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, Election Fraud Claims, Pre-Election Polls Kari Lake, Top 1% American Wealth, Daniel Penny Case, Jaime Raskin, Jake Tapper Fact-Checks, Trumps Jewish & Muslim Support, Nina Jankowicz, Amish Voters, Scott Presler Persuasion Expertise, National Guard Election Activation, Israel Iran Conflict, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilizations.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
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 cuppa mug, a glass of tank of chalice, a canteen, a jug of flask, a vessel of the kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
it's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen now i'll bet you all voted for that Am I right?
All right.
First we have some news, then we're going to get to all the fun political stuff.
But did you know that according to IFL Science, Iceland could be the first nation to get solar power from space by 2030?
They're going to put a big-ass satellite up there with solar cells.
And they're going to collect all that electricity up there because there are no clouds.
There are no clouds there at all.
Whereas you could not put them on the ground in Iceland because of all the clouds.
But the satellite will gather up all the electricity and it will send it down to Iceland with some kind of radio waves.
And those radio waves are a specific kind that can be turned into electricity.
So how about that?
Now, if they do it wrong, of course, the risk is that Iceland will melt and fall into the sea.
But until 2030, Iceland would be a good place to visit, except for the volcanoes.
So sometime between the volcanoes and the satellite that melts the entire country, good time to visit.
All right.
I'm going to ask you some questions that science has already answered.
And I want to see if you're as smart a science.
Could these people have skipped the sciencing and just asked you?
Here's the question.
Do you believe that being kind can make you look more attractive?
Do you think that kind people appear more attractive?
Go.
And the answer is yes.
You knew that without even doing a study.
I knew that without a study because it's really my secret.
I know you don't believe this.
I swear this is true.
I'm going to tell you something that you're going to resist, but I promise you, I promise you this is the truth.
It's not going to seem true, but it's true.
In reality, I'm not a very attractive man.
No, I know, I know.
Seriously, seriously, I'm not.
But because of my kindness, I appear to you as beautiful.
But I promise you, I'm not attractive.
It's an illusion that I put together with my kindness using science.
All right, here's the next question from Yale University.
They did a little study.
They wanted to find out if political professionals are any better than the general public In predicting which kind of messages will persuade people.
So do you think that there is such a thing as political professionals who can tell you what a good message is versus a bad message?
Yes or no?
Can the political professionals do better than the...
Okay, it's kind of a trick because you know I wouldn't even ask the question if the political professionals did better.
Would we even be talking about it if the political professionals did better than amateurs?
Do you think that would be a top story?
Oh, it looks like people who practice things do better.
Glad I told you.
No.
It turns out that the political pros, according to the Yale University, didn't know better.
Then ordinary people when it came to figuring out what messages were the most persuasive.
But is there something they should have studied instead?
They did political prose and they did ordinary voters and they found that neither of them are any good at all at knowing what a good persuasive message would be.
Huh.
If I were designing that study, maybe I would have added a third group.
Hypnotists.
Do you think hypnotists would not do any better than political professionals or laypeople in figuring out what is persuasive?
They didn't do the study, but...
They don't really need to.
Yes, a good hypnotist, on average, wouldn't be every hypnotist, but a hypnotist would in fact be better at knowing what would persuade.
But political professionals, I do observe, Don't seem to know their own jobs.
One of the reasons that I so arrogantly inserted myself into the political conversation in America is that I looked at what the professionals were saying, and I thought, well, I could do better than that.
That's the same reason I became a cartoonist.
When I was very young, I would open the comics, I'd read all the comics, And I think to myself, is it my imagination or these comics suck?
You know, they're well drawn, but they're not really funny.
And I thought to myself, I wonder if I can do better than that on the first try.
And then Dilbert was born.
And then one day I said, I think I should talk about politics.
Next thing you know, here I am.
Anyway.
All right, here's your next one.
According to The Hill, now I only read the headline on this one, so I didn't read too much of the details, but I got the general idea.
So Ozempic, the weight loss drug, seems to also have a correlation with helping people who have knee pain from osteoarthritis.
So it turns out that unexpectedly, that people who are on Ozempic Not only did they lose weight, we knew about that, but they also had much less knee pain.
So now they're thinking that the Ozempic is good for your knee pain.
Does that sound right to you?
All right, let me ask you this.
If nobody had ever done a study on this, and I were to ask you, hey, I want to save some money on a study, Do you think if I gave people a weight loss drug that absolutely totally works and they lost a bunch of weight, yes or no, their knee pain would be reduced?
And I'd be like, I don't know.
How much weight do they lose?
Oh, a lot.
A lot.
I mean, people are losing 80 pounds.
You know, some people are losing 60, 100 pounds.
I'm like, would that make your knee pain less?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes.
I'm going to say yes.
And the answer is yes.
Yes, it does.
It does.
So that's your science working for you.
According to SciPost, people who have higher narcissism are linked to better mental health.
So the more narcissistic you are, the less depressed and anxious you are, and the less stress you have.
Apparently, if you're a narcissist, you transfer all of your depression, anxiety, and stress to the people you're dealing with, and it offloads it from you.
Now, did we need to do a study on this?
Did you need to do a study to find that the narcissists seem happier than you?
No!
No!
The narcissists always look happier than you.
Have you ever seen Trump look unhappy?
That fucker got shot in the head, and he still looks happy.
Of course narcissists seem happier than you.
You didn't have to study that.
All right, here's the funniest story of the day.
There was a story...
That some whistleblower is saying that the United States has a UAP recovery program, that the government has a program where they've actually recovered UFOs.
And the entire news cycle for that was 10 minutes.
So the funny part is not the story.
The funny part is that there could be a news story That we would all see that says our government is recovering advanced alien spacecrafts.
And we just look at it and go, eh.
The trouble is it came too close to the election.
It's too on the nose.
You got to do that shit six months before the election and then we might believe it.
You put it right on the week of the election.
There's not a single person in the country that thought it was real.
Yeah.
As soon as you juxtaposed that too close to the election, everybody looked at it and said, nah, I don't think so.
So that was funny.
All right, here's another one.
Stanford University did a study on partisanship versus the truth.
So they wanted to see if...
If the public at large would put partisanship over truth when consuming news, in other words, would being on a team make you accept a partisan truth, in other words, something that isn't true, over something that was true?
What do you think?
Do you think when people join a team that they value what the team says is true over what seems obviously true?
Do you think they needed to do a study?
Do you think they could have just asked me, since I say about once a week for the last 10 years, that if you're on a team, you're going to vote for them, whether your team is bad as you're crazy or not?
No, you didn't have to study this, people.
I could have answered this quite definitively.
But here's the funniest part.
Let's see if you picked up on this.
This is a study in which the researchers were trying to give people true facts, presumably about, you know, the news and life in general, true facts, and then they were going to give them some not true facts, and then they were going to see if they could sort them out and who could sort them out better.
Do you see anything wrong with that?
Do you see any problem with the study design?
It means the researchers believed they could tell what was true.
That's not a thing.
We don't have an objective source of truth.
I don't know that you can study that.
Because if it was anything from the real world, there's no objective truth.
So they wouldn't know who was right or who wasn't wrong.
They would have no way to know.
Because they wouldn't know if they were being affected the same way everybody else is being affected.
But if they didn't use the real world for their test, and I don't know what they did, but if they used an artificial statement and some artificial false thing, I think people would have detected that it was artificial.
So you wouldn't get an actual test.
So I think they should have just talked to me about that.
Save some time.
All right, I would like to give you a summary.
Of all the stories that I'm hearing about the election.
This will be a jumble of just words and things that are coming out.
Something about the drop box and then the post office should have mailed the thing, but they didn't say the thing.
And then the court, they ruled on the thing.
they overruled the thing that was the thing, but then they re-ruled it back, but they might change that because that might be challenged.
But that might only be 50 ballots, but it could be as many as 500.
There's some people that saw some things that happened with boxes, but maybe they didn't see it.
There are some people who say that the court should be involved in the thing, the voting, the people, the address is not matching the voter rolls. - Okay, I have no idea what's going on with the election.
All I know is that the number of reported irregularities, It's very high.
And they're all over the place.
And, you know, on first hearing, they sound credible.
Right?
So there's one, you know, one says somebody dropped a bunch of ballots in a box.
Sounds credible.
But it could very easily be it was just their relatives.
And everything's fine.
So, you know, you're going to have a lot of claims.
And remember my rule.
The rule is this.
99% of the claims won't be true.
They will be false.
Guaranteed, 99% of all the election fraud claims won't be true.
What we don't know about is the 1%.
And I'm not saying that the 1% will be true.
I'm saying that you could be pretty sure that 99% won't be.
It's just that if there were any true ones in the mix...
You wouldn't know, which is a problem.
So if the number of potential, and this is just a hypothetical talk, speculative, if there were real irregularities, they would be so buried with the fake ones that no legal system could sort it out before a president is picked.
So, we might be drowning in our own good luck, meaning that we've got these thousands of election observers, a lot of them are attorneys, they're going to find stuff, or at least they're going to see things that they don't understand, and then they're going to say, hmm, I don't understand what I just saw, like why did that box get moved over there, and who unlocked it?
So they're going to write it up, and maybe it was a nothing.
And that's going to take as much time as something that might have been real.
So I think the number of observers guarantees that the number of claims will far exceed the system's ability to process them before we have to have a president, January 6th.
So this is why I reiterate my prediction.
We will not have chosen a president by January 6th because the legal system will be all gummed up and there will be protests on the streets and people will be threatening every possible thing you can threaten.
So, and I think people will be going to jail by then.
I think people will get out of line.
People will do some violent things that I do not recommend.
Don't do anything violent.
But here's the thing.
We'll figure it out.
I think we're very close to what I would call the very best, best, best case scenario.
But it doesn't have to go that way.
It could go off the rails.
So one of the possibilities is America just goes off the rails.
If I had to put a percentage on it, I'd say 20%, 10% maybe.
So there's a real risk.
America doesn't run into too many 10% risks of going off the rails.
It's pretty unusual.
So there's a real risk.
But 90% is that we're going to find massive election fraud.
Trump will be proved right that in 2024 there was enough fraud that any smart person will say, oh, damn, it must have been there in 2020.
I think that's where we're heading very fast.
I think that so many watchers will find so many things that it will look like 2020 must have been rigged because you couldn't have this many irregularities in 2024 unless they were also there before.
We just weren't looking for them.
So, best case scenario.
Best case scenario, Trump wins after a protracted fight, and he proves that he was right about the election being rigged in the first place.
That's the highest win.
You can't win harder than that.
If you're going to make a list of what's the hardest you could win, well, it would be that.
It would be that.
So, let's see.
Yeah, we've got misleading voter information sent out.
All kinds of claims.
Rasmussen polling, the Rasmussen reports, says they have done their final poll for the election.
So there will be no updates from Rasmussen.
This is their final poll.
Now, why is that important?
It's important because Rasmussen has been pretty close in the last several elections.
So they're top five, typically.
And here's what their final poll is.
And this is for the whole country.
So this would be the popular vote.
You ready for this?
Trump up three nationally.
Do you know what that means?
If Trump is up three nationally...
That won't just be a landslide.
It could be the biggest one we've ever seen.
Maybe.
But there's also a possibility that polling is wonky this year.
And I think Rasmussen would admit that as well.
That the pollsters are very...
They're very nervous this time, because they think that people lie into them, and they probably are.
And it's just difficult to get people to answer.
But if I were a Democrat, and I were on the Harris team, do you know what is the last thing I would want to hear?
Dead last.
Rasmussen says Trump is up three nationally.
A few days before the election.
There's nothing worse than that.
You can feel the dagger halfway in.
Like, it's not all the way in, but it's like...
You know, there's like three more pushes.
But Rasmussen up three, two days before election.
Up three nationally.
Now remember, Trump could win a landslide being behind nationally.
If he's ahead nationally, All right.
In Arizona, there is some question about the veracity of the polling.
And I won't get into the details, but there's some thought that the polls have been just outrageously rigged.
And that would be important, not just for Trump, but for especially Carrie Lake.
Because polls had been showing that Trump might win, but that Carrie Lake was kind of far behind her challenger, whose name is Ruben Gallego.
However, when things get close to the actual election, do you remember what happens?
That's when the fake polls stop faking.
Because you can always say, well, a month ago, that's what it was.
But since we didn't vote, we can't prove we were right or wrong, but we say a month ago we were right too.
Once you have the vote, you no longer can argue that your poll was right if it doesn't match the vote.
So at that last minute, the polls are going to look the most accurate they'll ever look.
And here's what's new.
The latest data orbital poll put...
Kerry Lake taking a slim lead over Ruben Gallego, and President Trump overtaking Harris with a massive 7.8% lead.
And, yeah.
If Trump is up 7.8, and Kerry Lake has a narrow lead in the polling, It's looking like a good day for Kerry Lake.
Now, of course, we don't know which polls are more reliable than other polls, and, you know, I haven't heard of some of these.
But what you would expect is if the polls used to be rigged, and there's certainly some good, there's good, let's say the reporting on that suggests that they are.
You would see that this would be the most accurate poll today, because it's the closest to the election.
And then suddenly, for the first time, Carrie Lake's ahead.
Maybe she was always ahead.
Maybe the polls were just trying to push the fundraising in one direction.
So we don't know what's going to happen.
Still too close to call, but...
Might be a good day.
Coming up.
All right, if you'd like to know how powerful is brainwashing, here's one of those natural experiments.
There's an experiment in the wild, meaning that it wasn't an experiment on brainwashing, but it accidentally shows you how powerful it is.
So according to Axios Vibes, They did a little poll about different ages of voters and whether people at different ages trust or don't trust voting machines, they call it ballot machines, more than human counting.
So it turns out that boomers, they trust voting machines, 68% of them would trust a machine over a human counting.
So if you're elderly, you're thinking those voting machines are better than people.
If you're a millennial and you were born and raised and steeped in technology, only half of them, half of millennials, believe that the ballot machines are better than human counting.
Now, when I told you this was a natural test about brainwashing, here's what I mean.
There are very few situations where you can know for sure what's right.
Because we're not that smart, right?
When I look at a poll of what do you think is right, I usually have a strong opinion, but I'm also at the same time, I think, but it's an opinion.
Like, it could be wrong.
But when it comes to voting machines and whether or not you should trust them more than human counting, That's actually something that I don't think is an opinion.
Because if it's human counting, you have more than one person watching.
So the odds of that going wrong, especially since you could recount, is pretty low.
Because the person watching can just find the errors or demand a recount.
But if you have a machine, things go into the black box and you and I don't know what kind of controls they have.
And if they said they have great controls, you wouldn't know if that's true.
If they said nobody could ever hack us, you'd say, really?
It's the only machine in the world that can't be hacked.
And they say, nope, we're not even connected to the internet.
And then you say, but do human beings have access to them?
Well, yes, they do.
Well, then what's the difference if they're attached to the internet?
Because a human can just stick a card in there and reprogram, right?
Well, but nobody has said that, or nobody's been caught.
To which I say, but you don't know if anybody's done anything.
It's just not knowable.
We have a system that's designed to To make sure you don't know.
Now, that tells you how powerful brainwashing is.
That even half of millennials who are more educated about the vulnerabilities of technology, even half of them think that they would trust the machine more than the person.
Now, if half of them had said, oh, I think the machines will be faster, well, that would be an opinion that maybe is wrong.
They would just be less experienced about what really happens.
But if you say you trust the machine more than a person, more than two people, because it would be two people looking at, I don't know, that feels more like brainwashing.
Because I don't know how your common sense could ever get you to the point of trusting the machine over a person.
I remember when ATMs were first rolled out.
I was working at Crocker Bank in San Francisco.
We were one of the first banks in the country to have ATMs.
So we also had to deal with the psychology of the customer.
Do you know what the biggest problem with ATMs was?
It wasn't the technology.
It wasn't the cost.
It wasn't the implementation.
It was older people wouldn't trust the machine versus the teller.
Because I think if a teller makes a mistake, there are two of us watching and it's easier to catch.
But if the machine gives you less money than it says, What are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
If the machine says, there, I just gave you your $100, but it only gave you $20, all the old people were like, oh hell, what are we going to do?
Now the answer turned out to be ridiculously simple.
The bank just backs the customer most of the time.
And they've got video.
So all the machines have video, so you can see for sure.
But for the small stuff, If you went in and said, I asked for $40, but your ATM only gave me $20, and they wanted to make a big deal about it, maybe for some reason the video didn't work, the bank would just give you $20, the extra $20, because they're not going to fight for $20.
So it turns out that this seemed like a big problem.
Well, it was not really any problem.
Nobody's really had any major ATM problems.
So you can see that the trust in machines is not automatic.
And if people are, if two-thirds of boomers are trusting these ballot machines, this suggests that that's a brainwashing operation and not so much because they thought about it or that it matches their experience in life.
Well, the top 1% of Americans, according to unusual whales on X, top 1% of Americans, households hold 30% of U.S. wealth.
A massive $44.6 trillion.
Now, on one hand, that sounds pretty bad that 1% own that much wealth.
On the other hand, whenever the news talks about economics, they get so much wrong that I feel like I have to add at least this clarification.
Billionaires technically have billions of dollars, but it's not in a mattress.
When I see stories like this, I think, well, they're keeping it in a mattress, right?
So nobody else can get to it or have any benefits from it.
No, it's employed.
Their money is employed.
It's invested.
It's either in the business that's operating, it's in stocks that are boosted by their ownership, it's in banks where the bank can then lend it out.
If you didn't have people who had more money than they needed to spend, you wouldn't have much of a country.
You need to have some people, and ideally lots of them, who have so much more money Here's why.
If you told me, Scott, you're doing better than just getting by.
You are saving a little extra money.
So you're saving 10% of your paycheck every year, and you're doing good.
You've saved up $100,000 in your retirement account, and it's growing 10% a year.
That's not enough for me to invest in a startup.
Are you kidding?
I'd be like, oh my God, I'm going to need every penny.
I'm not going to take a chance on a startup.
But if you give me $100 billion and say, here's $100 billion, I'm going to say, what the hell am I going to do with $100 billion?
If I tried to consume all day long the most expensive things a person can consume, I wouldn't even get close to that.
So what does the world need to go to Mars?
So that's how you get Mars.
You don't get Mars unless you also have 1% of the top Americans own 30% of the wealth.
You don't get Mars.
And there's probably a whole bunch of things you don't get because you're not going to get the big crazy investments that sometimes work out.
You need somebody to be crazy dumb.
How do you think Uber got started?
It was just a whole bunch of rich people who could put in massive amounts of money because they had it.
And then that one works out.
They don't all work out.
So I think that when we look at how much the rich people own, as someone with an economics background, I say, ah, that kills me.
I know it's unfair, and I do understand the argument.
It's just that the whole system depends on our smartest people having the most money.
You don't want to take the money away from the best investors and give it to the people who are buying cigarettes and wine.
Now, if they need healthcare and food, well then, yes, you've got to do something about that.
But you don't want the smartest people not to be making the decisions.
You want Elon Musk to have a trillion dollars.
Well, here's an obvious example.
Do you think the world would be better off if Elon Musk had his $250 billion, whatever he's worth, or do you think the world would be better off if he had half a trillion?
Well, what is he doing with this money?
Has he spent it on his big mansion?
I don't believe he has one.
Has he spent it with gold-encrusted candy or something?
I don't know.
Whatever rich people do.
No.
He's building new businesses.
He's putting satellites up.
He's going into space.
He would do more of that.
So we have to keep it in perspective.
Here's potentially some good news in the Daniel Penny case, and I can't believe that the public is just finding this out.
So his trial started, and now we have learned that Neely, the person who died tragically, he was the erratic guy who was threatening people on the subway, and Daniel Penny put him in a chokehold, and he died soon after.
But here's what we didn't know.
When police arrived, he was still alive.
And he was already in a recovery hold.
In other words, the way he was being restrained when police arrived was not in a way that would be dangerous.
He had already released the more dangerous hold for a less, you know, more of a recovery hold, they call it.
And he was breathing and his heart was beating when police came there.
Police, instead of giving him mouth-to-mouth because, quote, he seemed like a drug user, So they gave him Narcan instead.
So Narcan as if it were an opioid overdose.
Probably it wasn't, because the Narcan would have worked otherwise.
But we will need to find out more about what he actually died from.
But if you tell me that the police arrived when he was alive, and they administered what appears to be the wrong kind of first aid, is Daniel Penny going to be liable for anything?
This feels like one of those situations where the criminal case will release him and then the family will sue him and ruin his life.
Because they could probably get a majority, which is all you need for a lawsuit, to say, oh yeah, the majority thinks you probably did something wrong, so you need to give us a billion dollars that you'll never have.
So you'll never be able to have a real job or make money or take care of a family.
Probably.
But the criminal trial...
I don't know that you could get 12 people, of which certainly there will be a few people who want more Daniel Pennies and not fewer of them.
I mean, could you really get 12 people?
12 Americans?
And not one of them wants more Daniel pennies.
You know what I mean?
Because I want more Daniel pennies.
If you can give me 100 Daniel pennies, I will take everyone.
Everyone.
Even if they do this.
Even if every one of them was involved in this.
Because it doesn't look like he killed them.
It looks like what he did was...
The very minimum that seems to have been proved...
Is that Daniel Penny knew where the line was and didn't cross it.
That's what it looks like.
It looks like he knew where the line was, what would be a deadly force, and he did not use it.
And then the fact that he had already loosened to a recovery mode before the police got there, and there were other people around, you know, helping to...
It certainly shows that his intention was protection, both protection of the people in the car Protection of himself, obviously, but also protecting the perp because he put him in a protective mode once the danger had passed.
If this guy gets put in jail for this, I'm going to have a real problem with it.
Because it looks like racism.
Let's be honest.
It just looks like racism against white guys.
And I'd like to see Daniel Penny get out.
I'd like to see President Trump get in.
And I'd like to see a lot of things go our way this week.
Meanwhile, Jamie Raskin was on Bill Maher's show.
Eric Abinanti watched the show, so I didn't have to.
And he reports some of the things that happened.
Saw some clips.
And Bill Maher asked Raskin if he was worried that Trump would go after his enemies.
And Maher said to Raskin, you yourself might be in trouble.
You were the lead impeachment manager.
How big an a-hole do you have to be where they go after you after you left the job of being that person, I guess?
And here's my answer to that.
You may have heard this before.
No one is above the law.
Why are they so afraid?
Why are they so afraid?
No one's above the law and no one is suggesting that anything outside the law happen.
Are there some Republicans who are suggesting let's do something outside the legal process?
I've never heard that.
I've never heard a single person suggest we do something outside the legal process.
So why would anybody would be worried?
It seems to signal some indication of guilt.
Now, I can't read minds, but I know if you said to me, Scott, are you worried about being arrested for murdering that guy that died in the hands of Daniel Penny?
I'd say, well, no, I wasn't even there.
How could a legal process put me in jail when I literally wasn't even in the state and it's easy to prove?
So no, not worried.
But Jamie Raskin seems to be worried.
What's he worried about?
If he didn't break any crimes, I don't know any Republican that would be in favor of the legal process being used against him.
I mean, it's a big world, so there's somebody who's in favor of everything.
But I don't know anybody.
I wouldn't be in favor of it.
If I see the legal system being pushed by Republicans to do some bullshit against Democrats, I'm going to be really loud about it.
Because it's not just about Trump.
It's just we can't have a country if we're law-faring our leaders.
Just can't do it.
So no, Republicans, I think, the good ones, are not anywhere near the page where they would want to punish anybody just for revenge.
But if the law was broken, no one's above the law.
But here's the best part.
Bill Maher asked Raskin if he would accept the results of the election.
What have I been saying?
I've been saying, can somebody please do your fucking job as a reporter and ask a ranking Democrat, will you accept the results of the election if it doesn't look legitimate to you?
Because that's what Trump did.
He didn't accept it when it didn't look legitimate to him.
So the question has to be, Jamie Raskin, will you accept the result if it doesn't look legitimate to you?
Do you know what he said?
No.
He said no.
He said if it looked like there was some, I'm paraphrasing, but if he said it looks like there's some shenanigans, and it's sort of clear that there's some shenanigans, then no, of course I would not accept that.
There it is.
That's it.
We're done.
That's the whole election.
January 6th was the only thing they were hanging their hat on.
If by the end of Monday at least the Republican press hasn't made this the biggest story, then they're pretty incompetent.
This is the biggest story.
This is everything Trump wants.
Trump just won January 6th.
He won it in a knockout.
It's a knockout.
Jamie Raskin just said he'd do the same thing Trump would do.
He said it on live TV. He said it clearly.
He said it unambiguously.
There was no gray area.
He said if it doesn't look real, he's not going to accept it.
Exactly what Trump did.
Now, you might say, but who gets to decide whether it looks real enough?
And the answer is we all do.
We all get to decide if it looks real enough.
Jamie Raskin's going to make his decision, and he gets to do that.
Trump made his decision.
He gets to do that.
I made my decision.
I get to do that.
There's nobody above us for our opinions, right?
Nobody above us.
So if the public doesn't like the result, apparently Jamie Raskin and Trump are on the same page, that you shouldn't accept it.
This is the biggest news of the year, because it came from Jamie Raskin, and it just completely frees Trump from all these allegations.
Now, only if the Republican-leaning press knows how to handle it.
If they let this go, and the day goes by, and tomorrow goes by, and nobody mentioned that the whole January 6th narrative completely fell apart.
Completely.
Well, then I'd be pretty disappointed.
But this should be the end of it.
This should be a resounding Trump victory after this.
We'll see.
And this is also something...
That I was wondering about.
So the Democrats were doing that saving democracy message.
And one of the guests on Bill Maher also was doing, well, you know, we should worry about the important things like saving democracy.
To which I thought, at what point was an average person worried about losing democracy?
They were worried about paying for gas and college and stuff like that.
But that was never real.
The whole saving democracy thing.
And once you hear Jamie Raskin say that he would not accept an election that looks sketchy to him, we can throw away this whole democracy's at risk, too.
That's also gone.
That's gone.
Because if you get to decide what democracy looks like and it's just your opinion, well, democracy's already gone.
So I don't think it ever made sense that democracy was at risk, and I don't think the public bought that, but some percentage, 25% probably bought it.
Compliments to Bill Maher, because he found he was annoyed, and he should have been, That his team was trying to turn that Liz Cheney thing into saying that Trump wanted her to be shot by a firing squad.
Now, that didn't happen.
The context was he said she was a war hawk, and she's sending people to have guns pointed at them, but she wouldn't love it if it happened to her.
So, of course, it was all fake news.
So, Bill Maher, to his credit, called it down unambiguously, unambiguously as fake news.
Now, I like that, because, you know, you could imagine that he could have said something like, well, you know, in the context of the other things he said, stuff like that.
One of the other guests tried that, and it just sounded stupid.
But he was just unambiguously saying, stop just lying about stuff.
It's not helping anything.
That my own team is making such an obvious lie.
Now, I like that.
He also mocked Kamala Harris for going to the black barbershop.
He had a good joke about that.
But I'd like to...
I'd like to return the favor.
So, Bill Mara, thank you for standing up for honesty, even if your team is, you know, hurt by it.
But I heard a story yesterday that I didn't believe, so I didn't look into it, and then I did look into it, and then I found out, oh, that's why I didn't believe it.
It was so stupid that obviously it was fake.
So there's a story that Tim Walz He insulted Elon Musk by calling him gay in public.
First of all, as Elon Musk is fast to point out, it's not an insult to be called gay.
It's 2024, people.
It's just not an insult.
Musk had exactly the right answer.
He's like, that's not an insult.
That would be a statement of something that's either true or false.
That's all it is.
And that's the good news.
It's the good news that in 2024, smart people can say, that's not an insult.
But then I listened to what Walt said, and what he said was, he meant to say guy, but he slurred it and said gay.
And then when he realized it came out as gay instead of guy, he joked and said, Michigan knows what that word means.
And then Republicans took Michigan Knows What That Word Means to suggest that he was suggesting that it was an insult to be called gay.
Nobody in the world believes that Tim Walsh thinks it's an insult to be called gay.
Can we be a little bit realistic?
No, he did not say that Michigan thinks that being gay is bad.
It's the opposite.
Michigan knows what that word means.
It means that people in Michigan are completely okay with gay.
They know what it means.
It's just nothing.
There's nothing to it.
He laughed it off.
This is not a real thing.
He did not call anybody gay, and he definitely didn't think there was anything wrong with being gay.
That didn't happen.
So, I do this in the spirit of...
Bill Maher was willing to say his team was lying.
I think this is Republicans just lying.
Let's see.
And even Jake Tapper, Breitbart News is reporting this, Jake Tapper fact-checked Harris for some of her lies, which you would think, oh, that's a good sign for CNN, but I'm going to tell you it's not in a moment.
But here's what he said.
He said they had two tiny little fact-checks because Harris said, quote, did everyone hear that Trump said yesterday that he would do what he wants?
Quote, and here's what I'm going to Quote, do.
Whether the women like it or not.
So Harris is saying he's going to do things to women whether they like it or not.
And then she says, we must vote.
This is the thing, you know?
There's a saying that you have to listen to people when they tell you who they are.
And this is not the first time he has told us who he is.
He does not believe women should have the agency and authority to make decisions about their own bodies.
So even Jake Tapper couldn't take that.
He goes, two tiny little fact checks.
First of all, she keeps referring to the Trump proposal on tariffs as a sales tax.
It's not a sales tax.
You can dispute tariffs, but not whether it's a sales tax.
And the second thing is when Trump said he was going to do something for women, whether they like it or not, he was talking about protecting women.
And certainly you can take issue with language, but he wasn't saying he was just going to do whatever he wanted.
Regardless, he was going to protect him.
Now, you would say to yourself, hey, that's a good sign.
That's CNN doing a real fact check on Kamala Harris.
Is it?
I'm going to go the opposite direction.
I think this is CNN protecting himself so they can say, hey, we did a fact check.
But what they don't do is the real ones.
So they don't do January 6th was not a real insurrection.
They don't do the fine people hoax was a hoax.
They don't do the drinking bleach that was a hoax.
They don't do the other 20 hoaxes.
No, they'll fact check these little ones that you knew were not true because you knew they were not true.
But if you can't tell if it's true, well, they're going to sell it to you as true if it's good for them.
So don't take this as good news.
Take this as covering their ass in case somebody says, but you've never fact-checked the other side.
Well, yeah, we did.
We said that tariffs are not a sales tax.
You knew that.
We all knew it.
All right.
CNN is pointing out that Trump is seeming to do a better job getting both Muslim Americans and Jewish Americans to vote for him, which is a hell of a thing.
I think it was Joel Pollack was pointing out in Breitbart that Trump's done the impossible politically, which he's got American Muslim and American Jews on his side at the same time.
And I've been watching that happen, and the more I look at it, I think, what am I even saying?
Like, what am I watching?
Like, how is that even possible?
And then I started to understand how it's possible.
It's because of his messaging.
When Trump talks about war, he says, I don't want people to die.
That's so powerful.
It sounds like he's avoiding the question, doesn't it?
Like you want him to take sides and what are you going to do?
And he starts with, I don't want people to die.
You can't do better than that.
That has to be your starting point.
Because then if you say later, well, you know, I want to cease fire if that's what he wants later.
Well, then that's all compatible.
No matter what happens after that, he's compatible as long as he stays with, I want fewer people to die.
But Harris tries to take both sides.
Like if she's talking to one group, it might sound pro-Jewish.
If she's talking to the other, it might sound a little less pro-Jewish.
So then both sides can take something she said and make her look bad to the other side.
But Trump says things that are hard to disagree with.
That he says, it wouldn't have happened if I'd been president.
And you think, well, I don't know, maybe it would have, but okay.
See, it's not taking sides.
He's just saying it wouldn't have happened.
And I don't want anybody to die.
And of course, you know, October 7th was terrible.
Everybody could say that.
So Trump is very, very cleverly Finding there is no middle ground and he somehow found a high ground.
I guess that's the way to say it.
There is no middle ground.
So instead he found the high ground.
The high ground is I don't want anybody to die.
And that's consistent with everything else he says, right?
He doesn't want abortion in later months because he doesn't want anybody to die.
He doesn't want open borders because he doesn't want anybody to die.
He's in favor of IVF because he wants more people to live.
He's very consistent on life.
You have to give him that.
You can say he's a bullshitter.
I agree.
You can say he doesn't pass the fact-checking.
I agree.
But he is consistent as hell about liking life over death.
And you gotta like that.
You gotta like that.
According to Nina Jankiewicz, whose name you might remember, some would call her, I think Molly Hemingway called her a censorship activist practitioner, sort of a Democrat, who has worked in those areas where they're trying to tell social media to change their messaging if they don't like it.
And she says that 2020 was different because, number one, now platforms aren't creating some friction for the spread of misinformation.
So, in other words, there's more free speech.
Now, she would say there's not enough friction on the spread of misinformation.
But that allows her to determine what is misinformation.
That's no bueno.
She says also, there's less frequent and robust coordination between federal government and platforms.
In other words, There's less censorship.
So Nina Jankiewicz is worrying that the election might be influenced by free speech.
Free speech does bring with it misinformation.
But do you know what brings more misinformation?
Lack of free speech.
This is amazing.
I'm seeing an actual post.
This is in the comments.
This is from 2017.
And Elon Musk posts, I love Twitter.
So it's 2017.
And somebody named Dave Smith, it's not comic Dave Smith, it's just somebody named Dave Smith, says, you should buy it then.
Remember, this is 2017.
You should buy it then.
And Elon Musk replies to him, how much is it?
In 2017 he was thinking about buying it.
That is interesting.
All right.
There is a thought that the Amish might be deciding the deciding demographic for Trump, because they seem to be a little more pro-Trump.
And one of the reasons is, I didn't know this, but the Amish traditionally are a farming community.
But the people who own the farms already own all the land.
So the young generation can't also be farmers, because there's not enough land where they're also Amish.
So a lot of them just started businesses.
And they tend to be Republican-like in their free market kind of thinking.
And I want to read to you what Scott Pressler said recently during a Trump rally when he was speaking to the Amish.
This gets back to the earlier point I made about, can experts know what is a good persuasive message compared to just an average person?
I would say that Scott Pressler is definitely not an average person.
I would put him in the expert category in politics at this point.
But do you think that he nailed this persuasion?
I'll read it to you.
Tell me if you feel it.
That's the key.
Tell me if you feel it.
Now, you're not Amish, so this is not meant for you.
But see if you can judge whether you would just feel it.
Quote, to our beautiful Amish in Lancaster and Pennsylvania and across the state, we will protect your raw milk, your dairy, your farming, your school choice, your religious freedom, your ability to have 10 beautiful children per family.
Wow.
Wow.
It's kind of perfect.
Now, do you feel it?
You can feel that, right?
If you tell me that Scott Pressler is unable to do persuasion and persuasive messages better than the average person and better than the average professional, I would say, you're clearly wrong.
This is good work.
Yeah, that hits everything.
I don't know.
I think it's because I have a lot of farm experience.
So it used to be my job at my uncle's farm that was walking distance from my house.
I would walk there, ride my bike, and clean the bulk tank.
Now the bulk tank, B-U-L-K, was a giant metal holding tank for the milk that came from the cows that same day.
Now, it would only be in the tank for half a day until a big truck would come and suck it out and take it away, and somebody has to clean it and sterilize it.
And then my family would drink raw milk from the farm because my mother insulted the milk company and they wouldn't deliver to our house anymore.
So we had to get our milk from my uncle, but it was walking distance, so it wasn't a big deal.
So raw milk is sort of in my blood, so to speak.
You know what I mean?
Farming is sort of in my blood.
I spend a lot of time on a farm.
And when I hear these things, they just completely hit me.
We're going to protect your raw milk.
That light goes so deep.
It's just beautiful.
Anyway, The Hill is talking about, here's a headline that I didn't read the story.
Former President Trump's vows for revenge face few limitations in second term.
I chose not to read the story that that headline is attached to.
Let me read it again.
Former President Trump's vows for revenge face few limitations in second term.
His vows for revenge When did that happen?
Can you show me the quote where he vowed revenge?
Do you think he ever used that word?
I don't think so.
No, no, I don't think so.
I think he said that there are enemies within, and that if they committed crimes, you know, the legal system should deal with them.
But nobody's above the law.
So I'm going to say that's just a propaganda story.
And I would say that any president who wanted to get revenge would find that there are not many limitations.
Didn't Obama use the IRS to get at his enemies?
Didn't Obama drone an American once?
The American president can get a lot of revenge.
So, yeah, I mean, obviously anybody can.
But we do not approve of Trump getting revenge.
We only approve of the law being followed.
Washington State Governor Jay Inslee is activating the National Guard in case there's trouble after the election.
But it turns out, according to Reuters, that Democrats are preparing phase one of the cheat.
Now, this is me speaking speculatively and allegedly and hypothetically.
I am not aware of any factual basis for what I'm about to say.
I'm just saying that it looks exactly like what you would do if you were planning to rig an election.
That doesn't mean they're going to.
I'm going to tell you what I'm talking about, and you tell me, does this sound exactly like Democrats expect to lose the vote, but they have a plan for winning the presidency?
All right?
I'll just tell you what the story is.
So according to Reuters...
Democrats are readying a rapid-fire response to flood social media and the airwaves with calls for calm and patience with vote counting should Trump try to prematurely claim election victory, as he did in 2020.
So, let's say Trump is winning in the landslide, and it's 10 o'clock at night.
And he reasonably believes that unless there's cheating, he's going to win.
And he declares victory.
You could argue he shouldn't do that until the election is done.
But in politics, that's a thing that happens.
You know, it's not that unusual.
If you really think you're going to win, you claim victory.
But he probably doesn't want to do that if there's anybody still voting.
So you'd have to make sure all voting is done before you do any claiming of victory.
But to me, it sounds like what they just announced is a Propaganda and stalling operation until they have time to complete the cheat.
In other words, they need to make sure that the media does not embrace the thought that Trump won because they're going to plan to change their minds by altering the vote afterwards.
Again, I have no evidence of that.
This is not a factual conversation.
This is based on exactly what it looks like.
What it looks like is they're telling us very clearly that they're going to confuse the public medium of conversation to make it look like Trump did not win.
And again, the hypothetical is we don't know if he won or not in the hypothetical.
But in the hypothetical, he claims victory.
So they have a plan to make sure that they can stall that situation long enough That they've completed counting the vote.
Now, if that doesn't sound like a plan to cheat, you're not as suspicious as I am.
Because that's exactly what you would do if you plan to lose, but cheat after the numbers come in so you know how much to cheat by.
So, we do not have any factual, there's no factual evidence of a plan to cheat.
There is, however, factual evidence of a plan that would be 100% compatible with cheating.
Doesn't mean that's the reason.
It's just coincidentally 100% compatible, and I've never seen anything like it.
So it seems like it's something you need every year, but this year they seem to think they need it.
Anyway, in other news, the United States is deploying B-52 bombers and fighter jets and refueling aircraft and Navy destroyers to the Middle East.
So, let's see, where are we?
Iran missiled Israel a while ago, and then Israel attacked back, and now I think Iran is saying they might attack back for the attack back.
I'm getting lost in who's going first and who's going last.
But as I've said a number of times, and this is not a prediction, it's just a statement of the obvious, Americans are really, really distracted this month, this week, but this month.
You all agree with that, right?
No matter what happens, the election is absorbing everybody who has any kind of geopolitical interest whatsoever.
We're all just totally absorbed by it.
We don't even care about the government recovering UFOs.
Couldn't care less.
Just tell us about this election.
Well, when we're this distracted, and Israel's in exactly the situation they are, if they were ever planning to do a decapitation strike on Iran, It's going to be like in a week.
Now, if I were the supreme leader, I would do some little extra hiding.
Like, if you've got a really good bunker, I'd be using the good one.
Because while I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to take out the leader of Iran, because you don't know what would happen, it would be a very unstable situation, I also don't know that it's a bad idea.
So I guess I'm just an observer.
I don't prefer it.
I don't un-prefer it.
I don't condemn it.
I don't praise it.
I'm just watching.
And I've never seen a situation where this many variables came together so obviously coincidentally at the same time.
It's just the perfect time.
Because America, we just don't have anybody strong enough to deal with it.
We would say strong words about how we don't like it.
Trump would say, oh, it wouldn't have happened if I'd been president.
Biden would say, oh, we need to calm down.
But nothing would happen.
I mean, it's not like somebody's going to take funding away from Israel.
We would just go on with our own little problems.
So, it's not a prediction and it's not a preference that there's a decapitation strike.
I'm just telling you that if you're going to predict the future, I wouldn't overlook the fact that there's never been and never will be a better time in the history of those two countries for Israel to take a decisive action.
So, I wouldn't be surprised.
Now, remember, there are a hundred variables that I would not be aware of.
So, you know, Israel has a much better idea if that's a good idea or a bad idea.
They have a much better idea if they could get away with it.
They have a much better idea what the public in Iran would do.
They have a much better idea if they could defend themselves from a counterattack.
So I don't know, you know, 90% of what I would need to know to know if it's a go.
I'm just saying that from purely the political standpoint, You're never going to get a better shot than that.
And I'm not anxious to have that happen because that would be real destabilizing for the world.
And I'm not looking forward to that.
But it might.
But it might.
That, ladies and gentlemen, are the prepared remarks that I had for today.
If you don't remember, the Dilbert calendar, which you see over my shoulder, For 2025, it's available for sale.
I think most of you who have ordered it so far will see it in November, if you've already ordered it, because they did wait to print them until they get a good bunch.
But they should all be there by Christmas, as long as you order it before December 1st.
If you order it after December 1st, probably you'll still get it by Christmas, but sooner is better.
And also my books, God's Debris, The Complete Works, And the new version, version 2 of Win Bigly, slightly updated.
It's not that different from the original, just a better edit.
And Reframe Your Brain, which is changing people's lives all over the place.
So you got lots of holiday buying if you want it.
All right, I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
I do expect that on election day I'll be live streaming.
I don't have a specific plan for that yet, but certainly during the prime time when most of the votes are in, I'll certainly be live then.
So for sure, I will be live during the most critical parts of the results coming in in the evening.
All right.
Coming at you, locals, the rest of you on Rumble and YouTube and X. Thanks for joining.
