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, Soros Prosecutors, George Gascon, 65 Project, Disciplinary Bar Complaints, Healthcare Cost Spike Post-Election, WaPo, David Axelrod, Migrant Amnesty, Filibuster Removal, SCOTUS Packing, 1-Party Rule, Job Reports, Trump Pending Sentence, Election Count Delays, Ian Bremmer, CISA Election Security, Anti-Trump Wrap-up Smear, Obama Pushes Fine-People Hoax, Mehdi Hasan, Extremely Honest Trump, Directionally Accurate Trump, Claire McCaskill, Israel Northern Border, 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
Experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tidy, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a stand, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip and damn it, it's happening right now.
Go.
My enjoyment of that sip is unparalleled, really.
Well, let's talk about some science-y things and such.
Then we'll get into all the ugly politics.
I know you want that.
You want it bad.
We got some good stuff today.
Well, according to What's Up With That, what's spelled W-A-T-T-S, what's up, For the second time in a week, climate scientists were surprised with an increased CO2 absorption mechanism.
So it turns out that there were two things that climate scientists might have gotten wrong about CO2 absorption.
Number one is how quickly plants absorb it.
Number two is how much heat can be absorbed by the ocean.
So, let's say if you were building a climate model to measure temperature, and two of the things that you knew you got very wrong were plants and oceans, how do you think your final number looks?
Let's say the only things we got wrong were the plants and the oceans.
Well, how about all the clouds?
You know, just the regular, eh, don't ask about the clouds.
How about the sun and the sunspots?
Eh, don't ask, don't ask, don't ask.
So, I always think that the climate models are sort of the ultimate test of how much you understand about the world.
Now, I don't know if the temperature of the world is going up, and I don't know if CO2 is involved.
The only thing I know for sure is that you can't tell with the climate model.
That's the only thing I know for sure.
But most of the world has been hypnotized into thinking that the scientists, although they're continually updating the variables and assumptions that go into the climate models, they're still right, no matter how many times you change them.
Still right.
And if they're wrong, we'll change them until they're right again, somehow, because we know it's right.
Start with that, and then we'll make our models match it.
All right, here's some more science.
Let's see how you could have done with this.
Would you have needed a study to tell you the following?
According to American Education Research Association, students with a growth mindset learn more in school.
There's actually been a study of that now.
So if you have a growth mindset, you'll learn more.
What kind of students would have a growth mindset, do you think?
Now, a growth mindset, the way they defined it, is that you believe that if you study, you can learn a lot.
So, what kind of people just sort of naturally know that if they study, they'll learn a lot?
Would it be dumb people?
Would it be smart people?
There you go.
There you go.
Yep.
Let me use my own life example where anecdote beats science.
Now, normally science beats anecdote.
Here would be a case where an anecdote totally beats science.
When I was about six years old, and this is true, by the way.
I'm making it into a more interesting story, but it's true.
When I was about six, I looked into a mirror and I said to myself, you know what?
I don't think you can play in the NBA. And I was right.
Turns out that at six years old, I could accurately ascertain I was not headed for the NBA. So then I said, what the hell can you do?
You'd better get some kind of a life plan here.
You're not going to play in the NBA. And so I said to myself, well, what am I good at?
And I thought, huh, according to all these adults, they keep telling me I'm smarter than average.
So I go, hmm, I'll bet I could learn a lot.
And so I developed a growth mindset because everybody, including me, that I knew thought I would be good at school.
And then I was.
Now, did you really need to run a study that people who are pretty sure they're good at school and that going to school and learning will be good for them, they end up learning more?
Did we need to study that?
Did we?
I think you could have just asked Scott next time.
Well, I didn't see this coming.
New York City has a drought.
Apparently, it was drier than normal in October.
And New York City people are being asked to conserve water.
So the city's falling apart.
There's crime, there's debt, and not nearly enough water.
So sooner or later, every blue state will turn into California.
They won't have energy and they won't have water.
And there will be fires raging through the houses.
Which, by the way, is probably true.
The longer estate remains blue, probably less water and energy they're going to have because of the way they run stuff.
Anyway, we hope they do well.
Did you know, according to Slay News, That the Biden-Harris administration has licensed DNA vaccines for the food supply.
So I guess they're going to give vaccinations to the salmon and some other stuff.
Doesn't it feel like the public should get some kind of a say in that?
Instead of just going to the store one day and you're chewing on your salmon and it's full of mRNA or whatever the hell they decided to put in there.
Now, it's not like I'm an expert that if you ask me, Scott...
Do you think we should give this salmon a shot?
I don't know.
Maybe.
But I feel like they should at least run it by us.
You know, hey, we really think we better give some shots to these salmon because whatever we've been doing up to now isn't good enough.
To which I say, are you telling me the salmon I've been eating up to this point are all bad for me?
I just don't know.
But yeah, don't drink the water and don't eat the fish and you're all going to die from climate change.
There is a Soros prosecutor who's been a thorn in the side of people who don't like Soros prosecutors in L.A. who's been blamed for many of L.A.'s problems.
But George Gascon is apparently losing badly, like really badly, to the challenger.
And Joel Pollack is writing about this in Breitbart.
And I ask you this.
Do you think the country is just adjusting?
Do you think that the country has figured out that having a Soros prosecutor is basically a death knell for your state?
How much do you think the country has figured out?
Because, you know, I'm in my own little silo, and I never know Does the rest of the country know this?
Or is this just some little thing I see in my little corner of the news?
But if the challenger's up by 25 points, according to the Times, that should tell the story.
And in my location, the Soros prosecutor is on the ballot for recall.
Now, if I had to guess, I would guess she's going to get recalled.
So it's possible, because, you know, why would you even be on the ballot?
I think she's going to get recalled.
So we can actually get rid of a Soros prosecutor in L.A. and San Francisco, potentially, in the same year.
That'd be kind of a big deal.
Anyway, we'll see if that happens.
Do you know about Project 65?
That's that lawyer Mark Elias.
He's a Democrat lawyer who's always Pushing things in the domain of elections.
Some say he's getting away with all kinds of weaselly but legal stuff, and he's affecting the elections.
But here's what's happening now.
This Project 65, so they're aligned with Mark Elias, they're running ads in every swing state saying that if any attorney represents Trump in regards to election integrity matters, they might lose their licenses.
Can you imagine that?
That's a real thing that's happening.
I would say one of the strongest things about the American structure is that we'll give a genuine, at least we'll try, to give a real defense even to somebody who's guilty.
But here's a case where even if somebody's innocent, They're going to take out the defense.
They're going to attack the defense, even if they're defending somebody innocent.
So this is another case of the Democrats making you think past the sale, which to me is the biggest story of the year.
So, you know, the hypnotist take is he's making you think that Trump did steal the election in 2020 and Or claimed it was stolen when it wasn't.
Now, nobody knows if that election was stolen.
There's no way to know that.
So they're making you think past the sale.
If Trump was right, and I don't know that either, that the election was rigged, then everything Trump does looks completely different.
If it was not only not rigged, but it was possible for a human being to know that it wasn't rigged, and one of those human beings was Trump, and he knew it wasn't rigged, and he knew it was fair, and there's no evidence for that point of view whatsoever, well then, he's got some questions that need to be answered.
I would say for sure, I would be very uncomfortable with Trump if I believed he knew he lost.
But, because I'm not a fucking idiot, I know that nobody can know if he won or lost, because we don't have a system that would tell you that one way or the other.
We do have a system that gives you a result, but let me say it again.
If you're positive you know that our election in 2020 was fair, you're a fucking idiot.
And by the way, it might have been fair.
I'm not saying it wasn't fair or it was fair.
I'm saying that if you're sure you know because you were told that you can know, that that's knowable, you're a fucking idiot.
Honestly, where have you lived in this world where everything is corrupt?
Our finance markets, our healthcare stuff, every fucking part of our country is corrupt.
And you're going to tell me that you're sure, you're sure that 50 separate fucking elections were all done right?
You're an idiot.
You're a fucking idiot.
If you think you're sure, you know that 2020 was fair.
And let me say again, I don't know.
Maybe it was fair.
Maybe it wasn't.
But if you're sure it was fair, you're a fucking idiot.
There's no way around that, right?
You're a fucking idiot.
Or you've been hypnotized.
Brainwashed.
I will allow that there are people who would have a high IQ who have been brainwashed into thinking he was fair.
But think about how hard that brainwashing would have to go.
You would have to erase what people know about everything else in the world.
Because smart people know everything else is corrupt.
They haven't not noticed that.
Smart people know that the food pyramid was upside down for most of our life.
Smart people know that we got into a war in Iraq and didn't need to.
Smart people know that the Russia collusion thing was fake.
They know that the fine people thing was a hoax.
Smart people know that.
But then they take all they know about everything in the world, and if they can be convinced that the election was definitely fair, Well, they're either hypnotist, or I'm wrong, and they're just fucking idiots.
Right?
Because you can't get to there by reason.
You just can't.
So anyway, that horrible thing is happening on the Democrat side.
You know, I wonder if, because I'm obviously in a news bubble too, I wonder if the Republicans are doing something that evil.
Is there something Republicans are doing?
Oh, that's right.
If you're a Democrat, you believe that they're trying to fix the election or claim that they won when they didn't win.
But that's not true.
Is there anything true that's happening that Republicans are doing that's as dirty as the Project 65?
Is there anything they're doing as dirty as really any of the claims that the Democrats are making?
I'm not aware of anything.
And Trump does his hyperbole and, you know, does his exaggeration, but I'm not aware of anything Republicans are doing that are in the neighborhood of how completely evil some of this looks.
Anyway, but maybe I'm just in a news bubble and I don't see it.
According to Just the News, there was going to be a giant spike in out-of-pocket costs for patients for health care, but I think for Medicare drug spending.
Yeah, but the Biden administration moved $5 billion around to delay that so you wouldn't know that your healthcare prices spiked before the election.
Okay, so that should be grounds for, I would say, grounds for impeachment.
Now, I don't think there's any impeachment rule that would impeach you for this specifically.
But what if it's true that your government did essentially a financial fraud in order to win the election?
Because I would consider this a financial fraud if the reporting turns out to be true.
Again, what is it that Republicans did that was as bad as that?
If he asked Democrats, they'd say, well, Trump made the Republicans turn down the excellent, excellent bipartisan border bill.
But of course, if you're a Republican, you know it was not an excellent, excellent bipartisan bill.
It was an amnesty bill.
It was the opposite of what the Republicans wanted.
Why did one Republican negotiate it?
I don't know.
Nobody else knows either.
But the fact that I don't know that doesn't make it a good bill.
Anyway, even Snopes has debunked the hoax that Trump wanted Liz Cheney to be executed by a firing squad.
How many Democrats actually believed that Trump said in public that guns should be pointed at Liz Cheney?
No, none of that ever happened.
He was talking about she wants to send people to war, but she hasn't been at war where guns would be pointed at you.
So, even Snopes debunked that.
But I think Snopes only gets involved when something is so bad that even Democrats agree it's not true.
I mean, when Bill Maher went on TV and said, okay, I can't go this far.
This thing about Cheney is just fake news.
You know, why do you keep doing this to me?
Because I think Bill Maher is embarrassed.
About being associated with Democrats when they just make up the news.
And so he called them out, to his credit, called them out, said, you made up this news.
I'm embarrassed being associated with you, basically.
And then Snopes does a little cleanup work, and they're like, all right, all right, maybe this one's not true.
So I don't feel like we got to fact check so much as we got, let us fact check some unimportant ones.
So when we don't fact check the other ones that are also fake, you're going to think maybe those are true.
So I worry that the real game is not fact checking.
The real game is making sure that some of the facts don't get fact checked.
That's what I worry about.
Well, according to the Daily Wire, Trump has filed an FEC complaint saying the Washington Post is illegally boosting articles that are good for Kamala.
So the Washington Post decided not to endorse anybody publicly, but the allegation is that the Washington Post has been somehow boosting those stories.
So the Washington Post pays to boost stories critical of Trump I don't know how they, who do they pay?
Aggressively ramped up its paid advertising campaign, boosting, oh, okay.
So they were basically doing an advertising campaign for their own newspaper, the Washington Post, and in it they were boosting the anti-Trump articles, it sounds like.
Well, I ask you this.
Is it possible to have a fair and free election if the news is fake?
What do you think?
Could you ever say, yes, we had a fair and unrigged election, if you knew for sure that the news was fake?
I would say obviously no.
Obviously no.
So the thought that we have fair and free elections is so weirdly obviously not true.
Because at the very least you'd have to have accurate information.
Why is there a very loud machine right outside my window?
That could only be if my neighbor decided that being really loud before 8am was okay after all.
What time is it?
7.20.
7.20am and there's a bulldozer under my window.
Think that's okay?
Does that feel okay to you?
Especially when the person running it I talked to personally said don't ever do this before 8am because I got a live show.
Can you hear it by the way?
Can you hear the engine?
No, it's not this idea.
It's my neighbor.
Alright, well I guess I won't take care of that right now then.
So does the Trump campaign have a case?
Well, probably not, because I doubt the news industry is going to get punished for being biased, punished in any way for being biased.
But here's a good story.
So David Axelrod was trying to dunk on Elon Musk.
And he looked at something that Elon Musk had claimed on the X platform.
And he said, so this is David Axelrod, well-known Democrat strategist type person.
He said, it used to be that Twitter at least tried to police this information.
Now its owner traffics in it.
All as he invests hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Trump and make himself a power-wielding oligarch.
Now, This is amazing.
Axelrod must know that the people who follow him will believe that this is true, that Twitter at least tried to police disinformation.
But who gets to decide what is disinformation?
Who gets to decide?
Well, let's look at this one example.
Because Axelrod was responding to something that Musk was saying online.
So let's check out what Musk was saying online, because according to David Axelrod, it would be disinformation.
So here's what Musk said.
He was responding to an Insurrection Barbie post.
So he's essentially accepting what she said and then boosting it.
I don't know if Insurrection Barbie is a hero, is she actually?
But Insurrection Barbie said, if you don't vote and Harris wins, she will grant amnesty to every single foreign national they have allowed in here.
They will nuke the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, make D.C. and Puerto Rico states, and America will be California.
Now, is that hyperbole?
Or is that true?
Well, it's an opinion, because it's based on what is assumed will happen in the front.
So opinions can't be right or wrong, can they?
And to me, it's obviously an opinion.
But is the opinion based on something solid enough That it's fair to say this opinion.
Well, yes, because prominent Democrats have said they want to have an amnesty pathway.
You could argue about every single one.
That part's just obvious, hyperbole.
But I wouldn't argue that Democrats are looking to make them citizens.
They'll nuke the filibuster.
Prominent Democrats have said that multiple times.
They'll pack the Supreme Court again.
Prominent Democrats have suggested that would be a good idea.
Now that's far from being a policy.
There's no Harris policy to that for the filibuster or the Supreme Court, but I believe that she and people in her group have been for it, so it's reasonable to assume they might do the thing that they vocally said they were for right until the election started, right?
So if you were for something and you never said why you changed your mind, it's pretty reasonable to say you might still be for it.
And then making D.C. and Puerto Rico states, that's, again, something that Democrats have been for.
All right, so these are a bunch of things that are not necessarily things that Harris says she wants to do at the moment, but things she has been aligned with in the past and not distant past.
We're talking about just last month or a few months ago, before she was officially the candidate.
There were some things that were crazy that she was in favor of that she backed off a little bit.
But still, it's reasonable to assume that she might still be in favor of them.
She just can't say it until she gets elected.
So Musk says about the insurrection Barbie thing, he says those are their stated goals.
And that's true.
There are prominent Democrats who have stated these exact things.
Doesn't mean it'll happen.
And it doesn't mean that a President Harris would push them.
But it does mean prominent Democrats are pushing these exact things, just as...
And then he says, unless Trump wins, this will be the last election.
He says the Dems will legalize all the illegals in swing states, so there'll be no more swing states.
America will become a one-party, deep-blue socialist state.
Now, those are opinions, but they're based on things that Democrats have really said, really in public.
And it wouldn't be too much connecting dots to say that if they did these things, it would be one party rule.
And to that, David Axelrod says, Twitter at least tried to police disinformation.
Imagine how mad you would be if your entire plan for power depended on controlling all the media platforms, but the biggest one, the most important one, I would say, X, is the one you can't control.
That must really kill the top Democrats.
That really gets into their game.
But at least all the other news is true, right?
Oh.
Well, David Sachs says this in the post.
He says, the biggest story of the week was the jobs report.
October, 12,000 new jobs when 100,000 were expected.
And the job growth is negative if the government jobs are excluded.
September was at 254,000.
But revised down 31,000.
August, it was 159,000, but revised down 81,000.
And as Sachs says, instead they got us focusing on the presidential polls.
So, yes, there's a lot of diversion going on.
Here's a question.
Now, Fisher King, one of my favorite posts, or one of my favorite accounts on X, he says, reminder that Trump currently has a sentencing date of November 26 on the, quote, 34 felony convictions thing.
So if he loses, the plan is to jail him quickly so he isn't in a position to challenge any irregularities in the elections.
Now, I did a little bit of research with somebody smarter than me, who shall remain nameless, who thinks that it's more likely that it would just be appealed and he wouldn't go to jail.
Now, is that true?
He wouldn't actually be behind a cell, would he?
November 26th.
He would just appeal and it would get pushed forward and probably the entire The case might have to be retried because of Supreme Court decisions recently.
So I don't think he's going to be in jail.
But you've got to think that they gamed this out.
You've got to think that in some room, there must have been a conversation where Democrats said, all right, if we can get him in jail, and then they probably said, oh, he'll appeal, that won't work.
So they probably have another plan.
Rasmussen points out that 45% of the people they polled say that when states are late in reporting their election results, it makes them less confident that those are real results.
And yet...
We've been told that it will take days before we have our election results.
Why would a country that's so concerned about election integrity wait several days to count the votes when they would know that something like 45% of the country would trust the outcome less if it doesn't happen the same day as the election?
Why would they do that?
I can't think of any reason, can you?
If it's not to cheat, what would be the reason?
Is it so they can have machines instead of ballots?
Is it so...
Why?
It doesn't seem to be any reason other than to promote cheating.
Because other countries don't do this.
Other countries say, even if it's mailed in, you have to mail it by this date.
So we'll be done counting by this date.
I don't know.
Seems to me...
Very suspicious that something so easy to fix and so big a problem would remain unfixed forever.
There's only one reason I can think of that you wouldn't fix a problem that big that's that fixable.
So here's a little exchange I had with Ian Bremmer about our secure elections.
He posted...
Yesterday, he said, I have no idea who's going to win.
He said, I'm extremely confident the election will be free and fair and secure.
And most takes on social media would have you believe exactly the opposite.
They are lying to you.
Okay, well, I would be an example of someone who believes exactly the opposite about our elections being free and fair.
I believe that by design, they're designed to be the opposite of that.
It would be easy to design them to be free and fair.
And since we don't, and yet we have the full capability of doing it, I think the smart take is that they're designed to be rigged.
Now, that was just that Ian thinks that I'm lying to you.
Am I lying to you when I say everything in our country is rigged?
That's not a lie.
That's something you can observe yourself.
Do you think the election's the most important part, like the one that gives people the power and the money ultimately?
Do you think that's the only thing that's not rigged?
Do you think that state actors couldn't rig our machines and get away with it without us knowing?
It's almost insane or something to imagine the saying that we can't be sure who won is somehow a lie.
How could that be a lie?
I could be wrong.
I could definitely be wrong.
But where's the lie?
I'm telling you exactly what you see.
What you see is every industry that can get away with polluting does.
Everybody who can get away with cheating does.
Everybody who can hide something that's bad for them does.
Everywhere.
All the time.
Every country, every organization, every government entity, everywhere.
And I'm supposed to believe this is the one time it doesn't happen.
And I'm the dumb one.
I'm the liar.
So that makes me the liar to say that everything will go the same way everything goes.
If everything always goes one way, always, just always, and I say everything always goes one way, I'm lying to you?
So...
I responded and I said, how could we possibly know that?
In other words, how could we know that the election would be free and fair and secure, as Ian says.
And I said it requires believing everything in America is obviously corrupt, as the news shows us daily, and of course the news itself is corrupt, except for our election systems.
So Ian responded.
He says, in terms of how could you know the election is free and fair, he says lots of ways.
And then he parenthetically said, bipartisan audits, studies, etc.
Didn't know that.
And to which I say, wait a minute, bipartisan audits?
We don't have a system that can be audited.
Why does Ian think we have a system that can be audited?
We don't have that.
Ian, check this out.
Here's my ballot.
So this is actually a napkin, but imagine it's my ballot.
I just filled it out.
Okay, now somebody came in my office and they took it off my desk and they put it in my drawer.
So it didn't get counted.
Did the audit pick that up?
Now, I just want to know, who thinks you can audit our election?
If a programmer got in and changed the bits on the counting machines, who catches that?
If we have known cases of non-citizens voting, which we do catch in small numbers, you know, a dozen here, a dozen there, how many got away?
Do we have a system that catches every one of them?
Does our audit catch every one of them?
How could you possibly think we have an auditable system?
So, bipartisan audits.
They said studies, to which I say studies.
What kind of study can you do if you know that they're not auditable?
What would the study say?
It's not auditable, but we still know the answer?
Who exactly would you pay to do those studies?
How old are those studies, and did they look at every state?
Here's what I think some of it is.
I think J. Cal was taking a run at this.
If you cheated so big that it would really change the election, it would be too hard to get away with it.
But it doesn't need to be big.
You can just force it to be a tie election until Election Day, which we saw them do right in front of us.
I predicted a year ago it would be a tie on Election Day no matter who ran.
Here we are.
It's a tie on Election Day.
No matter who ran, they actually replaced the candidate and they still got a tie.
So, as long as the news can drive it toward a tie, then all you have to move is a couple of swing states, which means just a couple thousand votes in a couple places.
Maybe three places would be enough.
So, yes, it could be really small.
I don't think we would necessarily catch something really small.
But Ian Bremmer pointed me toward a podcast that he had with a woman who apparently is in charge of making sure that our elections are fair and free, and she works for a group called CISA, C-I-S-A. Now, among other things, I guess their job is to make sure elections are fair and free, because the states do their own versions of elections, so you'd need some kind of an auditor to come in and make sure they have resources that they need and that sort of thing.
So, SISA does that.
Now, SISA works with, let's see, I looked at their website.
They work with a group called CrowdStrike.
CrowdStrike.
Have you heard of them?
Yeah, CrowdStrike is part of their cybersecurity infrastructure for SISA. So, one of the ways they make sure that your elections are fair and clear is they get some SISA software working on those machines, some CrowdStrike software working on those machines.
Has anybody ever heard of CrowdStrike?
Does that name ever come up in politics?
Yeah, for all of you, those of you who follow Mike Benz, these names all have a different meaning.
These are not the groups that you look to for credibility.
These are exactly the groups you look to to reduce credibility.
But remember, I always tell you that if you know what's happening, you don't know anything.
You have to know the players.
So if I just told you, oh, the government has a whole entity that's their whole purpose is to make sure the elections are good, that would be telling you what's happening.
And you wouldn't know anything.
Now I'm going to tell you who's doing it.
The people who are most often accused of bad behavior are the ones in charge.
The ones most often associated with bad behavior, SISA. Now, do I personally know any bad behavior they've done?
It's not like I've researched it.
But you couldn't get, you could not Achieve a lower level of credibility than having your elections checked by SISA and CrowdStrike.
Now, again, I don't personally have any information about CrowdStrike or SISA. I'm just saying that if credibility is what you wanted, you wouldn't go anywhere near these two entities.
And that's supposed to convince me.
Now, here's the funny part.
The Sisley representative, I don't know if she was ahead of it or just ahead of the election part of it, but she was a manager.
A manager.
Would you listen to a manager's opinion about whether an election was fair and free?
Have any of you worked in the real world?
Let me explain the real world.
There are engineers who know how things work, and then there are things called managers who don't know how anything works or how anything is put together.
If you talk to the engineers, they'll say things like, well, the reason CISA has such a big operation is there are so many places that our elections could be vulnerable.
And I'd say, wait, what?
Yeah, they do lots of stuff.
I mean, that's why they have the CrowdStrike software.
That's why they have the audit tools.
And the reason is there are so many ways our elections can be rigged that they're all over the place.
To which I say, so engineer, are you telling me therefore that it's completely secure because SISA is in so many places that there could be problems?
How would an engineer answer that question?
An honest engineer would say, well, really, the fact that there's dozens and dozens of holes we have to plug is kind of a strong indication that there are holes we haven't plugged that we don't yet know about.
Because I would ask, were all the holes that you plugged today, were all of them always plugged?
Well, no, that's why we had to have SISA. So you're saying that in the past, we had holes which we knew, and until SISA came, they were not plugged.
Right, that's why SISA was created, so we could plug the holes.
But didn't we think the elections were always free and fair?
Yes, we did.
So, before any of the holes were plugged, we also thought our elections were free and fair.
That's right.
But yet they weren't, or we couldn't have possibly known because there were holes.
Yeah, but they're plugged now.
How do you know you plugged all of them?
Well, we're not aware of any that need to be plugged.
At any time during the process where you were plugging the holes that are now plugged, was there any time when you had half of them plugged and you were unaware that there might be some other things that would come up?
Oh yeah, that happened.
We plugged the ones we knew about.
A few more came up, so we plugged them.
So how could you possibly know you've plugged all the holes now?
Well, nobody's complaining.
But if somebody did complain tomorrow and pointed out a new hole that you didn't know was there, what would you say then?
Well, we'd plug that hole.
Okay, but you wouldn't know if anybody had already used it, necessarily.
So the thing is, if you talk to the manager, you know what the manager says?
It's a perfect election.
We exist to make sure that everything's running fine.
We've checked it out.
And by the way, I get paid more if I do a good job protecting the elections.
You know, my pay will depend on it.
I'd get fired if I did a bad job of it.
Wait a minute.
Are you telling me that if you admitted the elections were not secure, you would get fired?
Well, yes, of course, because it's my job to make sure they're secure.
So I'm supposed to believe that the elections are secure because I'm listening to a manager, not an engineer who could actually know what's going on.
I'm talking to a manager who would get fired if you said the opposite.
Well, I suppose that's true.
I would get fired.
And that was the best evidence we have that our elections are fair and fair and secure.
It was hilariously pointy-eared, boss, Dilbert territory kind of stuff.
You would have to have no experience in the real world to believe that the SISA people had secured the elections.
Now, again, I'm not aware of a specific problem, but I live in the real world.
I live in the real world.
Anyway.
So, Ian, I think we're going to need a much better argument.
Somebody said that 60 Minutes did an episode last night.
I didn't see it, but I heard that it was geared toward showing you that the Georgia elections are real secure.
Do you believe that?
Does anybody watching this believe that the Georgia elections are secure?
To me, that's absurd.
It's absurd.
It's also possible that they are secure.
But there is no way That they could communicate that to me, a regular voter, in a way that I would ever believe it.
Because it would be very much like there's a UFO in my backyard.
There is.
Yeah, it's a UFO from space.
It's in my backyard.
Can I see it?
Oh.
No, you can't see it.
Can I see a picture of it?
Oh, I should have taken a picture.
Really?
You didn't take a picture of it?
There's a UFO in your backyard and you didn't take a picture.
Well, we did take a picture.
I can't show it to you.
It feels like that.
There's no amount of 60 Minutes who have been debunked as a news site and have been revealed to be a propaganda site, essentially.
So 60 Minutes, a propaganda outlet telling you that the election is secure tells you what?
You know that the person telling you is a propaganda outlet.
And they made a really big point to tell you the elections are secure.
What message did you get?
The message I got was that they're not secure.
Because if you're going to send somebody to tell me that the elections are secure, why don't you send me somebody who's not a fucking liar?
Because CBS are clearly fucking liars.
They have no credibility whatsoever in the news business.
If you want to tell me that something is secure, don't send the biggest fucking liars in the world to tell me they're secure.
Don't even try.
Send me somebody that I might trust.
60 minutes?
Are you fucking kidding me?
What a joke.
Sisa, are you kidding me?
That's who I'm going to trust?
Are you fucking kidding me?
That's who I'm supposed to trust.
Well, Morning Joe continues to be hilarious in their propaganda-ing.
They said about Kamala Harris, quote, she delivers the message that I think Americans want, which is, let's come together.
I'm going to be president for all Americans.
So, Morning Joe thinks that Kamala Harris has a unity message.
Maybe.
Seems to me that Republicans have been called insurrectionists, white supremacists, garbage.
Deplorables, if you will.
I don't see any possibility that she's bringing anybody together.
And what it feels like is that she just mugged me, and she's telling me it's time to unite.
To which I'm saying, how about you give me back my wallet, and then we will talk about uniting.
Nope, I got your wallet, and I'm going to shoot you in the arm.
Now, how about uniting?
No, I'm really mad now.
You took my wall and you shot me in the arm.
Damn it, I'm going to kill you.
Well, now I'm going to kill you.
I have to kill you because you're dangerous now.
So they kill me.
If only he had been willing to unite.
If only.
He'd still be alive today.
But it was his unwillingness to unite with his mugger and abuser that caused his downfall.
And really he had it coming.
He moved the lectern.
Nate Silver, as you know, famous pollster, thinks that maybe the polls are bunching for the purpose of being credible.
Yes, the polls are bunching for the purpose of being credible, which I told you a year ago and every month since then, the polls will bunch to pretend to be credible.
And then the polls bunched to pretend to be credible.
And Nate Silver calls it out because...
It's obvious.
But, as Alex Castellanos says, he told Fox News this, and he's worked for various campaigns, so he knows what he's talking about.
He says, I think they're missing a massive shift in voter registrations underneath all of this.
31 states have voter registration by party, and 30 of them in the past four years have seen movement toward Republicans.
So he doesn't think it's like a wave, but maybe a wavelet.
So the idea is that you don't catch the last-minute sentiments.
These polls might miss that.
And that you can't have so many people registering to be Republican unless they're going to vote Republican.
So it is reasonable to assume that nearly all of the Republicans who registered for the first time did it for the purpose of voting for Trump.
So I don't think the polls have that in their numbers.
And the reason they wouldn't have the new registrations is Is because they're going to look at how people voted in prior polls to figure out how they're going to vote this time.
And all the unlikely voters who have newly registered, they don't have a history.
So when the pollsters try to put the old history into the new prediction, they can't do it.
Because now the history is destroyed by the fact that something new happened.
A whole bunch of people registered, which is unusual for Republicans to have more registrations than Democrats, at least lately.
Nancy Pelosi wants you to think about Trump's cognitive ability.
She's hitting that hard.
But this is that wrap-up smear thing again.
So she's good at the wrap-up smear.
She also talks about the insurrection.
So remember what a wrap-up smear is?
So a wrap-up smear, Nancy Pelosi actually explained this in public.
That a politician will leak some story to fake news people.
The fake news will run a story about it.
And then the politician doesn't have to rely on themselves as the source.
They can say, well, look, the New York Times has a story about it.
So the politicians tell you that there was an insurrection in 2020.
Which depends entirely upon Trump's inner thoughts.
And they've actually caused the entire country to think past the sale.
That we can somehow know Trump's inner thoughts and that he knew he lost in 2020, even though the results looked very much like he got cheated because of the last minute change in the numbers.
Now, I don't know that he got cheated.
But I know that it looked like it, and I know that half the country said, oh, that looks exactly like they cheated.
And if Trump agrees with half the country, which is the vast majority of his base, you know, they're on the same side, the most likely explanation of what happened is that he thought the same thing as base thought.
He thought it was really, really rigged.
Now, Everything you see in the news and from the Democrats make you think past that sale.
The sale is, what did Trump think at the time?
Because if Trump thought the election had been stolen, then everything he did makes a lot more sense.
He was trying to stop a steal.
That would be pro-republic, pro-democracy, pro-America.
The way it happened, not good, because there was violence.
But if you were looking at the intentions and whether he should be punished for it or rewarded for it, it's based on what he thought.
And what he thought I think is kind of obvious because so many of his base thought the same thing based on looking at the same stuff.
I can completely see why they would think it.
So also Obama dusted off the fine people hoax again yesterday.
Can you believe that?
The fine people hoax.
The most debunked hoax in American history and the ex-president is using it on the eve of the election to change the news.
This is fake news.
It's It does show me that any positive thought I ever had about Obama, I need to remove.
Because there was a day when I said to myself, you know what, I don't like everything Obama does, but he was a solid president.
Based on him pushing the fine people hoax on the eve of the election, I would say, I erase, I take back every good thing I ever thought about that fucking asshole.
I think he's a piece of shit now.
I think doing this to the country is absolutely good.
It's close to criminal.
It's very close to criminal behavior.
I don't think it is, but it's as close as you can get.
So I would say that the Obamas are now in the shithole shame factory of America.
There's nothing good about them, and Michelle Obama probably has a cock.
I don't think that's true, but if he's going to do the fine people hoax, I'm going to go with Michelle has a cock.
And I'm going to say it every time he says the Fine People Oaks because Michelle Obama has a cock.
Not really, but I'll say that every time he says Fine People Oaks.
Doug Emhoff apparently is not aware of things that people say about his wife because he actually said this out loud at an event yesterday.
He said, quote, Kamala put her head down and went to work.
Really, there was probably a better way to phrase that.
Probably a better way.
But there were memes.
There were memes.
That's all I'm going to say.
She put her head down and she went to work.
There were memes.
Trump said at his rally, quote, I'm not supposed to say this.
It's really not very close.
We're leading in all seven swinging states.
I wouldn't be surprised if his internal polling is better than the public polling, because the public polling had to bunch.
They're all bunching intentionally.
The private polling that they all do at that level doesn't have to bunch.
It just has to be good.
So it's possible Trump's seeing something that others are not.
Meanwhile, D.C. is gearing up for trouble and fences are being put around the VP residents in the White House.
And do you think that there will be a big protest if people don't like the election results?
Well, I don't think it's going to happen on election night because we won't have an answer.
What are you going to be protesting?
So I don't think the networks will call the race for Trump, even if he's ahead.
So I don't know exactly when said protests would happen or who would be doing it, but I suppose it's smart to be prepared.
Makes you wonder if the National Guard has been alerted.
Do you think the National Guard would be employed or deployed?
Maybe.
Well, a former MSNBC anchor who got canned by MSNBC, Mehdi Hassan, he's mad at both Biden and Attorney General Merrick for not putting Trump on trial before the 2024 presidential election.
Well, if he'd done it before the election, Trump would have already cleared all of those election claims because they would have already been turned over by the courts or people would have forgot about him.
But again, he's making you think past the sale.
So if he makes you think that they should have put him in jail sooner, he's making you think, well, he's obviously guilty.
So why didn't we do this sooner?
But the part where he's obviously guilty is where he's making you think past the sale.
I don't see him obviously guilty of anything.
All I saw was lawfare.
All I saw was even people on CNN, like Fareed Zakario, saying he doesn't think some of these would be even taken to court, except it was Trump.
So, yes, don't let them think past the sale.
Everything is making them think past the sale.
If the 2020 election was fake or not, their entire argument depends on you not thinking about that, and it's the important part.
All right, well, here's another thing that the Biden-Harris administration was going to do.
They were set to push plant sources of protein over red meat, In their dietary guidelines.
The Washington Free Beacon is reporting on this.
And they say that that was maybe delayed because of the election.
Do you think?
How do you think the Democrats would have done getting votes from men if they had gone, you know, you really need to be a vegetarian right before the election?
I don't think that would have helped their vote with young men.
I think young men like their meat for the most part.
Do you know who is vegetarian?
College women.
Young women, mostly.
So this is another indication that Democrats are the party of women.
And I still take credit for being the first person who said that the parties would become the party of men and the party of women.
I think I'm the first one in the country to say this is obviously going to happen.
And it did.
I probably said that in 2016.
So the post-millennial says that Kamala Harris has a separate message she's sending on the campaign to the Muslims versus the Jews, the American Muslims and Jews, and that she is a little more pro-Israel with the Jewish Americans and a little more pro-Palestinian with the Muslim Americans.
Now, that's no big surprise, right, because they're politicians.
But I wondered, does Trump ever do that?
I'm trying to think, has Trump ever had two messages for two different groups of people?
It seems like with all the politicking, there must have been some time it happened.
But I don't really see that happen.
Trump is weirdly honest in ways that I don't think are completely understood.
And here's one of them.
He gives you one message.
Now, you might not like the message, and you might think the message is based on a lie or something, but it gives everybody the same message, and that strikes me as honest.
When I watch somebody give different messages to different groups, that strikes me as dishonest.
When I just think that Trump, even though he's directionally accurate but fails the fact-checking quite a bit, that the directional accuracy is the part I cared about.
Somebody was challenging me on how much wall he got built.
I think Cenk was saying he didn't build much wall.
To which I say, but he tried to build a wall.
I mean, he tried.
Nobody tried harder than he did.
He tried different funding mechanisms.
They kept thwarting him at every turn.
And he got some going.
You know, got money from the military, etc.
So that's what I want.
I want somebody that I can observe doing everything you could do to do the thing that needs to get done.
If it doesn't work, Well, then I'd say, you know, keep going and do the best you can, etc.
But at least it's in the right direction.
So for me, the fact that Trump does seem to do directionally what he says he'll do feels honest.
And so does not having two messages for two different groups of people.
So, I get, I'm completely aware that the fact checkers will tear them apart and they'll say the windmills don't stop and turn off your TV and I'll say he didn't really mean that, don't fact check that.
But directionally, and on the big stuff, Trump is much more honest.
Much more honest.
Alright, what are Tim Wall's closing lies?
Governor Walz says, there will come a day when you're going to be sitting on that rocking chair and the little ones are going to ask you, quote, when everything was on the line, there was somebody running who asked to be a dictator.
No, nobody did that.
And wanted to overturn the Constitution.
Nope, nobody ever did want to do that.
And talked about using the military against our people.
Nope, that wasn't a thing.
What did you do to stop that from happening?
Well, here's what the youngster should have said.
Grandpa, were you part of the great lying of the 2020s?
Were you one of the ones who said that Trump wanted to be a dictator and he wanted to overturn the Constitution and use the military against our people?
Grandpa, did you really say that bullshit?
Well, yes, I did.
Well, then it's time for euthanasia.
Your time is done.
That's how it would go.
Do you know Claire McCaskill?
She is one of the dumbest people on MSNBC, and boy, is that saying a lot.
MSNBC has these wonderful characters.
My favorite are the eyebrow historians.
They've got two eyebrow historians who talk about history with weird eyebrows.
And the eyebrows are supposed to really be the one that's telling the story.
You can listen to what comes at the mouth, but look at the eyebrows.
They're so concerned.
They're so concerned about what's happening.
Look at my eyebrows!
Look at my eyebrows!
Yeah, so the eyebrow historians are hilarious.
Victor Davis Hanson has normal eyebrows.
So if you want to see somebody who's actually telling you what they believe to be true about history, look for somebody with normal eyebrows.
Not this.
Not this.
No, this is not normal eyebrows.
Don't do that.
Anyway, so Claire McCaskill, possibly the dumbest person on MSNBC, the dumbest network and the dumbest show, She was mocking Elon Musk, who might be one of the smartest people in the world, and said, quote, he thinks because he can do rockets and electric cars that he can figure out how to get people to vote.
He thinks just because he can solve the biggest problems in the world that he can also solve the easiest one.
I mean, how dumb is he?
You've got to be pretty dumb to think that if you can solve the hardest problems in the world that you'd have a chance of solving this easy one like getting people to vote.
Musk actually...
Replied to it, because she also said that she was worried about a billionaire influencing elections.
And Musk says, funny that she never said a word about Soros, who has cumulatively put a hundred times more money into election than I have.
And then he says...
And this one is for the ages, folks.
This is for the ages.
This is Elon Musk.
If I can figure out science with SpaceX and surgery with Neuralink, then maybe I can figure out politics too.
And he puts a little shrugging icon.
Maybe.
I think maybe you can.
Let me put it another way.
If you had a contest, and it was Elon Musk versus Claire McCaskill, and you could pick any competition, it could be science, it could be engineering.
It could be surgery.
It could be something about space or satellites.
It could be any kind of objective academic test.
It could be a test about history, spelling, math.
It could be a test of physical capability.
I believe he could outrun her, lift more than she could, And beat her at literally any contest in any domain.
Any contest in any domain.
I think you could beat her at Scrabble.
I think you could beat her at Cards.
And so when I see Claire McCaskill, the dumbest person on MSNBC, the dumbest network in the world, saying that the smartest person in the world can't figure out one of the easiest things to figure out, how to get people to vote.
It's like my dog evaluating my calculus.
It's like I'm doing some calculus and Snickers will be there.
No, idiot.
I'd be like, what are you talking about?
And Snickers will say, well, that's not right.
And I'll say, but you're a dog.
You don't even know calculus.
I'd say, I know more calculus than you do.
No, you don't.
You're a dog.
You're my dog.
You don't know any calculus.
Well, we'll see.
That's what it feels like.
Meanwhile, there's a story that there are not enough ballots available for our military overseas.
I suspect this might be close to fake news.
There might be some places where somebody didn't know what room they were in.
There might be some places where they didn't get them in time.
I don't know if it's a massive problem, but we'll throw it in the mix.
People are worried that the military didn't get enough.
Now, I'd be worried about it because the military, I would think, would go for Trump.
So if they somehow figured out a way to screw the military from voting on time, that would be a big problem.
I mean, if the military is over there risking their lives for the country, and hypothetically, if Democrats slowed down their process for voting so maybe it didn't work, that would be one of the biggest scandals in the country.
Just because it would be so gross.
It's like, really?
Of all the people you're going to screw in at voting, you're going to pick the military?
Really?
Now, so I have a hard time believing they would do it just because my brain can't get to that level of evil, but they've done more evil things than that, so nothing's ruled out.
Washington State There's a non-profit that claims that ballot signature verification is racist.
Postmillennial is writing about this.
So why would requiring ballot signature verification be racist?
Well, the thought is that I guess white people can sign their name the same way twice.
But according to this non-profit, People who are not white are not so good at signing their own name, so that sometimes it would look like a fake signature when in fact it was real.
Now, I don't know how many people can't sign their own name, but it feels like not a lot.
But they had a better argument for older voters.
There might be some old people whose signatures have changed.
That happened to me.
My signature is not the same because I had a problem with my hand.
And they say that young people maybe haven't solidified their signature yet, so young people might be discriminated against.
But I'd love to see the people who are actually checking the handwriting, because I've got a feeling that they let differences in the signature that are pretty big go by if there's at least something in common.
That's what I guess.
So if the signature doesn't look anything like the same person, then maybe they block it.
But if it looks like somebody just got older, I don't know.
I feel like they might let that go.
I'd be interested how accurate they are at signature checks.
Meanwhile, some Obama judge in Arizona said, Said that Arizona must turn over the records of 1.2 million inactive voters so that they can be checked against who voted, except they're not going to have access to it until after the election.
So we'll be able to check if the election was rigged, but not until it's too late.
It'll probably be certified by the time they work anything out.
All right.
So we see reporting that both sides, Democrats and Republicans, are making plans for what happens if the other side claims that the election is rigged.
And that will happen.
I think there's nearly a 100% chance that both sides will claim it was rigged.
Don't you?
If Trump wins by a landslide, We've got the best chance of getting past it, but it won't stop people from saying it's rigged.
They're still going to say it's rigged.
They'll just say, well, you rigged the landslide, but you rigged it.
And they're already blaming Russia.
By the way, the CISA woman, the one that Ian Bremmer said would make me feel more comfortable with the elections, she kept going to Russia as the problem and that Russia, Russia, Russia is trying to influence our elections.
How much credibility did the CISA woman get when she started moving the conversation always to Russia interfering with our elections?
No credibility.
As soon as you start talking like that, I go, oh, okay, you're one of them.
You're not really on our team.
You're just saying stuff.
So yes, there will be big trouble.
I think it's all handleable.
I think that everything that's coming is within our ability to manage.
So if you're worried about, oh no, will everything fall apart?
Society will disintegrate?
It won't.
The basic bones of the country are still way strong enough, so we'll be fine.
Just we might miss some deadlines or something.
Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett's company, is sitting on an unprecedented amount of cash.
They sold a lot, but not all of their Apple stock, and they have $325 billion in cash that's unallocated.
Now, if you know anything about Warren Buffett, You know that he doesn't love to have lots of cash unless he thinks the stock market is not a good deal.
But there's a lot going on.
I don't think he sold just because of the elections.
I don't think so.
I think that he may have some big plan.
I would note that the entire economy is going to require Nuclear energy and AI and robots.
As far as I know, Warren Buffett was not in AI or robots or nuclear power much.
They might have had some hands in it.
So it could be that Warren Buffett, I'm just speculating, just guessing, knows that the future economy will not look anything like the current economy.
And it's going to be power, mostly nuclear.
It's going to be AI. It's going to be robots.
It's going to be self-driving cars.
So he might need to just make sure he's got a big old ton of money in those things that will be the future.
So he may be looking at buying a company, for example.
So he could be looking at I don't know what he would buy, but $325 billion will get you quite a bit.
Meanwhile, over in the Middle East, the IDF, Israeli Defense Forces, say they're slowing down the ground operations in southern Lebanon.
And that Netanyahu is seeking a diplomatic agreement to secure their northern borders.
Now, of course, if they could get some kind of security for cheap, I'm sure they'd like it.
The other way to do it would be to just destroy Lebanon, which, if they had to, I think they'll do it.
So they're in a good negotiating position because it's pretty clear that they're not going to stop until they get security.
And they don't have it now.
So if there's nobody willing to negotiate it in a way that would make them happy, I think you can count on them continuing on until there's nothing left that's at risk.
But the other possibility is they're just stalling and waiting for Trump to get in office under the theory that if Trump's in office, Israel will look like he has more backing, maybe.
And would be more able to get a good deal.
So it could be they just want to keep their options open until Trump's there because they can get a better outcome.
Maybe.
We shall see.
Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had for today.
How are you feeling about tomorrow?
I'm sure you've all voted.
Maybe some of you are going tomorrow.
But I'll double down on my prediction.
I think Trump's going to win on votes.
I don't think that necessarily means he's president.
So it's going to be a pretty big fight.
I do think he'll win in the end.
But it's going to be a hell of a fight.
And I think we'll miss some deadlines.
I'm not sure that January 6th will be certified.
I'm not sure that anybody will be put in office on January 20th.
But maybe by the end of January, maybe there's a court case.
Maybe somebody concedes.
We'll get there.
We will get there.
We'll be fine.
I mean, like I told you, everything in the country is already corrupt, but we're still bumping along.
So I think it'll be just more of that.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
And...
And thanks for watching on X and Rumble and YouTube.
Remember to get the Dilbert calendar only at the link at Dilbert.com.
