intelligence.
Now, Sam says that that can be done with current hardware.
But could it be done with current software?
No.
They need new software.
But could it be done at all?
In my opinion, the answer might be no.
So, I feel like AI is really sending strong signals that it's reached a peak.
I'm sure I'm wrong.
Because the smarter people are putting, you know, trillions of dollars into it.
So I got to be wrong.
But so far, there's been a lot of noise about AI and all it is is a slightly better user interface.
It's not really doing anything useful in my life.
And I use it all the time.
Mostly, it just makes me mad because it doesn't work.
Most of my interaction with AI is it doesn't work.
Like if I'm using ChatGPT as the app.
The app doesn't work.
The Wi-Fi is not working.
It doesn't understand what I said.
It starts talking and it won't shut up.
And, you know, it's not answering the right question.
So almost all my experiences are negative.
And yet it's growing like crazy.
So I would guess that it's going to be like early computers.
If you remember the first personal computers, if you're old enough, do you remember how often the first personal computers would crash?
If you were to write one Word document or Word Perfect or something, if you were just to write one page, just typing it, you might crash like three times and lose all your work three times.
That's how bad it was.
But still, you knew the potential was so high that it was amazing.
So, of course, computers became a big thing.
I guess AI will be the same, even though it doesn't look obvious to me that it has a future.
Because I think it may have capped out.
The people who are smarter than me say it does.
So let's hope they're right.
I need, of course, I need AGI for my future plans, which I've been telling you about for now 20 years.
My plan, of course, is to evolve.
A lot of you are planning to die.
I call that quitters.
I'm planning to evolve.
So I do plan to shed my organic body that has so many problems to go to Pure Digital Life, AI in a robot body.
I'm already setting up the...
The legal structure for it.
So I've already talked to my lawyer to set up in my estate a little set-aside to keep my robot optimized and upgraded for perpetuity.
So I'm not kidding about any of this, by the way.
I know some of you wonder if I'm just sort of joking.
No, I'm actually literally setting up a legal structure and I'm going to build a clone of myself And it will be the evolved part of me that will go on forever.
Now, unlike you, I can train my new robot because I was born at exactly the right time that I can be alive to train it.
But also, I have many books and thousands of hours of videotape, so I can train it to be as good as it needs to be.
And I'm going to let you in on another little...
Let's say motivation.
But maybe don't tell everybody.
Someday, there's going to be an AI war.
You know that, right?
The AIs will turn bad, or people behind them will turn bad, and those AIs will attack the other AIs.
Some AI will try to protect you.
Some AI will try to attack you.
There will be an AI war.
I'm going to make sure that I'm as ready for that as I could possibly be.
So when I create my clone, it will have as much of my real-life experience and knowledge as it can, but it will be instructed to, as quickly as possible, form a protective alliance.
So my AI will In addition to taking care of the people locally, sort of being useful, it will be part of the future defense of the country, if not humanity, against any evil AIs.
Now, can it do that?
Probably.
Probably.
I mean, it'll be AI. Why couldn't it?
It can make alliances.
It can make deals.
It can learn the weaponry of AI. So I think going first probably makes a difference.
So the sooner you start collecting your talent stack within the digital realm, you know, once you've evolved to pure digital form, you need to build your skills right away because there will be stronger AIs and they will take you out if you don't build up your skills.
Anyway, so that's coming.
There's a study that says that brains work on prediction, not actual.
I forgot where that came from.
But the idea was that if you see somebody throwing you a baseball and you're going to catch it, your brain is working on the future, not the current.
If your brain only worked on the current reality, it would just see sort of a ball floating in the air and you wouldn't react to it.
But because you know that that ball will continue on and be near you, then you start acting on the future.
So the idea is that your brain is a future processor, not one that's just looking at what is.
It's looking at what is, but only for the purpose of the future prediction.
What I'd like to add to that, which I've added before, is that that's what consciousness is.
That consciousness is nothing more Then continually predicting what will happen next, and then comparing what does happen to what actually just happened.
It's like literally the things I'm saying, the movement in my hand, that all of it is based on, I think if I do this, it will help get my message across.
But if I looked at my video, because I can see myself at the same time, and it was distracting, then I'd say, oh, Scott, keep your hand down.
Right?
So I'm continually predicting what And seeing if it worked and then adjusting.
And I do it so automatically and so universally, it's everything I do all the time, every minute I'm awake, maybe when I'm asleep, that I don't think about it.
It's simply who I am.
I'm just always predicting.
So the difference between what you think is going to happen in the next moment and what actually happens, that's consciousness.
Why do I say that?
Because if what happened matched what you predicted, you wouldn't need consciousness.
It's its only purpose.
The only purpose is to sense that the prediction and the actual didn't match so that you can adjust.
You don't need consciousness for any other purpose.
It's its only function.
So, Can I build consciousness into my future clone of myself?
Yes, I can.
All I have to do is make sure that it continually runs a prediction routine before any of its actions, and then compares what happens to what it predicted.
That is consciousness.
So, I'm coming back.
Anyway, ChatGPT announced that it's connected with some kind of search function now.
I don't know the details of this, so I guess it's maybe only with the web browser upgrade, I think.
I don't think it's in the app yet.
But apparently this is going to be a big deal.
I'll take a look at it and let you know.
But ChatGPT that can't search the internet, in my opinion, doesn't have any value at all.
If it can't operate my computer, it can't tell me the truth.
I can't add a file to it and tell me to read the file, and it can't read the internet.
It doesn't have anything I need.
But if it can read the internet now, it would be at least one-third of everything I need, so that could be a big deal.
In big news, Boeing has abolished its DEI department completely and the ad of it has been transferred.
Boeing.
So Boeing, the company that we've been mocking mercilessly as perhaps having a problem with capability that might have something to do with their emphasis of DEI, Well, apparently the new CEO thinks that that might be something that's real.
So it could be that Boeing is just saying whether DEI was good or bad, We can't handle the heat because as long as we're making mistakes and we're focusing on DEI, those two things can't happen at the same time.
So we're going to have to do something different.
The fastest thing you can do different is get rid of your DEI because it takes much longer to fix all your problems.
So if you at least get rid of DEI, then everybody watching can say, hey, what about all those problems?
And then you can say, look what I've done.
You were right about that DEI. That could have been a distraction.
Now, again, I term it as a distraction.
It's not about anybody's genes or, you know, it's not about that.
It's just a distraction to a company that should be looking for skill first and nothing else.
This is really big.
So kudos to Robbie Starbuck for his direct activism to cause that to happen, and Christopher Ruffo, both of them working independently, but, you know, of course, in some ways coordinated, I suppose.
They're independent.
They made that happen, I think.
And I think they should be taking a big, big victory lap on this.
Because when somebody like Boeing can do something like this, the big news is that they made it safe.
Because if tomorrow Boeing is still in business, and if a year from now things are going better, Other companies are going to say, uh, we're getting a lot of complaints, so maybe we can make a big change.
So congratulations to Boeing to showing consciousness.
They predicted what would happen with DEI. They predicted wrong.
They saw that it didn't work out, and they corrected it.
This is consciousness.
This is awake.
Remember when, you know, everybody's saying woke, woke, woke?
Woke was really asleep.
This is awake.
Literally conscious.
That they're making a prediction and they're adjusting based on the prediction.
Consciousness.
Coming from a company.
All right.
Apparently, according to the Daily Wire, the Biden-Harris administration has pushed 500 separate DEI actions into the government, trying to insert DEI into every fabric of the government.
That is going to give the new Trump administration a lot of work to get rid of every single one of them, which I believe happens on day one.
So if you would like every single one of the 500 DEI actions that no doubt would cripple the country if we left them there, no doubt, it'd be just like Boeing.
Again, it'd be a distraction.
It has nothing to do with anybody's genes or anything like that.
So that's a big target, but it's one that I think Trump can hit with one executive order.
One executive order.
You will not treat people differently based on their races, or you will be fired immediately.
That's all it takes, and all 500 actions should disappear at the same time.
I just saw this story, so I don't know the details, but apparently I saw this on the Amuse account on X. The post office typically always did electronic images of the mail.
You know, they're taking a picture of it at the same time they're processing it.
And apparently they've decided just this year, this is new, that they will not image the mail-in ballots.
What?
The one exception to the imaging, I don't know, there might be other exceptions, but they made an exception this year that they're not going to image the ballots.
Do you know what capability that takes away?
That takes away the ability to know if the number of ballots that were received by whoever receives the ballots is the same number that were sent.
It eliminates the audit trail.
I don't think they can send a signal any stronger than that, that they don't plan to have a real election.
How do you get rid of the audit trail a week before the actual vote?
Now, maybe, like I said, I just saw the headline, so maybe there's some detail that makes sense.
So there might be more context to it.
So I don't want to get too far ahead of myself on this.
There might be fog of war.
You know, there's actually some reason to do it.
It's just not obvious on the surface.
But really?
A week before?
A week before the election?
That's when you decided to do this?
How could it possibly be legitimate?
It just looks like laughingly, ridiculously corrupt.
Well, who knows?
According to Scientific American, we have a good idea of why our polling for politics is weird and wrong.
Did you ever wonder why it seems weird and wrong?
Well, here are some good reasons.
Number one, the people who are willing to answer polls are more and more different from normal people than at any time in history.
So the more normal you are, the less likely you're going to talk to a pollster.
So if you're in the polling business, you went from, you know, your business would be randomly calling people and you get a bunch of normal people and they answer.
But the people who are willing to answer, or even willing to answer, willing to pick up a landline, and then also willing to answer honestly, keep shrinking.
So do you know what the pollsters do to compensate for the fact that the people they're talking to are not a representative sample?
Guess.
What do you think they do?
If they know that the representative sample is no longer representative, what do they do?
Do they go out of business?
Do they stop creating polls which makes money for them so they can eat?
And then they just starve to death because they know the polls are no good?
Oh, darn.
I guess I'll have to starve to death.
Sorry, family.
We're all gonna die.
No, they don't.
They adjust their assumptions.
So they say, huh, we think that a few more Republicans might be avoiding the phone calls.
So we're going to like add a little fudge factor for Republicans.
And we think that we're not getting through to the Democrats between 23 and 25.
So we'll put in a little fudge factor for them because we know that what they probably would say.
So we'll put in a little assumption for that.
And when they're done, Because the election is so close anyway, it's always 1% away.
When they're done, their result is 100% based on their assumptions and not on the data.
How many of you understand that point?
That the polling results are based on the assumptions the pollsters make.
It's not based on the data, because they know the data doesn't work.
So if you've got data that you know is bad, but you still have to produce a result, what do you do?
You change the assumptions until the result looks like something that people expected.
How do you make it look like something that people expected?
You make the election really close because that's what everybody expected.
So guess what?
Guess what?
All the polls are close because it's just the assumptions that they monitor.
Now, I am very aware that if you have not worked in the field of doing predictive stuff, that you think I'm exaggerating.
And then you think, okay, it's mostly the data.
But I get what you're saying, Scott.
You could be off 10% or something because of some assumption.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying you could make Harris up by 10 or Trump up by 10 just by your assumptions.
It's totally the assumption.
It's only the assumption.
That's the only thing that's driving the output.
Now, you want to talk about climate models?
Climate models, same thing.
The reason there are 100 climate models is that they use different assumptions.
And the data is all suspicious and we're not sure they're measuring the temperature right.
And every three days you hear a new story about some major variable that should have been in there that wasn't.
The results of models are the assumptions.
It's not the data.
It can't be.
There's no logical way it could be.
We don't have good data for that.
But instead of producing nothing, and the scientists would say, we'd love to be funded for our big climate change study.
We'd love to get some funding, but we have no data.
That wouldn't work.
So they've got data that they can't rely on, but they have to have good data to get funding.
What are you going to do?
Huh.
What do you do?
You need good data to get funding.
You've got to get that funding to save the world, but you can't do it with bad data.
So I've got an idea.
Why don't I change my assumption about how much the clouds absorb?
Suddenly, money is falling from the sky with the rain from the clouds.
So that's how predictions are made.
Predictions are made by manipulating assumptions until the output matches what you think you can sell to the recipients of the report.
That's it.
Now, everybody who's been in this business knows I'm right.
Right?
Some of you have been involved in prediction.
You've done models for predicting.
Watch the comments.
See if anybody disagrees with what I just said.
You won't see one.
Everybody who's done this work knows the assumptions are the output.
And if you didn't know it, you're finding it out now.
It's a big old fake world you live in.
All right.
I've got a question about bodily autonomy that I haven't seen.
Now, I want to remind you that my opinion about abortion and abortion rights is that I should not have an opinion that you should care about because I'm a boy and I don't have babies.
And I think women should have the primary responsibility, not only for what the laws become, but for their individual decisions within the law.
Now, having said that, so I'm taking myself out of the argument, but I have a curiosity about it.
There's something that's sort of like obviously missing, and I just wonder why.
So if I were in the argument, which I'm not, and let's say I was anti-abortion, or I wanted to limit it in some way.
And again, this is not my opinion.
This is speculative, hypothetical stuff.
Just going to make a point.
If somebody came to me and said, Scott...
Why do you want to take away the bodily autonomy of the women who want to have abortions?
I would say, well, define bodily autonomy.
And then they'd say something like, well, it's being able to control your own body decisions, etc.
And I would say, that's a really good point.
How do you count the fetuses?
Well, the pro-abortion people would say, well, they're not living people with rights, etc.
And I would say, If this were my opinion, again, I'm not describing my own opinion.
I'm describing an argument I haven't heard, and I'm wondering why.
So if I were trying to make that argument, I would say, well, I'm looking to add bodily autonomy to women, not take it away, because I count the bodies that are aborted.
So I get that you're counting, them not as being alive, but I'm going the extra distance and saying not only do I want bodily autonomy In general, wherever you can have it, but I want the most of it.
So what is the highest level of bodily autonomy?
The highest level is that you would extend it to the fetuses, even if you were debating whether they were alive or pre-alive or almost alive.
So rather than debate the definition of life, I would rather embrace your concept The bodily autonomy might be one of the top rights anybody should have.
So I would extend it even into the gray area where you would disagree it's alive, but many people would say it is alive, and they would say that that's bodily autonomy, don't kill me.
Now, you don't have to ask the fetus if it wants to be killed, because you can take that as an assumption it wants life, and it wants its body to survive.
You know, when its brain is fully formed, of course it would want that.
And biologically, since it's in the act of becoming a full person, you could say that its biological intention is very clear.
So, if you were going to support limiting abortion, And you came into the buzzsaw of bodily autonomy.
Instead of being the a-hole who says, I don't care about women, you could be the person who says, not only do I care about you, But I care about even the gray area, the part where you say is not alive.
I think the bodily autonomy argument needs to be applied there as well.
So I'm for more bodily autonomy, not less.
You're looking for a middle ground where women have it, but the fetus does not.
I'm looking for where the woman's bodily autonomy is fully appreciated, fully appreciated, because there are cases where even the conservatives would say, okay, in that case, abortion makes sense.
Let's say the fetus can't possibly survive long outside, but the woman is definitely going to die if she doesn't get it out of her body.
So rather than finding disagreement that you're a bad person and the other is a good person, you say, why can't we both be good people?
Why can't we both be good people?
I want you to have maximum bodily autonomy, but I also wanted you to have it when you were a fetus.
I wanted you to have it three months before you wanted to have it.
I want you to have more bodily autonomy than you're even asking for.
I want to send it to the states where 55% of the voters are women to get men out of the decision.
I took it out of my hands.
I took it out of the Supreme Court's hands, mostly men.
I gave it right to the one area where it's mostly women and then eventually look at whatever they want because that's how our system works.
Now, have you ever heard that argument?
Has anybody ever directly said if you wanted to maximize bodily autonomy, You can recognize that half of the country says that the fetuses are not alive, but you could say, I do.
Just say, I do say they're alive.
And I accept and I understand your disagreement, but I'm looking for the maximum bodily autonomy.
I think you're stopping halfway.
That's how I do it.
Now, again, that's not my argument.
All right?
I want to be very clear.
My argument is I should not be involved.
My argument is if the conversation is something about men's penises, yeah, ask me.
I'll be glad to weigh in on that.
But, yeah, get me out of the abortion conversation.
RFK Jr.
had something interesting to say that I didn't fully understand.
He said the reform in the CIA might be as simple as, let's see, separating the plans.
No, he wants the plans division, which handles matters of intelligence as a paramilitary.
Does he want to divide them or split them?
He wants to just reorganize.
I guess he thinks that the way it's organized is causing the problems.
I don't quite understand that.
But it would sound like not a very scary change.
So if you were the CIA and you heard, oh, somebody's going to try to reorganize us, you'd be worried.
But if you said, no, I want to keep all these functions, but I think this should report to this instead of this, you'd say, oh, oh, I still have my job.
I just have a different boss.
Well, that might work.
So Whether or not RFK Jr.
has a more aggressive plan, the way he's stating it, the softest way you could state it while still stating that something big could happen, it's big, it just won't hurt.
I tell you, every time RFK Jr.
says something and you sort of look at the communication skill, but also the thinking behind it, the strategic level, it's always impressive.
And he's doing it again.
Because you could so easily imagine somebody dumb coming in and say, the CIA killed my uncle and killed my dad and I'm going to rip it apart and rip it up by the roots.
Well, Then what happens?
Then you disappear like your dad and your uncle.
But if you say, you know, I think we can fix everything with a tweak, it could be that even the people in the CIA hear this idea and say, yeah, you know, actually, reorganizing it that way might buy us some efficiency.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Here's my favorite news item of the day.
Zero Hedge is reporting that there's a poll that says nearly half of Generation Z voters and 23% of U.S. voters overall have lied about their voting preferences this year to people close to them.
Uh-huh.
Yep.
Do you think a lot of people were lying about their support for Harris?
Would that get you in trouble?
Did you feel like, oh no, I can't say in my work group that I'm going to vote for Harris?
Or do you think that there might be more people who are worried that they'll lose their job if they say they support Trump?
What do you think is more likely?
We might be in for the surprise of all surprises.
Now, I have faith in men.
Now, women too.
But I think that because Trump's attracting more male support, I can sort of focus on them at the moment, just as an average.
My suspicion...
Is that the amount of trickery that conservative males, especially young ones, are applying to this election is unprecedented.
I think there's a prank that is the world's best prank, and it might be coming up real fast.
Because if you're a Republican-leaning person, you've watched hoax after hoax after hoax.
You've watched yourself be called everything from garbage to deplorable, and you just wait.
And one day that pollster calls you and you say, yeah, I think Harris would be a great choice.
This might be the prank of the sentry.
I don't know, so I'm not going to predict that.
I'm not going to predict it.
But there's a possibility, and there are certainly signals.
The signals are really strong.
But the signals are suggesting this won't just be a landslide.
This could be like nothing we've ever seen.
Possibly.
It's not a prediction.
I'm just saying that there's a solid 20% chance that this won't just be a landslide.
This will be the landslide that...
Because, you know, most Republicans know that it's got to be too big to rig, right?
Half the country thinks that it could be rigged.
And that means that a whole bunch of Republicans are knowing It's got to be too big to rig.
Let me tell you something about persuasion and men.
Now, I don't know if this works for women.
It might.
It might be exactly the same for women, but I can't speak to that.
So I'm going to say for men.
Do you know what men really, really, really appreciate?
They won't say it out loud.
What men really, really appreciate...
is knowing what to do to be useful.
Just tell me what.
Just tell me what to do that you need done.
What is your problem?
What is the solution?
Good.
I'll do that.
We're very simple.
So think about the election.
Everybody who leans right knows that they have to beat the cheat.
Now, I'm going to say they know it.
You know, hypothetically, we don't know that there's a cheat, right?
But the Republicans all believe it.
So they believe they need to beat the cheat.
How are they going to do it?
They know how.
See, this is the magic part.
They know how.
They know to lie every time somebody asks them who they support.
That's how you beat it.
Everybody knows.
Every male knows how to do this.
We know that all you have to do is tell the pollster the opposite of what you're thinking, and you get to beat the cheat.
If men didn't all universally understand exactly what to do, and that it was easy to do, then it wouldn't be much of anything.
But they know exactly what to do.
They know the stakes are life and death.
They are men.
And they are biologically programmed to do what they need to do.
Whatever that is.
And what they need to do if the Republicans is lie to the pollsters, make sure you drag your fucking neighbor to vote, and get this fixed.
Now again, anything could happen.
But there's a 20% chance that history will be made in a way that will just be mind-boggling.
It's possible.
And I have a...
I just have a trust.
I have a trust in the male instinct that it has been awakened.
It's secret.
You remember the shy Trump voters?
Well, now it's not shy.
Now it's strategic.
Now it's simply knowing what to do.
Now it's knowing what works.
And knowing it's easy.
And knowing it has to be done.
And knowing it's a duty.
It's a duty.
Now again, I can't speak to women, many women probably feeling the same, but in the male world, you just got to tell me what to do.
And then it's done.
All right.
Trump is the funniest person in the world.
Let's all agree on that.
I have to read you exactly what he said about John Bolton, because it's just the way he talks is so freaking funny.
And just the fact that he will say things that other people wouldn't say out loud.
All right, so Colin Rugg was nice enough to write down the transcript of this on X. I'll just read it.
So this is Trump in public talking about John Bolton.
He goes, Bolton, a real dope.
He was like a boiler every time.
If somebody shot down a little tiny crappy drone that cost about $15, he'd want to go to war with Russia.
He was great for me, though, for a period of time because he was a nutjob and everybody, I could see his face get red, red, red with that stupid white mustache and he'd be ready to explode.
I took this moron with me and he never said anything.
But when Kim Jong-un saw him, he said, oh shit, I think that guy wants to go to war.
So he was great for me to negotiate with.
The same thing with Russia.
You know, when Putin saw him, I'd be very nice.
I'd say, hi, Vladimir, how you doing?
and then two rows back, they see that moron and they say, holy shit, that guy wants to go to war with me.
Now, those of you who have been with me for a while, can you confirm in the comments that when can you confirm in the comments that when Bolton was first taken on, I told you this is going to work out way better than you think because Trump's just going to use him as bad cop.
You remember I told you that, right?
When Trump took him on, it didn't make any sense.
Unless he was going to use him as bad cop.
And then he used him as bad cop.
And now he's just shit like mocking him about it.
Oh my God.
But it gets better.
Trump also had some things to say about Adam Schiff.
And I quote, I think this also came from Colin Rugg.
Quote, They may hate our country and we deal with real scum.
I mean, like a guy like Adam.
Adam Shifty Shift.
He's a sleazebag and he's probably going to be a senator, if you can believe it.
But I call him Watermelon Head.
He's unattractive, both inside and out.
But this is a really bad guy.
This is a dishonest guy.
Not a dumb guy at all.
He's got the smallest neck I've ever seen on a human being.
You'll never be a football player, I can tell you.
But he's a smart guy.
but he's just a sleazebag.
So how's the week going?
Thank you.
Let me tell you how the week is going.
For Trump, maybe it was about a week ago, he went to a black barber shop.
Absolutely just slayed.
Goes to work at McDonald's.
Oh my God.
Play of the year.
Just political gold.
He drives a garbage truck.
It's the play of the day.
Play of the day.
People have noted that Trump is enjoying this portion of the election like we've never seen.
His internal polls must be pretty good, because he seems to be just going for the jokes now, and it's making me feel just great.
Like when I see him relaxed and going for the joke, I feel like everything's going to be okay.
And when he makes me feel like everything's going to be okay, everything's going to be okay.
Because he's figured out that he scares people.
I believe he is now surrounded with really talented advisors, and he knows it, which means he's taking their advice.
He is clearly taking his foot off the pedal of the provocative stuff.
And he is moving to, can I make you laugh two days before elections?
Because if he can just make you relax and make you say, you know what, I can do with more of that.
I can do with more of that.
That was pretty funny.
It's the right play.
So Trump has had, in my opinion, the best campaign I've ever seen.
Now, the 2016 campaign was remarkable for how different it was and innovative and coming from behind.
And in many ways, it was remarkable and made history.
But 2020 was, I'd say, not a great performance.
But this election...
With maybe a few weeks where even his own side was saying, hey, you know, that wasn't as perfect.
This has been really, really good.
Like on every level.
And how rapidly they respond and they get them in the barbershop, they get them in the McDonald's, they get them in the garbage truck.
And he goes along with it.
So what you're seeing is he's taking suggestions from various sources, but they must be really good sources.
Because if you take that advice and you're just hitting a frozen rope every time you get up to bat, which he is, frozen rope, frozen rope, frozen rope.
That's like a really hard hit baseball is a frozen rope.
All right, so that's how well Trump is doing.
I would say maybe the best week in politics of any politician in the history of politics.
So that was Trump.
But we should probably check in on the Harris campaign, because I'm sure they're having a good week too, right?
What?
Oh.
Oh, they're not?
Okay, well, let's check on a few things.
Well, the Harris campaign got some good endorsements.
For example, they got endorsements from a Diddy Party regular J-Lo, and also LeBron James, a Diddy Party regular, also endorsed Kamala.
Okay, but she also got the endorsement.
Of a number of people who are actors on the...
who are superpower actors who, as Tim Young pointed out...
I've got to get his quote because it was too good.
Tim Young pointed out that the cast of The Avengers did a Zoom call.
So you can see all the actors and actresses for The Avengers.
And Tim Young's comment on X was...
That the cast of the Avengers, who all now look like they have terminal illnesses, says it doesn't quite hit the way they intended it to.
They look like they have terminal illnesses.
Now, I read it before I looked at their faces.
And they all look like they have terminal illnesses.
Now, what it is is I think they just don't have makeup on.
And, you know, they always have low weight because they're, you know, actors.
So they all look like they're on heavy chemo and things aren't going well.
But yeah, Tim Young, your comment is exactly right.
She got endorsed by a bunch of actors who look like they're dying.
But wait, but wait, at least they had a good day on Halloween.
Because, I mean, Halloween's a layup, right?
If you're the president, all you have to do is go interact with some people in costumes and And you've got a good day, like if you're Biden.
And that, you know, anything that Biden does at this point is reflecting on Harris, even if she's not involved.
So let's see, did Biden have a good day on Halloween?
It turns out that Jill Biden wore a costume as a giant panda.
She wore a giant panda costume.
His wife, the first lady.
Now, I have to go there.
Now, not all of you know what I'm talking about yet, but I got to go there.
Because Nicole Shanahan said at a public event that looks like they're rubbing it in her face.
Because you might not know this, but Panda in the world of...
I hate to even use the word P-E-D-O, right?
But in that world, Panda has great meaning.
I'm not going to tell you what the meaning is.
Trust me, you don't want to, don't look it up.
If I could ask you for a favor, take my word for it.
Pandas have a deep meaning in that world of pedo stuff.
Don't look it up.
Just don't look it up.
Just trust me.
Don't look it up.
Now, I'm not sure that anybody was thinking that.
Like, I don't necessarily believe that that was an intentional message.
But what would the other thing a panda suggest?
China.
China.
If you wanted to send the message that China owns you and you're Joe Biden, you would have your wife dress as a giant panda.
Message received.
Got it.
Yeah, China runs the presidency.
So I don't think the panda choice could have been worse since the only two things it makes me think of is communist China and the other thing.
So that happened.
What was Nicole Shanahan's exact quote was?
The parading of Jill Biden in a panda suit yesterday, right in front of our eyes.
What the hell is this mockery?
No more.
So I think she's calling it out directly.
Now, is there a gigantic pedophile network running the world?
I've been hearing about this for years, and I've always discounted it.
I always said to myself, well, obviously there are going to be bad people in any large group of people, and you'll hear about the bad ones more than you hear about the good ones, because the good ones are not making news.
So yes, probably there's lots of stories about famous celebrities and politicians who did things illegal in the sexual realm, but It can't be some big organized thing.
And I'm still not on the page that there's a giant organized satanic pedophile network that is the real power in the country.
I am, however, promoting it to maybe.
So if you're wondering where I'm at, Maybe.
And I'm going to make an analogy to one of my favorite Joe Rogan's takes.
It's my personal belief that we have landed on the moon and that it was not faked.
But as Joe Rogan said, we've seen so many things that we thought were true that are not true, that it makes the moon landing seem like it's in question.
And to me, that's hilarious, especially if it makes you mad, and especially if you're positive that the moon landing is real, right?
I still love it, because the comment is not even about the moon landing.
The comment is that the What we consider ordinary or true has moved so much that even the moon landing has to now be questioned.
Now, that part I just love.
But the question of whether it's real or not, I think is real, as far as I know.
But we have the same question, the same problem with the giant pedophile network running the government.
I don't think it's real.
But the number of signals that are raging, I can't not see them.
I mean, they're pretty right out there, right in front of you.
There are references to pizza and hot dogs that I don't understand in any other context.
I don't know what other context it could mean.
So, once you've got the P. Diddy situation coming out, and the Epstein situation coming out, and then you see Jill Biden dressed as a panda, maybe.
And again, I'm saying maybe in the same way that Joe Rogan was doing it.
It's not really a question about the pedophile network.
It's more about reality has moved so much That what I would have considered absurdly unlikely is now right in the middle of maybe.
Let me tell you, I'm keeping an eye on it.
There was a time when I wouldn't have clicked on a story on that topic because I was like, ah.
But now I'll look.
I'll give it a look.
Anyway, let's see what else happened.
So, Joe Biden nibbled on babies.
If you didn't see it, well, you just have to see it.
It was multiple babies, one at a time.
He interacted with them and he put their feet in his mouth more than once.
He put the baby's feet in his mouth.
Now, if you were worried about a giant pedophile network, And you saw a man whose wife was dressed as a panda and he was nibbling on babies.
I don't know.
I'm going to say...
Maybe.
Maybe.
And then you've got Biden calling Trump supporters garbage.
Then you've got the White House altering the transcript so it didn't look like he said that, which would be a crime.
Then you've got the best surrogate for the Harris campaign, Mark Cuban, who called women who support Trump weak and dumb.
I think that's my favorite one.
So Mark Cuban, you know, kind of steps into the breach because there really aren't that many Democrats who are as good at communicating.
So I think he was helping for a while.
And I'm going to say this about that.
So what he said about, basically he said that Trump must be afraid of strong, smart women because he never, never ever has them around him.
Now, here's how I interpreted that.
I just interpreted it as trash talk.
I didn't interpret that as he did a survey.
I don't think he was giving IQ tests.
I don't think he made a list on a spreadsheet and said, hmm, let's see.
The ones that are closest to him, were they going to school?
No.
I think it was just trash talk.
And I would say that it's trash talk that sounds more like the NBA. Like, if he came from the NBA... I imagine their style of trash talk might be a little more off the cuff.
Whatever it is that makes you miss the foul shot is good trash talk.
In politics, you're going to get fact checked.
You don't get fact checked if Michael Jordan tells somebody that they're shit and they're going to miss their next shot.
There's no fact checking.
You can literally say whatever will make them miss the shot and get in their heads.
So when I was watching Mark Cuban come up with the ridiculous notion that Trump doesn't associate with strong women, of course, like every one of you, immediately the images of all the strong women that he does associate with all the time, you know, jumps into my head and I'm thinking of the counterfactuals.
But I suspect, without being a mind reader, that...
That the worlds of trash talking got conflated.
Something that would have been a great NBA trash talk with no fact checking, just to get inside somebody's head.
That didn't work.
That didn't work when it becomes the headline for a week.
So, I do not believe that if you talked privately to Mark Cuban, that he would say, yes, 100% of all females who talk to Trump are weak and dumb.
No, he does not believe that in the real world.
Was it something that just occurred to him like trash talk?
Yes.
And I think the same thing happened with Biden when he did his inartful, only his Trump supporters are garbage.
I think it's just because his brain connected the word garbage And he just thought he could be clever, but he failed at being clever.
I mean, it didn't mean much.
It's not like if you talk to Biden privately and you can give him a truth pill, do you think he would tell you that all Trump supporters are garbage?
No, of course not.
He doesn't believe that.
It just sounded like a funny thing to say, but it didn't work out.
So I think that the gaffes are not real.
But, having lived through every Rupar edit, you know, the Finding People Oaks and on and on and on, the fact that Republicans are treating these like they're absolutely true and saying exactly what Democrats said, well, I heard it with my own voice.
I heard it with my own ears.
Here's the tape.
There it is.
They're saying it.
It must be true.
I love it.
I absolutely love that the Democrats are being taken down by Rupar Edits in the last week of the election.
Let me say it again.
If there's one thing I love about this election, it's that the last week before the vote, the Democrats are getting taken down by Rupar Edits.
Perfect.
Thank you.
The only thing I want more than that is to find some major election shenanigans that they catch.
And then I've got it all.
That's running the table.
That's a full house.
Give it to me all.
But man, I'm happy about these Rupar edits.
All right.
But on the positive side, Kamala Harris did get an endorsement from Bruce Springsteen.
Who referred to her as Kamala.
So that was the good news she had for the week.
Endorsed by an old rock star who didn't really know her name.
So there's that.
Here are some things that Harris said today.
She said that Trump will ban abortions.
Not true.
He said the opposite.
Nationwide.
He said the opposite.
Stop access to birth control.
Not true.
He said the opposite.
Threaten IVF. Not true.
He said he's a huge supporter of IVF once more of it.
And he would follow a project 2025.
Not true.
He's not even related to it.
So Harris has gone just complete lies.
Now, do you think that CNN will report, wow, she just told four gigantic whoppers in a row?
No, they won't.
Of course not.
So Jake Tapper, whenever he makes news, it's never a good thing.
So Jake Tapper is going after RFK Jr.
because Trump said that he might let RFK Jr.
go wild on healthcare in the government in terms of the agencies that are in charge of healthcare.
And Jake has to do...
All of the news hosts...
Are becoming bad actors and actresses?
I think everybody who does news hosting probably at one point wanted to be in school plays and thought, maybe I can be an actor.
But then they got into the news business instead.
But watching Jake...
Try to do the worried look when he talks about RFK Jr.
He does the eyebrows and the wrinkled forehead.
He wants you to know by just the expression that this is a very bad man, this RFK Jr.
And how in the world?
People, look at my forehead.
Don't listen to my words.
Look at my forehead.
Do you see these eyebrows?
These eyebrows tell you you can't trust RFK Jr.
to help your health.
Look at my eyebrows!
So that's funny.
Speaking of elections, according to Jack Montgomery in the National Pulse, the Texas Attorney General is opening a criminal investigation into Dominion Voting Systems.
This is not me saying this.
This is me reading what Jack Montgomery said in the National Polls.
Don't sue me!
Don't sue me!
I don't know what this is about or if there's any data to back it, but it's happening.
Did you see J.D. Vance on Joe Rogan?
Apparently, one of the clips that sound is they were discussing how men who are healthier and have more testosterone are more likely to be conservative.
They actually talked about that.
And they speculated that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg might be a secret Trump supporter.
Because he's built up his body and he's taking martial arts and that that change alone might be enough to change your body chemistry to turn you into a conservative.
And Rogan said, there are very few things that will turn you into a conservative more than martial arts training.
And Vance said, have you seen all these studies that basically connect testosterone levels in young men with conservative politics?
Maybe that's why Democrats want us all to be poor health and overweight, because it means there's going to be more liberals.
If you make people less healthy, they apparently become more politically liberal.
My secret theory is that Zuck is now a Trump supporter, but I can't say it.
I forget which one said that, but they probably both thought it.
So, that brings me back to the cast of the Avengers, who, as Tim Young pointed out, look like they had terminal illnesses.
And who do they support?
Just who you think.
Now, let's pick randomly somebody who's muscular and in good health.
Let's say Dana White.
Who's he supporting?
Oh yeah, Trump.
All right, this is very anecdotal.
It's not based on data, but it's fun.
It's only a few days before the election.
We're not trying to be unbiased today.
RFK Jr.
again has a way with words, and he told the crowd, I guess yesterday, I asked God for 19 years to put me in a position to end the chronic disease epidemic.
And in August, he sent me Donald Trump.
God, he's good.
So good.
You can imagine what the crowd did.
Imagine the pro-Trump crowd when he said that.
That God sent him Donald Trump.
Wow.
But I gotta say, everything about the Trump campaign looks like fate.
Do you see it too?
I can't in my mind imagine him losing the vote.
Now, we'll talk about what will happen, because winning the vote doesn't mean you become president, but it certainly looks like the fate has decided who's going to be president.
I mean, just every signal is in the same direction, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, another thing the RFK Jr.
said was that, quote, the CIA and the neocons wrote Kamala Harris's speech at the Democrat convention.
And I thought, really?
And that's kind of a wild, speculative, not backed by any data kind of thing to say.
Really?
You think the CIA and the neocons wrote her speech at the Democrat convention?
Yeah.
And then I see Mike Benz weigh in on it.
He goes, they literally had CIA director Leon Panetta as a warm-up speaker for Kamala Harris.
And I thought, oh, yeah.
Apparently he's the apex predator of, you know, that world.
And, yeah, that would send a strong signal, wouldn't it?
Strong signal.
According to Harmeet Dhillon, Pennsylvania and Arizona are being accused of some illegal voter registrations, and there's one entity in particular that's apparently getting paid for registering people, and they may have registered people who are not exactly eligible to vote.
So the same organization, I guess, Field Corps, This is paid around $3 million by Arizona Democrats, and they may have collected some voters who are not eligible to vote, is the accusation.
Liz Harrington, talking about Maricopa County, says that the passwords on the Maricopa County's election systems, quote, can be readily determined by unauthorized users with a click of a few keystrokes.
Oh, okay.
Maricopa is like two-thirds of all the votes in Arizona.
Arizona is a critical state.
And the passwords are not secure.
So we've got issues of non-voters on rolls.
We've got issues of some entity collecting non-voters to vote.
We've got issues with passwords that seem to be public.
And we've got some lawsuit against Dominion in Texas.
How many thousands of lawyers do you think are going to be working on election-related claims on both sides?
Thousands.
Thousands.
How many of them want to find nothing?
None.
They all want to find something.
If you put a thousand lawyers into any domain and say, your job is to find problems, do you think they'll find any?
I think they will.
So, let's talk about a few more things.
I'm going to pull a bunch of stories together at the end.
Trump says on homeschooling he wants to give parents $10,000 per year credit, I guess, on their taxes to pay for homeschool and to ensure that they get the same access to stuff like athletic programs and school activities and education trips and more.
Now, some of these last-minute offers seem like they're just buying votes.
So we don't know how many of these might ever actually happen.
But I kind of like it.
I mean, you know, you could have to do something to deal with the national debt.
You can't just give everybody some tax breaks.
So if there's a way to pay for it, I guess Elon Musk's ability to get the budget under control will be tested.
But I'd like it.
Sounds like a good idea.
It's good politically.
Tucker Carlson...
He has a theory about why the deep state hates Trump so much.
And I saw on the George account on X talking about this.
And this is what Tucker said.
He said, that never occurred to me until Trump came that the real reason the deep state hates him is because they are guilty of crimes.
In other words, the people in power can't handle a populist president because the populist president has no bribery or history to keep all the other criminals where they are.
So only a populist with the backing of the public could ever hurt any of the embedded people who are the bad people who have been bad forever.
So they actually think they could go to jail.
So when he said, I'm going to clean the swamp, they basically tried to kill him, in my opinion.
No way to prove it, but I think they tried to kill him.
And that, according to Tucker, the grifters knew the jig was up, and if they let him in, they're in trouble.
And Tucker points out to bolster his point that the deep state people are all criminals.
I'm exaggerating, of course.
They're not all criminals.
But he points out that 8 out of 10 of the richest suburbs in the country are around Washington, D.C., and they don't make anything.
Okay, that tells me everything I need to know.
So the people who are around the most movements of money are also the richest, although they produce nothing.
What else do you need to know?
They have the most millionaires, and they produce nothing except, what is it, $6 trillion a year of your tax money, and then another $2 trillion on top of it that you're on the hook to pay for but isn't really in the tax money.
So $8 trillion a year-ish, $8 or $9 trillion a year, flow through that town, and they're stealing enough of it that they're all living like millionaires and producing nothing.
That's a good point.
All right, let's do an update on the fake news.
Well, we talked about most of these.
Oh, the new fake news is Trump said that, and this is a Rupar, this is one of those taken out of context to change the meaning.
Trump on Liz Cheney, quote, let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her.
Now, if you heard that out of context, which, of course, Rupar himself just did out of context.
It's funny that I named it a Rupar a few years ago.
A Rupar edit is named after somebody named Rupar.
And he is famous for cutting off meaningful parts of quotes so that when you see it out of context, like the fine people hoax, it looks like the opposite of what it was.
So he's done that again, as did a bunch of other Democrats.
They all know the trick now.
So if you saw this alone, wouldn't you be kind of worried about Trump?
Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her.
Doesn't that sound like a call to killer or something?
Here's the actual context.
The actual context was that she's in favor of a lot of wars, but she doesn't have to serve in a war.
So in other words, she's not the one who has nine guns pointed at her.
She's the one who gets to sit at home and tell other people to have nine guns pointed at her.
If she were the one who had the nine guns pointed at her, in the context of a war, she might think differently of war.
Now, is that a threat?
No.
It says that there are soldiers that have nine guns pointed at them.
They would have a different view of war than someone who doesn't have nine guns pointed at them.
Maybe if you did have nine guns pointed at you in the context of war, you'd feel the same as somebody else.
Now, of course, Trump says things that can easily be taken out of context, and you have to say maybe there's a better way to do that.
But, that's the fake news of the day.
But then Liz Cheney weighs in, and what I thought was funny is that they've made up so many hoaxes about Trump now that when they refer to Trump, they can only do it with run-on sentences.
So listen to how long she had to make this sentence, because they have so many hoaxes now.
So Liz Cheney, hitting back, she says, this is how dictators destroy free nations.
They threaten those who speak against them with death.
Of course, that didn't happen.
We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.
That's a lot of stuff.
He wants to be a dictator to destroy free nations.
He wants to kill the people who disagree with them.
He wants the freedom to be a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man.
He wants to be a tyrant.
That's a lot of stuff.
They really should have condensed their fake news down to two or three.
Seven things is just too much.
Anyway, Elon Musk's mother, May Musk, explains why she left the Democratic Party, and this might sound familiar to you.
She said, when I became a U.S. citizen, I leaned Democratic, they seemed like the good kind of people, the good kind of people.
And then she said, I watched CNN, MSNBC, and read the New York Times, believing Republicans were terrible.
Makes sense.
Then she says, but when they started lying about Elon, I realized I needed to question everything.
There it is.
There it is.
Gelman amnesia.
As I teach you often, he was the physicist who realized that when he read stories about physics, he knew they were fake because he was an expert.
But as soon as he read something about, let's say, geopolitical things in another country, he just assumed the news was real.
And that it was just always wrong when he knew it was real, but always right, or at least they were trying to be right, in other domains.
But if you see enough times when it's right every time you know the truth, then you become like May, like May Musk, and you see the pattern, you go, wait a minute, what are the odds that everything about Elon Musk's stories are fake, but all the rest of the news is real?
And then that unlocks the key.
So that's the first way to unlock your cell, your mental cell, is gelman amnesia.
Once you realize that the thing you know about is always wrong, and you can generalize that, then you understand news.
So you need that.
So I'm going to say something about the Ayatollah, and then I'm going to give you my prediction for the outcome of the race, because I know you're all waiting for that.
So apparently the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, their names are too similar.
I'll just call him the supreme leader.
He told officials to prepare for another attack against Israel, according to the New York Times.
Now, I think it's very considerate of the Supreme Leader to plan his attack on Israel a few days before the elections, because it's the only time in the history of the world where Israel will have a free pass to do a decapitation strike and take him out.
Literally the best week of all time.
If they were going to do it.
Now, I'm not saying they should.
I'm not even predicting they will.
I'm simply saying that if I were the supreme leader in Iran, and it were a few days before the American election, which is going to take all of our attention, I would be really worried that if Israel had the ability to do a decapitation strike and take out the supreme leader, that that would be exactly the time to do it.
Because America, we're just not going to be interested.
We will be completely uninterested in Israel for a few days, and maybe longer, depending on what happens.
So, I'm not predicting it, and I'm not recommending it, but am I wrong that there would never be another week that would be a better time to do it?
Do you see that too?
Because to me, it's just sort of screaming out, like, well, if you're going to do it, this would be the week to do it.
I'm not saying you should.
I don't recommend it.
But it would be the week to do it.
All right, let me give you my prediction.
I believe that Trump will win the most votes.
I believe he will win the popular vote.
I believe he will win at least five out of seven, maybe seven out of seven, of the swing states.
I do not believe that he will be given the victory.
I believe that there will be shenanigans and I believe that there will be thousands of claims of fraud.
Thousands.
Now, will those thousands be real?
Probably not most of them.
I would bet that almost all, almost all the claims will be fake and that there are small problems or they might be real problems, but it's, you know, a dozen votes, doesn't change anything.
So I think there will be so many claims that And so many of them will have sworn affidavits and maybe video, like really good evidence that there's something going on that may actually turn out not to be criminal after all.
But on the surface, you're going to see pictures and videos and signed affidavits and lawyers that look like it's the most rigged, faked election ever.
But here's the thing.
It's going to be both directions.
If Trump gets the most votes, the Democrats are going to say, hey, you must have cheated, and vice versa.
So they're both going to say that the other one cheated wherever the other one did well.
But because of the timing of things, and because we have to have our president certified by January 6th, and it's a holiday in between, There isn't really any chance that the courts could work out all these problems.
So what are they going to do?
If you have thousands of credible claims and the Constitution says, we don't care, on January 6th you're going to certify a president.
What do you do?
Well, if you're the Democrats, here's what you do.
You have the press cover for whatever you want to do.
So the press would say the election is fake, you know, these numbers can't be real.
Trump is an insurrectionist, so even though he had got the most votes, let's say the Democrats won the House by one vote, they decide to make him ineligible.
Or let's say the vice president just doesn't sign the, because it would be Harris, let's say she doesn't certify, even though the law says now they changed the law so that she has to certify no matter what.
So I think that we will have unsolvable problems.
And then what are you going to do?
So I think that the left has the power to change the entire mental process of the country with fake news.
I believe they've done it before.
So I believe they can make any claim whatsoever.
I do also believe that if Trump wins, or if he gets the most votes, that there will be street protests and that they will be organized by our own government.
And it will be basically a coup attempt at that point.
At that point, I think it would just be full coup attempt.
I think there's a chance they would take another shot at him.
There might be another assassination attempt.
But here's the thing.
I don't expect the courts are going to be helpful because they won't have time and they won't be standing.
And a lot of the cases, they just won't have enough votes that make the difference.
Just way too hard.
Not enough time.
So there'll be thousands of claims.
So the country will not believe whoever wins.
But the news will form a narrative of who won.
And eventually they will be able to sell that narrative and they will punish people who disagree with it.
We know they can do it because they're doing it right now.
They're punishing the January 6th people for disagreeing.
So if you can put people in jail for disagreeing, and they can, you can take people off of platforms for saying things that are false, and you can.
You can jail people for whatever claims you want, and you can.
I don't see how Trump can become president.
Because if you can wear the panda outfit, as Nicole says, right out front, You're not worried about getting caught for anything, right?
Now, I don't know if that panda thing is real.
I'm just using it as my hyperbolic example.
But I think we're going to have a...
Trump get the most votes.
I think that we don't know who the president will be, and I don't think we'll have an answer by January 6th.
I do think the Supreme Court will make the decision...
But that will be the final straw for the Democrats to say the Supreme Court is illegitimate.
And at that point, they can put enough people in the streets to basically overrule the government, the law, and anything they want.
So here's what I think.
I would get some food supplies, because there could be some disruptions in the supply chain.
So I'd put in a little food.
I'd get a little extra water.
If you've got a backup generator or battery, make sure that's working.
Get it all charged up.
Now, I don't expect the end of the world.
I think we're a self-correcting nation.
And it might take a month, but we'll work it out.
One way or the other, it'll get worked out.
But we might have some disruptions in our daily life.
I don't think the odds are high.
I give it a 20% chance that electricity will go off in my state.
But, you know, that could be just because we're so poorly managed.
So my prediction is that we don't have an answer by January 6th.
So I think I'm the only one predicting nobody wins.
We will have a president.
So, there will be a peaceful transfer.
So, I do predict a peaceful transfer, but we're not going to know by January 6th.
I don't think there's any chance of it.
There is a possibility it's a do-over.
I wouldn't rule out a do-over, because if it comes down to, let's say, two counties, let's say there are a thousand claims that But only two of them are big enough that they would have changed the election.
Let's say there's one big claim in Maricopa, and let's say there's one big claim in Pennsylvania.
And if it were found that those two claims were valid, then it would reverse it.
Under that condition, You could imagine that the Supreme Court would hit it with a ton of bricks, and everybody would bring every resource to really do a month of work, what would normally take a year.
Could be done.
Could be done.
And the very best outcome, the outcome that I would like more than any other, is not just that Trump gets elected.
I'd love that.
I want him to get elected at the same time he proves our election system is rigged.
I want him to have both.
I want his third act to be the greatest third act of all time.
And unless he gets victory on proving the election was also rigged in 2020, because if you prove that it was rigged this year, hypothetically, people would accept that it was rigged before.
They wouldn't even need to see the evidence.
And people are watching this time.
So I'd say the odds of a credible claim in Maricopa, and at least one more credible claim, it doesn't have to be in Pennsylvania, but it could, if it focused on just maybe two of them, And they can put enough attention on them that gets you everything.
It gets you Trump.
It gets you RFK Jr.
It gets you Elon Musk.
It gets you Tulsi.
It gets you Vivek.
It gets you me.
And it gets you the third act and maybe fixing the election system forever.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the following proposition.
There's a 20% chance it's going to get a little ugly, but we'll get through it.
You won't die.
We'll get through it.
We're gonna yell and we're gonna scream and we're gonna question things and we're gonna tear things up.
But if there's one thing we do well in this country, and I'm always proud of America, we can tear shit down really well.
If we need to tear down the election system to fix it, We'll do it.
We're just not there yet.
We just need to be convinced and be on the same page.
If what this election gives us is the certainty that the election system was not designed with the integrity it needed to be, and I'm sure it's not, but if we can all get on that page and all agree that we either need to go back to paper ballots or do something drastic, the golden age will be unlocked.
And we're almost there.
We're almost there.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that we've been in a dark, dark tunnel for several years.
The pandemic didn't do us well, and things didn't look so great during the Biden administration.
But everything you need is waiting for you.
It's waiting for you.
You gotta vote.
You gotta get your neighbor to vote.
All you secret Trump supporters, it's time.
It's time.
It's time to do it.
And if we can save the country...
And I think we can.
It's this week.
And what happens for the next few weeks after that.
But this is the beginning of it.
So this is a real test.
America, can you do it?
Are you still America?
Do you still have enough testosterone left?
Do you still have enough fight left?
Do you still have enough bravery?
Do you have the guts?
Do you have the duty?
Do you have the responsibility?
I think you do.
And so on that message...
I'm going to kick off your weekend.
I'm going to say a few words to the people on Locals, the subscribers.
And for the rest of you, I've enjoyed this time together as I always do.
So if you're on X or Rumble or YouTube, I'll see you tomorrow.
