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, Socializing Decline, Fluoride Danger, Water Harvester, Election Outcome Expectations, Kamala SNL, Douglass Mackey, Celebrity Kamala Endorsement, AZ Voter Fraud Allegations, Election Vulnerability Experts, Patrick Byrne, Voting Machine Patch, Final Election Polls, Georgia Poll Watchers, AZ Ineligible Voter List, Governor Hochul, Constitutional Election Deadlines, Low-Propensity Voters, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best time you'll ever have in your life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
A little oxytocin extra today.
It's called the simultaneous SIP and it happens now.
Oh my goodness.
So good.
So, so good.
Well, let's start with some science and we'll get to the politics, and today I will give you my official prediction for the election.
You're going to want to hear that.
Because, you know.
Anyway, so according to a side post, there was a study that says if you have a habit of suppressing positive emotions, it could lead to lower well-being.
Let me see if I can put this in my own words.
If you refuse to act happy, you will be more sad.
Okay, again, could have saved a little bit of time and money just by asking me, hey, Scott, do you think that acting happy could be good for your mental health?
And I would say, you mean when things are going well?
Yeah, when things are going well, if you act happy and enjoy it, will that be good for your mental health?
I'd say, let me think about that.
Yes.
Yes, it would.
Save your money on that study.
You don't need it.
That's what I would have said.
In other news, study finds, which I guess is a site of some kind, there's a social crisis.
Four in ten people, I think it's Americans, haven't made new friends in over a year.
How many of you have made a new friend in the past year?
Do you make a new friend most years?
What do normal people do?
I don't know, because I'm not a normal person.
Do most of you make new friends every year?
I'm quite impressed if you do.
You do?
All right.
All right.
Well, those of you who make new friends every year, My hat is off to you.
Good job on that.
But more on this survey.
More than a third of Americans, 37%, say their social life is stuck in a rut.
And It's been at least a year.
For many, it's been at least a year since they've gone to a concert.
So, 59% of the respondents said it's been at least a year since they've gone to a concert with a friend.
How many of you even go to concerts with friends?
And of the entire public, what percentage of them ever go to a concert?
If 60% of them have not gone to one in a year, let's say 40% have, Isn't 40% a lot of people to have gone to a concert in one year?
Like even one?
I don't understand this poll at all.
And then it says that 44 have not been on a vacation with friends in a year.
How often do you go on vacation with friends?
Is that something normal people do?
I have been on vacation with friends.
It's something that's happened.
And I enjoyed it.
It was great.
But it's not the main way people go on vacation, is it?
Anyway.
I have a...
I have a theory that the reason people are doing less stuff and going to fewer parties is there's less drinking.
People who don't drink don't really enjoy parties the same as people who drink and enjoy parties.
So if you were to say to me in, say, my 30s, What would you think of the idea of seeing a bunch of people in your demographic group, not racial, but let's say the same socioeconomic group, and same age-ish, and you're all going to have some drinks and eat some good food?
I would say to myself, that's like as good as it gets.
I can't wait for that.
Now, all you do is take the alcohol out of the equation.
All right, you're going to meet with some people you love, and you can eat some good food, and you can drink some water.
It's not nearly the same.
Pretty much the drinking was the organizing focus of the gathering.
So, you know, you still like the people just as much, but the event?
Maybe you'd rather go to the gym.
Well, according to RFK Jr., fluoride in our water is so dangerous that if he were to come into any authority with the Trump administration, should he get elected, Trump, that very soon after that they would advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from the public water.
Apparently, Fluoride is, according to RFK, an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopment disorders, and thyroid disease.
I think I have most of those.
So, it's the water.
So, people, whatever you do, do not drink the water from your town that's got the fluoride.
What you want to do instead is drink the water that's put in those plastic bottles that The plastic bottles.
Okay, don't drink anything out of plastic because that will get you the microplastics that will stay in your body and your balls will be full of plastic.
So don't drink any water that comes from your tap, but also from a water bottle.
If it's raining, I wouldn't open my mouth and look up because I don't know what's in the pollution of that rain.
Now, I feel like I should be recommending something here, but every now and then you'll see a dirty puddle.
I recommend sticking your face in it and just drink up that dirty brown puddle because it's not going to be perfectly healthy, but it's as good as the other water you have.
It is.
But you might be delighted to know there's a revolutionary new water harvester that is one of these devices, I've told you about these before, that extract water from the air, but according to Iowa State University, they've made it much more efficient.
So it'll use way less energy.
I literally bought one of these.
It's still in the box.
I haven't opened it.
But I bought a water generator, I'm sorry, a power generator that could work on solar.
And I bought a thing that will turn air into water.
Because I feel like I need to make my own water.
At least the drinkable stuff.
And I don't know any other way to do it.
Where do you get your water if it's not in plastic?
Or out of the tap?
It's the only two places I can get water in.
They're both apparently going to kill me.
So I'm going to make my own water out of the air.
And then it'll take me about six months before somebody will say, whatever you do, don't use one of those machines that sucks the water out of the air because the filters are all corroded.
I'm making that up.
That's not true.
But sooner or later, somebody's going to say that that water will kill you too.
So if there's anything I can tell you, I'm not a doctor.
But you should never drink liquids for the rest of your life.
Well, maybe that's why I'm not a doctor.
You'll be dead in a week if you take my advice.
Don't take my advice.
All right, here now, my 2024 election prediction.
This is the official one.
This is the one I will not be able to wiggle out of.
There will be no weaseling.
I am committed.
I am nailed down to this following prediction.
And I will read it exactly as I wrote it on the X platform.
I predict a landslide of election rigging claims.
That's right.
There will be so many claims of rigging on this election, and more than the courts can handle before January 6th, which allegedly is when we would certify the election.
So, what's going to happen if we have a landslide of election rigging Irregularity claims.
As you know, the vast majority of them will be not real ones.
In other words, some people think they saw something, but maybe it wasn't what they thought they saw.
However, since there will be a landslide of claims, and already it's beginning, by the way, we'll get to that, you can be sure that some of them We'll look at least on the surface like they could be quite credible.
In other words, it'll be people who have signed things under penalty of law, you know, they'll sign something legally.
There'll be multiple witnesses to some things.
In some cases, they'll have a ballot in their hand that literally is obviously fake.
Those are the cases.
Where we're not going to be able to have an answer about what's going on before the election has to be certified.
So what do you do?
If you had a few little claims, the courts have the luxury of saying, well, even if we were to take this case, it wouldn't change the outcome of the election.
So why don't we just let it go?
But what if it's an avalanche of claims?
And there are enough of them that look credible and of scale that you couldn't possibly know who won unless you figured out whether the claims were real.
What do you do then?
Well, here's the rest of my prediction.
I predict that Trump will get most of the real votes But Democrats will empty the trickster vault to keep him from being certified and taking office on schedule.
In other words, I don't know what the official count will be, but I think that in the real world, Trump will get the most votes.
That's my prediction.
We might not ever know that, because I don't know that we have a system that can tell us who got how many votes.
I predict that massive voter fraud will be discovered.
And it will confirm in the minds of the public that Trump was probably right about 2020 being rigged.
In other words, if there is a large-scale cheat that is discovered, and maybe it already has been, this is a little bit of a tease for what is to come, then people are going to quite reasonably assume, correct or not correct, they will assume that Trump was right about 2020.
Because do you think that there could be a massive voter cheat in 2024, and there wasn't one in 2020?
Would anybody believe that?
Now, we have not discovered one in 2024.
That has not been confirmed.
But if it did, and this is my prediction, my prediction is that it will, it's going to make you think 2020 looked different than maybe you thought, unless you already thought it was corrupt.
Anyway, so the tricksters will come out.
They will try to keep Trump from taking office.
And I think that by the time that we discover the fraud, which I think we will, I feel like Trump will eventually, maybe the Supreme Court will get into it, but maybe it's the House of Representatives, depending on the claims.
But I think Trump will ultimately take office, maybe by the end of January-ish.
I think that we will miss our deadlines.
I don't think January 6th or January 20th will necessarily be the certification and then the swearing in.
But we won't be too far off, because the more we miss those deadlines, the more critical it'll be to get something done.
So I think Trump will take office, and I think the golden age will begin.
But not without a fight.
Now, when I say fight, I do not mean physical.
I believe that we've got several weeks of some real serious legal maneuvering.
We don't know who will win now for sure.
So when I make my prediction, of course, nothing is binary.
You know, it's all based on risk assessment and my best guess.
I think that everything depends on whether there's a big enough cheat that gets caught before something gets certified.
And I think the odds of catching it are now above 50%.
So in past elections, I don't think either side was trying hard enough to catch any rigging.
This time they're trying hard.
This time the Republicans are putting something like 100% effort into looking for a cheat.
If they don't find one, I'd be kind of surprised.
I think we'd all be surprised if they don't find one.
But we'll see.
More on that.
So Kamala Harris went on SNL, and it was just the cringiest thing with Maya Rudolph pretending they were looking in the mirror.
Except Kamala, since she was doing a comedy routine on a comedy show, and she's the cackler-in-chief, may I give you my impression of 90% of everything Kamala did on camera?
Are you ready?
And then sometimes a little bit of on top of it.
I think I nailed it.
Nailed it.
So, if that got her any votes, I'd be pretty surprised.
Because she did look like...
She looked like the bus that she loves is a short one.
That's all I'm going to say.
Anyway, according to Brendan Carr, FCC commissioner, she may have broken the law because there's sort of an equal opportunity thing on TV that if you give somebody time on TV, the other one has to have equal time.
But by waiting for the last minute before the election, when Trump couldn't possibly schedule his own time on there, They may have found a way to skirt the rule and break the law, so she should be in jail.
No, not really.
I do not believe in lawfaring the candidate two days before the election, but I would note that it does look like a technical violation of the law.
Now, I'm not in favor of lawfare, so I don't think somebody who made a small technical violation of the law that won't move a single vote should be prosecuted two days before the election.
But I wish the same standard were used for Trump, because I don't know if you're ready for this, but one possibility is that Trump loses the election and goes to jail.
You know that's actually a possibility, right?
That he could lose the election and just go to jail, like within a month.
Now, I don't know how the appeals would work.
Maybe stuff would be stretched out.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I'd put a strong bet against it, but it's possible.
Now, you know how I keep saying that, you know, the country's not going to get violent and, you know, we'll work it out?
I don't think that applies if Trump goes to jail.
If the election didn't look proper and Trump not only lost an election that didn't look proper, but he also got put in jail in a process that didn't look proper, I think violence would be guaranteed at that point.
Now, I don't recommend it.
I'm just saying if you're going to predict it, that would be a line too far for some degree, some number of people.
So some number of people I think would become violent at that point.
So I hope that doesn't happen because that would be the worst case scenario.
Do not become violent.
All right, according to the Federalist, there's a new inside story, an investigation of how Reddit has been totally manipulated by the Kamala Harris campaign.
So apparently they have this big network of fake Reddit users who pretend they're regular users to rig Reddit.
So as far as we know, I have no proof that the election is rigged.
So I want to say that clearly.
I have no proof that the coming election is rigged or that any past one has ever been rigged.
No proof at all.
We do have strong evidence that the media is rigged.
We know that the intelligence outfits are rigged.
We know that Reddit is rigged.
Facebook was rigged.
And basically everything that's outside of the government is rigged.
So if the election is not rigged, it would be the only thing.
So I love the fact that people don't want to deal with the obvious truth that everything we can check is rigged.
So if you had said to me, Scott, we're going to do an investigation.
We're going to look at Reddit.
We're going to find out if there's anybody on the Democrat side who's doing any, you know, skeevy things on Reddit.
I would have said, well, I'll save you some money.
Yes, they are.
Because they can.
And it doesn't seem to be illegal in any standard way, or at least if it was, it'd be maybe a fine or something.
So of course they are.
Of course they are.
So the media is rigged for sure, obviously.
I don't even have to make a case for that.
You all know that.
The social media is rigged, obviously.
You know, X is the exception, I hope.
I mean, who knows?
Maybe even deep in the bowels of X there might be some shenanigans that even Elon doesn't know about.
Maybe.
It's possible.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Kimmel's taking some heat because...
He made a joke about when you should vote, and he said that you should vote on Tuesday unless you're a Trump supporter, and then you should vote on Wednesday or Thursday, which of course is not a time you can vote, and your vote would not count.
So that's why it's a joke.
It's a joke because everybody knows that you're not allowed to vote after the election.
Except...
I don't know if everybody does know that.
I'm not sure everybody knows that.
So, do you remember when, who was it?
Douglas Mackey did a meme for the 2016 election and went to jail because it suggested that you could vote by text and that would be incorrect.
So it's illegal to send out election-related information that's inaccurate.
Now, Douglas Mackey did it as a joke, and Jimmy Kimmel did it as a joke.
One of them went to jail, and one of them just had a nice day.
Should they be treated the same?
Well, here's the thing.
I think it does matter how obviously it's a joke.
I think the Jimmy Kimmel one, in my opinion, qualifies as obviously a joke.
So no problem.
But we also have to be consistent, right?
So it's not just enough that one of them gets away with something.
You have to treat them the same.
I looked at the Douglas Mackey thing, and I said to myself, oh, below a certain IQ, that might actually make you think you voted at a different time or a different way.
So I think maybe the problem was that Douglas Mackey was just 10% short of being obvious.
In both cases, they were jokes, so I don't think either should be...
I think both of them should be free speech, free people.
But at least you can see there's some difference.
You know, dumb people wouldn't have known the difference with the Mackie one.
I don't know if any dumb people would have been convinced by Jimmy Kimmel, though.
So there's a small difference, but not enough that I would have treated them differently.
Are we okay with that?
Are you okay if I do say there's a small difference, but it's not a small difference I would say is important in a legal sense.
If both of them intended to say a joke, If the vast majority of people who saw it took it as a joke, that's good enough for me.
I don't need to know that some dumb people were fooled by it.
Free speech has got to let you do that.
So I saw that Matt Walsh was making the case that Kimmel should be put in jail.
And he said, I'm dead serious when I say if Trump wins, he should do that.
Now, I get what you're saying.
Matt Walsh, I don't think they're saying that before the election was your best play.
Because you don't want to start saying you're going to lock up your enemies right before the election.
And first of all, we're not.
Let's say this clearly.
I get what Matt Walsh is saying.
I totally understand the point, you know, that you should treat things equally.
And it would certainly, you know, send a message.
But no, you don't say this a day before the election or the week before the election.
Even if you're thinking it, maybe keep that one to yourself.
And by the way, I wouldn't be in favor of putting Jimmy Kimmel in jail.
I would be in favor of Douglas Mackey being pardoned or whatever it takes to make him a free man.
Is he already free?
He's out, right?
Is Douglas Mackey already out?
I think he is.
I hope so.
Well, there was a big story yesterday that, if you don't mind, I'm going to skip.
And it involves a squirrel and a raccoon, and I just like animals too much.
You know, there was something funny about the story, but also something just horrible about it.
So if you don't mind, you're going to see plenty of it all over the place today.
So with your permission, we're going to skip that story today.
It's one of the biggest stories, but I can't handle pet stuff.
It's just, I don't want it in my head.
Do you know why?
The very first thing I wrote about was if you have positive thoughts in your head, you're going to be happier.
Anyway, I'll just say that the person responsible was a DEI hire named Karen, and then we'll move on.
That's actually true, by the way.
Harrison Ford did a weird black-and-white video endorsement of Harris, and Honestly, when I look at it, I can't tell if it's brainwashing, stupidity, or blackmail.
But there's something wrong.
There's just something wrong with it.
I don't know what it is.
And the reason is that when you hear him talk, it doesn't even sound like it would be something he would say.
Maybe it's my bias.
Could be entirely happening in my head.
But when I look at it, it just looks weird.
There's just something wrong with it.
I don't know.
And, you know, of course, people are joking.
Does he have a connection to Diddy or Epstein?
Or is he being blackmailed somehow?
I don't know.
It doesn't look right.
Mark Ruffalo, apparently, also endorsing Harris, apparently said this, quote, she's got black woman wisdom.
Okay.
She's got black woman wisdom.
Now, I think black women have wisdom, but is that something you should say about who you're voting for?
I think a lot of people have wisdom, but is there a special kind called black woman wisdom?
That's a weird thing to say.
So every time one of these celebrities endorses Harris, it all looks weird.
Every part of that is just cringy weird.
Well, according to Slay News, I think you've already heard this, there's a Democrat group in Arizona under investigation.
For making fraudulent voter applications, I guess.
So fraudulent voter registration forms and mail-in ballot applications.
And a Pennsylvania prosecutor is investigating, this is according to Slay News, roughly 30 voter applications that were identified as fraudulent.
Now those are voter applications.
Do you think that anybody sits down and says, ah, I'll tell you what you're going to do.
We're going to win this thing by making 30 voter applications that are fake.
No, they do not.
If you saw one or two, you might say, ah, this is somebody who's trying to vote twice.
I'm sure that's happened.
If you see 10,000 come through, you say, oh, there's somebody trying to steal that race.
But what if you have 30?
Nobody does 30.
So if you can rule out one, in other words, it wasn't a family who just made one and, you know, one or two to get a couple extra votes, it's probably 30,000.
Or 10,000?
Or 1,000?
Nobody does 30 fake anythings.
Am I right?
You'd do one or two if you wanted to really fly under the radar.
And you would do 1,000 if you really wanted to affect the election.
But there is no scenario in which you'd do 30 because there's a good chance of getting caught and no chance of changing the election result.
It's not going to be within 30.
So the fact that they found 30...
Doesn't that almost guarantee massive fraud?
At least in this one key area that is probably the most important one?
Well, I think so.
Here's my next question.
How did they catch them?
Wouldn't you like to know more about how they caught 30 fake ones?
Because if they only caught 30...
What is their process that didn't let them catch more?
Because do any of you think there were only 30?
So is it possible that there were 100,000 and their process only allowed them to catch 30 and it was only by chance?
I don't know.
So I'm a citizen of the United States.
I'm told that the election will be fair and well managed and that my fate will depend on it.
But nobody can even describe to me like a coherent explanation of how we could possibly have a fair race.
Anything that sounded even possibly feasible that we could have a fair election.
I've not heard anything like that.
I don't even know anybody who could even describe the election process in every state, because they're all different.
Do you think there's anybody?
Well, here's something I said on social media the other day.
You know, I like to do the dog not barking stories.
So the Dog Not Barking is from Sherlock Holmes stories.
And it has to do with the thing that should be there that isn't.
Because sometimes you don't look for the thing that isn't there.
You notice something that's there, but maybe you forget to look for the thing that should be there that isn't there.
So here's something that should be there that isn't there.
You ready for this?
Watch your head explode when I tell you.
Watch when you say to yourself, holy shit, that should have been there.
You ready for this?
There is massive questions about the credibility of our election upcoming.
It's the biggest question.
Because 2020, if that was in fact a good election, and in fact Trump knew it, say his enemies, and in fact he acted like it was fake, well then he would be disqualified.
Even I would say that if I believe that set of facts.
So it's the biggest question, right?
Would you agree it's just the biggest question right now?
It's the most important and biggest question in the country.
All right, so what's missing?
Do you see it yet?
All the TV shows, all the news programs, all the podcasts you've been watching about politics, what's missing?
Well, what's missing is that one expert who can come on and say, I know you're all worried about the election, but let me explain how it's so well audited that even if somebody tried to cheat, they couldn't get away with more than, say, 30 fakes because we'd catch it, and that wouldn't be enough to change the election.
And then I would say, Okay, okay.
But what about if somebody tried this?
And then the expert would say, aha, of course we thought about that.
So here's the safeguards we have against that.
And I'd say, okay, okay, that sounds good.
But what if somebody tried to print their own ballots?
Would you catch that?
Well, yes.
We would catch it in every single state, and we'd catch it right away.
And here's how.
And then I'd say, oh, okay, well, I wish I'd known that before.
That's actually good to know.
And then I'd say, suppose, but suppose the post office threw away some ballots because they knew that it was probably Trump country.
How would you check that?
Would you catch that?
And then the expert would say, oh, yeah, we'd catch that right away, because people would do this or that, and then we'd catch it.
And then after everything that I suspected, such as I'd say, how would you catch it if a state actor, you know, somebody like a major country, hacked into any of the machines?
And they'd say, oh, Scott, you're so cute that you think that we wouldn't catch that.
We'd catch that, obviously.
No, they couldn't possibly hack into the machine and change the vote in a way we wouldn't notice five different ways.
So don't worry, Scott, and all the other people watching this, because this election, even though it's different processes and different people managing it in all kinds of different states and precincts, all of them are using a set of hardcore, really solid security processes that have been honed over the years, and you don't have to worry about it at all.
So do you all remember seeing that interview?
You all remember that, right?
You saw it on NBC and CBS and CNN and MSNBC and Fox News and Breitbart handled it.
I'm pretty sure it was on the AP and Reuters.
The Atlantic probably had a big piece on it.
Politico, I'm sure.
The Hill.
Did you see The Hill cover it?
No, you didn't fucking see it.
You didn't fucking see it.
Because there's nobody in the whole fucking country who is even willing to go on TV anywhere and say, yeah, I can guarantee these elections are good because I understand the whole system and there's no fucking way to cheat it.
Not one fucking person in the whole fucking country.
None.
You can't even get anybody to lie about it.
Think about all the liars who have lied about everything about the election so far.
They've lied about everything.
Just everything they've lied about.
There's not a single topic that people you know, like public figures, didn't get in front of a camera, look right into it, and you knew they were lying, and they still moved their mouths, and they still told you the lie looking right in the camera.
So you know there's no lie.
There's no lie big enough or small enough that they won't tell right in front of your fucking eyes.
Except this one.
It's the only lie they won't tell.
How many of you noticed before I just brought it up that nobody had ever had an election expert on to answer questions and explain how any kind of fraud that was significant would be instantly caught?
Did any of you even think of it?
That's how you know you're brainwashed.
Even if you think you're immune from it, none of us are immune.
I'm not immune.
Definitely not immune.
Nobody's immune.
If you had not once considered that no expert has ever come on any show you've ever seen, ever, to say that this system is secure, and you never noticed, that's brainwashing.
How could you not notice that?
Right?
How did I not notice it?
How did I not notice it until recently?
Seriously, how did I not notice that?
There's only one way.
I'm brainwashed.
There can't be any other explanation.
Because common sense, it would be the first fucking thing you would bring up.
The first thing was, can I talk to an expert to see if there's any vulnerabilities here?
Not once.
Not once.
Unbelievable.
And so that allows us to listen to claims about the election that are so big That you almost, it blows your mind.
Patrick Byrne has a take on the Michigan shenanigans, and he tells us this.
Now again, this is not something I can confirm, so I don't put this forth as a fact, because I know I would get sued if I did.
I put this forth as a claim by a public figure who has looked into it.
So I haven't looked into it, but Patrick Byrne has.
Now, I've also told you that you should assume 99% of every election irregularity claim will be false.
Almost all of them will be false.
But that doesn't mean they're all false.
It just means that most of them will be.
So what do I think of the Patrick Byrne claim?
Honestly, I can't get traction on it one way or the other.
In other words, there's nothing about it that makes me want to reject it and a hand, but there's also nothing about it that I could confirm.
So it's such a big claim that I don't want to embrace it because I don't have a factual basis for it, but I also have no reason to reject it.
It does sound a little Kraken-like, though.
So I've got a little warning thing in the back of my head that says, be careful with this one, be careful with this one.
But I'll just tell you what it is.
The claim goes something like this, that in Michigan, that they had a glitch in the machines, some of the ballot counting machines, I guess.
And that required a software patch.
So the software patch would happen just before the election or during the election if it's already started early.
And the software patch could not possibly be checked for security because there wouldn't be enough time and it's too many machines.
So what Patrick Byrne says is the patch is the rig.
That the way they do it is they make sure they've got a software on there that looks completely secure and legitimate.
There's a security check.
Everybody says that looks good.
And then, oh, there's a glitch.
And then to fix the glitch, they need a little software patch.
And then according to Patrick Byrne, the software patch would include a virtual machine, basically a software-emulated computer within a computer.
It does its bad work of changing the vote count and then deletes itself so that there's no evidence that there was any malicious code in the first place.
Now, could a state actor do something of that complexity?
I think so.
Is there a security expert who could tell me this could never happen because this and this and this are true?
I'd like to see that.
Will that be on the Joe Rogan podcast sometime soon?
Is MSNBC gonna have somebody on to talk about how Patrick Byrne is totally wrong Because there is no way that a last-minute software patch could cause a malicious outcome that you wouldn't catch right away.
Here's the problem.
I can't rule this in, but I can't rule it out.
How do I have an election where I can't rule this out?
How am I supposed to believe this is credible?
So, we've got 30 fake applications or ballots, I guess.
We've got last-minute software patches that look exactly like what you would do if you were going to rig something.
And let's see.
We've got, there's a fourth Pennsylvania county launching an investigation into 1,500 suspected registrants after at least 600 were found to be complete garbage, according to the Gateway Pundit.
So apparently Pennsylvania is just filled with irregularities already.
It's probably exactly what it looks like.
There's going to be an avalanche of irregularities.
So if there's one thing you should keep in mind, it's a rate question.
It's like a flow question.
It's not a yes-no.
It's a rate question.
If the rate of claims of irregularities are big enough, we can't possibly meet our deadlines for certifying the election.
And also have an answer about whether the election is good.
That might be the most important fact in the next few months, that there won't be any way to judge the claims as true or false.
And then what?
We won't even know if there was an election.
We literally won't know if we had an election.
Because we won't have any mechanism that can check it on time.
And if somebody gets installed before it gets checked, what happens if they check it later?
What happens if you have a president for six months and then the court finally gets around to saying, oh, wow, it looks like 100,000 of these were fake and it would change the election?
What do you do then?
Take Trump out of jail?
You know, six months from now, they could find out that Trump should have been the president, but instead he's in jail.
That's possible.
That's possible.
Wow.
Anyway, the CEO of Atlas Intel Polling, which is traditionally, I guess they were the most accurate pollster in 2020, so they have a high credibility.
They say this shows Trump leading in Arizona and Nevada by comfortable margins and also leading in all of the seven swing states in general by lesser margins within the margin of error in other cases.
So that's the most reliable one.
Also in the top five reliable ones, Rasmussen.
And the head of Rasmussen, the head pollster says, there could be a Trump landslide similar to the 1980 Reagan-Carter election.
So Breitbart News is writing about that.
So two of the most credible and influential pollsters, in my opinion, say it looks like it's a Trump election.
But do we have any polls that disagree?
Of course we do.
There's an Ann Seltzer poll that shows that Harris is leading in Iowa, which would be a ridiculous result according to other polls.
So people think it's a fake poll just to help Harris.
And then what about the NBC poll?
Well, here's the thing.
NBC, widely thought to be, you know, a tool of the deep state and or the Democrats, their final poll, it's a tie, 49-49.
Come on.
Really?
Really?
A year ago, I said that the fake polls would say it's a tie.
NBC is certainly called out as generally the fakest of the news.
And they came up with a tie.
The exact number that I predicted, a tie.
I mean, not the number, but the tie.
Now, that's the sort of thing you'd do if you were planning to rig an election.
If you knew that there were polls that showed that Trump should win...
You would produce polls that say, oh, it's too close to know, because then your cheating could be the smallest possible cheating and get you over the line.
Or at least you could win by a tiny margin, and you could say, well, this is compatible with the polls.
Look at the polls.
The polls said it was a tie.
One of them was going to win by a tiny margin.
It just happened to be Kamala Harris, so everything's fine.
Now, I'm not going to say that these polls that look fake to me are fake because I don't know that.
They just look fake.
They're also exactly what you would expect if the fix was in.
You'd expect these fake polls to look exactly like this.
That's what you'd expect.
You would also expect lots of changes being happened at the last minute.
For example, four Georgia counties decided at the last minute to accept ballots over the weekend in violation of the law.
This is the Gateway Pundit again.
So Oh, but I think that changed now.
So following our pressure campaign, our poll watchers have been let back in, according to Michael Watley, RNC chair.
So not only were the four Georgia counties going to count votes after the deadline, which is illegal, they were going to kick out the Republican poll watchers, which is also illegal.
Now, is it clear and obvious to you that they were planning to rig the election?
There's no proof.
But if they were, it would look exactly like this.
It would look like, you know, we need to do some extra counting.
And the extra counting will be of these suspicious after the deadline things.
And by the way, we're not going to let the Republicans watch when we do the extra counting after the deadline.
Now, what else would that be?
What is the other possibility?
Every signal is screaming that they're planning to rig this thing.
It's just screaming signals.
Doesn't mean it will happen.
Doesn't mean they will.
But the signals are just screaming at this point.
All right, what else?
Politico, all right, here's what else you would expect.
You would expect that one of the friendly publications to the Democrats would write an article saying that the polls might be wrong and that really Kamala Harris was probably ahead the whole time.
Sure enough, Politico has an article why the polls might be wrong in Kamala Harris's favor.
Really?
Now, remember what I tell you, that if you know what happened, you don't know anything.
If you know who is involved, you know everything.
So the first thing I say to myself is, who would write this article?
So it was written by Justin Brown.
I don't know Justin Brown.
So I looked at his bio that was included at the bottom of the article.
And says he works as a newsroom analyst.
So he helps various digital publications.
And the other ones are The Atlantic.
Oh, there we go.
If you see somebody as any association with The Atlantic, The Atlantic is the number one most, you know, non, well, the most fake news of the fake news.
So it's the number one fakesest of the fake Democrat news.
National Journal and Vox.
I don't know National Journal, but I'm guessing that if Vox and The Atlantic and Politico are part of who this Justin Brown works for, that that might be a little tip-off of what his political preferences are.
And sure enough, there's an article that gives you some doubt that the most accurate pollsters might be wrong this time.
Huh.
Huh.
We didn't see this until now.
Just in time for it to be part of the conversation.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Arizona ruled that election officials Must hand over 1.2 million records of unknown voters in the state's 2024 election situation.
So here's what could happen.
There are 1.2 million, quote, unknown voters that are on the rolls.
That could be enough.
If somebody in Arizona had planned to cheat...
That involved using the names that are the unknowns.
You know, in other words, voting for those names without those names, knowing that any votes had happened.
Maybe they're dead.
Maybe they moved down to state.
It could be that the cheat already happened.
Somebody already mailed in a bunch of votes for the people on the unknown list.
But now the good guys have the list.
So the good guys can fairly quickly, I think, if they have the right authority to do so, check the actual votes against the unknowns and find out if the big cheat happened in Arizona.
What do you think about that?
So we may have a possibility where the door is already opened for full visibility to one form of cheating, if in fact that form of cheating happened.
The real problem is that the cheating happens and there's no way to catch it.
But this would suggest that cheating that's already happened Meaning that probably the mail-in votes already got filled out.
And then after the cheating happened, allegedly, this is just speculative, the good guys could get access to the list in time to do something before January 6th.
What would happen if the election was off by one state?
Let's say that one state was different and Kamala Harris won it all.
And it's because Arizona went her way and nobody expected it.
Well, this could be the third act.
This could be the big thing that gets caught.
So it could be a whistleblower that comes forward.
That'd be fun.
Could be something like this.
Anyway, what other skullduggery and shenanigans should we expect?
Well, both the Jonathan Turley and Joel Pollack...
Agreed with a take that I had on some legal stuff, which is a big deal to me because I'm just guessing when I look at the legal stuff.
But if two people who are both lawyers agree with me, then I feel like I'm being smarter on the point.
All right, here's the point.
I mentioned it before, but now you know that smart people agree with me, so it's a different point.
I'm just bolstering something I mentioned before.
But on Bill Maher's show on HBO, you already know that Jamie Raskin was asked if he would accept a Trump win, and he said he would only if it's a free and fair election.
So basically, he took the same approach as Trump and the same approach that he led the impeachment of Trump for.
So in public, with complete clarity, the person who led the impeachment against Trump for doubting an election...
Says he would do the same thing in the same situation, and plans to.
So he'll accept it if it looks good, and I think Trump would have too, and he'll reject it if it looks obviously rigged, which of course he should, as anybody should.
And how in the world are we just sitting there and watching that happen?
How in the world is that not the biggest story in the country?
It's because the Democrats control the media.
So there won't be one mention of this in any of the traditional media.
I'll bet you're not going to see it on NBC or CBS or ABC. You're not going to see it in Reuters.
You're not going to see it in the AP. You're not going to see it on MSNBC, CNN. Right?
And how much bigger of a story could it be than the person who led the impeachment...
Says in public, as clear as day, that he'd do the same thing.
And the reason that they can get away with this brainwashing is because they made you think past the sale for four years.
Think past the sale.
The sale is, was the 2020 election rigged?
If it was rigged, everything that Trump did is exactly what you'd want your leader to do.
Question it.
Try to get it fixed.
Right?
But the brainwashing media starts you after the first question.
The first question hasn't been answered.
Was it rigged?
We don't really have a way to know.
And, like I said, no news platform has put an expert on who could be questioned to find out if the public could know if an election had been rigged.
So they tell you it was definitely not rigged, But they'll never put on anybody to back up that claim.
Just people who just say it's not rigged.
That means nothing.
And they're not going to cover the fact that the guy who led the impeachment says in public, he says it clearly, that under the same situation that he believed, as Trump believed the election was rigged, that he'd do the same thing.
There is no bigger story in the country that And it won't even be covered.
But Jonathan Turley, he's independent, so he can cover it.
I can mention it because I'm independent.
Joel Pollack can mention it because Breitbart covers the actual news.
You know, they don't have to make stuff up.
So the only place you'll even see this story is a place where no Democrat ever dares go.
So they just hid it.
Completely hidden.
Unbelievable.
To me, that signals that no matter who wins the vote, the Democrats are planning to install their own candidate one way or another.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul called the people who vote for Republicans anti-American.
She actually said that in public.
Voting for the Republicans is anti-American because the Republicans don't want to do freedom and stuff.
Now, that is such weird, weird gaslighting.
No matter what you want to say about the preferences of Republicans or Democrats, it's pretty hard to say that the Republicans are against everything they're for.
This is like saying that PETA is in favor of eating animals.
No, no, PETA. They're PETA. They're the saving animals people.
No, Republicans are anti-American.
No, no, Republicans are the pro-Constitution, pro-flag people, pro-get-the-government-out-of-my-pants business.
But not according to the governor of New York.
Now, these are the ways that they soften up the country so that if they have to jail some more Americans for protesting the next election, they've got this predicate that, well, these are un-Americans.
These are anti-Americans we're putting in jail.
Every signal is screaming that the rig isn't planned.
I have no facts that is planned, but every signal is screaming.
They're laying the predicate that all the news is conforming to exactly the messaging you would have if you plan to steal an election.
Now, by the way, I don't think it's organized, so I do not believe that in a RICO-like fashion, all these entities are talking to each other.
I don't believe, for example, that Kathy Hochul Nobody knows anything about anything happening with the votes in Pennsylvania.
So it seems to me it's just people who know what to do because they all think they're fighting Hitler, so they're doing what they can do.
So if you can cheat to beat Hitler, you do it.
If you can say some messages that will lay the groundwork for beating Hitler, you do it.
If you can make a fake poll that maybe will get more funding for the anti-Hitler person, you do it.
So they don't have to be coordinated.
They just all have to know that they're all helping to get rid of Hiller, and then they just do their own things.
Some of it.
I mean, some could be coordinated, but not much.
Joe Biden said in some public event that Republicans like Donald Trump are the type of guys you'd like to smack in the ass.
He said, but I'm serious.
These are the kind of guys you'd like to smack in the ass.
He is so gone.
It's again, it's unbelievable that Democrats would tell you that that he's OK in the job.
That's fine.
That's fine.
Just leave him in the job.
Anyway.
I've got a question for you.
I need a legal take on this.
Suppose the Constitution has deadlines for certification and also the swearing-in, January 20th, I think.
What happens if there's just events in the world that prevent those things from happening?
Nobody wants it to be prevented, but let's say there's a natural disaster.
Let's pick that.
Let's say a natural disaster.
So let's say the deadline for the new president goes by, and everybody's satisfied that we couldn't have a process to pick a new one.
So we're like, oh, shoot.
What do you do?
Who exactly is leading the country after January 20th if the process broke down in a way that the entire country would agree, okay, we can't just do business as usual, something broke.
Speaker of the House.
You say the Speaker of the House would become the President.
So, but do you believe that would happen in reality?
Let me give you another scenario.
Let's say Joe Biden steps down before January, in the beginning of January.
So Kamala Harris, as his vice president, becomes president, you know, unrelated to the election.
She's president at the moment for at least a few weeks.
Once you have a new president in January, in an election year, Do you think that president will ever be removed by any kind of process?
And I think the answer is it's impossible.
Because whoever is the president has too much power.
Nobody wants to take out the president when they're in office because they're going to turn it against you if it doesn't work.
Let's say you're in the FBI and you say, oh, we should do something because we can't have a dictator and we didn't have an election, so we can't have her as president.
Do you think the head of the FBI will stop taking directions from Kamala Harris because, oh, it's past January 20th?
I don't think so.
I think she would stay in the White House if, let's say, she had already moved in.
I think she would stay there.
She'd say, I'm going to stay here until we work it out.
And then she would make sure that it never got worked out.
And that would be the takeover.
So I think the strongest play would be to put, you know, possession is nine-tenths of the law sort of thing.
If there's nobody who's president, On January 20th, we just can't decide.
That's not good for anybody.
Neither side is going to be happy with that.
But if Kamala goes in and can act like, well, I'm the de facto temporary emergency president We didn't plan on this, but gosh, somebody's got to be in control because otherwise Russia might try something and China might try to take over Taiwan if we don't have a president.
So really, just for the benefit of the people, I will stay in office just for continuity until we work out our issues about who won the election.
And then as president, she could slowly close down every part of the investigation into who won the election.
And then she just becomes president.
So I think one of the strongest plays would be putting her in without being elected and then just trying to use the media to keep her there and use the CIA and all of her intelligence assets to keep her there.
It's probably where it's heading.
Anyway, Bannon was talking about the so-called low-propensity voters that did vote in 2020.
So the Democrats claim that the reason that Trump lost in 2020 is that they activated so many of their non-usual voters.
But it doesn't seem like in the polling that those non-usual voters are willing to vote this time.
Do you think that if they existed in the first place, those non-typical voters, and they made the effort to vote Trump out in 2020, that they're going to stay home in 2024?
But the polling suggests, I think Richard Barris was on there on the war room, the polling suggests that they don't exist.
And Steve Bannon, who is more provocative than I am, says maybe, not maybe, but he's claiming that the reason that you can't find these low-propensity voters this year is that they never existed.
And that 2020 was rigged with using the low-propensity voters as fake voters.
In other words, somebody voted their name, but they didn't vote.
That would be the accusation.
Now, I personally do not have proof of that.
It is simply an election claim.
So, given that Bannon and others think they have an idea where the cheat comes from, it comes from people who are possibly real voters who don't vote and wouldn't notice if somebody voted in their name, plus maybe people who shouldn't be on the voter rolls at all, I think it means the Republicans are going to be looking for that really hard.
Doesn't mean they can find it.
And it doesn't mean that if there was a cheat before, which I don't know, that they would use the same method again.
So it could be that the Republicans are fighting the last war, but this time the machines will be rigged if they were not last time.
Now, again, I'm not saying any machines have been rigged.
I don't want to be sued.
I have no evidence that any machine has ever been rigged or ever could be rigged.
I'm just saying that if there were cheating, you could kind of move the nexus of where the cheating was so it's not the same place it was last time.
I mean, that's what I'd do.
Anyway, in other news, Israel is running out of leaders to kill.
They claim to kill one of Hamas' last high-ranking members, according to The Hill.
So, kill the senior Hamas official.
Now, I'll remind you of my hypothesis of decapitation strikes.
If you kill the top terrorist, number two is probably still pretty good.
And, you know, there's a good chance that number three is, you know, maybe not as good as one and two, but good enough.
To keep the movement going.
But when you get to about the sixth person down in the leadership stack, you're going to hit a Wally.
You know what I mean?
You're going to hit a pointy-haired boss.
You're going to hit somebody who can't keep that thing alive.
And my guess is that by the time you get down to the last one of Hamas's high-ranking members, you're probably well out of the qualified people.
Because in order to pull together any kind of movement that's affecting the world that much, you probably have to be a top one percenter.
And you don't have to kill too many people in a group before they run out of one percenters.
It's one percent.
One percent is exactly the right number.
Now, I don't know if they've done it yet.
I don't know if they've got them all, but chances are the capability of Hamas has now gone from Darn near genius to blithering idiot.
Probably.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, it's a Sunday.
Are you all planning to vote?
I did a little survey yesterday.
Oh, I should check that out.
I did a little poll in which I asked people if they had convinced other people to vote this year when they had not done it in prior years.
Now, personally, I don't think I've ever even tried to convince anybody to vote.
I mean, I've done the public thing of, oh, go vote, but not really, right?
I never really, really tried.
This year, I really, really tried.
And I did it in person, and I did it, you know, publicly.
In person, I think I got several.
And in public, a number of people said, you know, maybe that they decided to vote because of things I said.
But it's not just me, of course.
So I asked, and something like 60% of the people I answered said that they got other people to vote, meaning for Trump.
Now, do you think that I could get thousands of people to answer a poll and 60% of them would say they got somebody extra to vote that had not voted before?
And maybe more than one.
I don't think that number could possibly be real unless Trump's going to win in a landslide if the vote is counted properly.
Because I've never seen anything like it.
The only thing I'm worried about...
Is young men.
Young men are unpredictable.
They typically are the lowest voters, you know, the lowest percentage of voters that show up.
But this feels different.
You can get young men to show up for a prank.
You can get them to show up for a party.
You can get them to show up for a protest.
You So there are things you can get people to show up for, but voting may be too boring and too unimportant.
But I think that all of the DEI woke stuff has activated young men to the point where they might show up.
Like, it's actually, it really matters.
Like, you're not going to get a job.
It matters.
It matters a lot.
You might get drafted.
I mean, it matters.
It really matters this time.
You'll never be able to afford groceries with the job you can get.
It matters.
So we might see maybe the biggest turnout of young men.
It still won't be as big as seniors, for example.
But we might see the biggest turnout In history for young men.
It's possible.
And they would be the least likely to be captured by pollsters, in my opinion.
I think they're the least likely.
So they would be the big surprise group.
And it's also the group that would be able to hold a prank long enough to pull it off.
So I've got a lot riding on men.
Young men.
So I It's up to you guys.
I mean, it's up to everybody, of course.
But there is one group that has a little extra pressure.
Let's just say that.
The whole world might depend on young men.
It has before.
Young men won all of our wars that we won.
And they may have to win this one, too.
We hope there's no bullets this time.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got to say for this Sunday before you go off and have a tremendous day.
Make sure you buy the Dilbert calendar, which you can only get online at the link from Dilbert.com.
It's made in America.
It's got twice the comics that it used to because it includes the, not racier, but the spicier Dilbert Reborn comics that are the newer ones as well as the classic ones.
And you can't get it anywhere except the link you'll find at Dilbert.com.
And I'm going to say goodbye to Locals and Rumble and X and hello to my subscribers on Locals.
Thanks, everybody, for joining.
I will see you tomorrow.
We'll do a lot of live streaming tomorrow during...
