All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:21:26
Episode 2652 CWSA 11/07/24
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Looking good.
Golden Age is off to a good start.
But we got a show today to do today.
It's going to be amazing.
Probably the best thing ever.
Let's get our comments up.
And...
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
Welcome to the Golden Age, too.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, shells or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine end of the day.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, the golden-aged goodness is just seeping out of there.
It's in my pores now, people.
It's in my pores.
Did you know that an extra five minutes of exercise a day, or actually just five minutes, could lower your blood pressure?
That's right.
You only need five minutes a day.
I'm going to make, yet again, another push for my idea.
Of Americans taking more walks after meals.
Could be after breakfast, if you're retired.
Could be after lunch, if you get a little extra time.
Could be after dinner.
But I've been using this advice on myself.
Probably every other day I take a long walk.
And I feel great every time I do.
And the secret for me, anyway, is to walk until it's challenging but not Not exhausting.
And oh my goodness, does it just change your attitude?
You sleep better, you eat better, you digest better.
If I could convince you to do one change in your life, it's just to get up and put on some comfortable shoes and take a short walk.
And the emphasis is on short.
Because when you take your walk, when you're done, you should say to yourself, that was fun, I feel great.
If you don't say, that was fun, I feel great, then you probably went too long, or maybe not long enough.
But there's that sweet spot where you don't work, you don't kill yourself, but you're just putting a little effort out there, getting some sun, some fresh air.
Go ahead, try it.
Try it.
Try it right away.
It's amazing.
There's a study from Ohio State University highlighting the pervasiveness of inflammation in our diet.
Did you know that 60% of Americans have what they call a pro-inflammatory diet?
I've told you this story before, but for a number of years recently, I thought old age had caught up with me.
And now everything hurts all the time.
So my muscles hurt.
It seems like my joints hurt.
Things creaked and cracked and everything was inflamed.
And I just thought that's how it was.
And I saw an interview on the street.
Somebody, some influencer was asking people randomly, what's it like to be old?
And they would go up to old people in the street and say, what's it like to be old?
And one of them was a guy who probably wasn't much different from my age.
And he said, what's it like to be old?
And the guy says, well, honestly, it's like losing a fight every day.
He goes, everything hurts all the time.
And I was watching it and I thought to myself, wow, that's true.
My entire body hurts all the time.
I mean, not a lot, but like every time I stood up, every time I moved, you know, I feel, until it loosened up a little.
And that was all inflammation.
So I managed to get the inflammation under control with a combination of diets and who knows what.
But at the moment, I don't have any.
And my body feels like I'm 25.
It's unfrickin' believable that if you, or even at my age, And you take the inflammation out of your body, you feel like a teenager.
It's just the food.
The food is fucking killing us.
And here's one thing that I want the RFK Jr.
Trump administration to at least think about.
Would you not agree that it's been a public service to have food labeled with nutritional value?
Yes or no?
Now, some of you are, you know, free absolutists.
So you say, don't make me say something on my product.
Let the market figure it out.
But I think most of us would say, yeah, I like some truth in labeling.
You know, it shouldn't be legal to lie to me or to sell me something unhealthy without me knowing it.
So most of us would agree a little government intervention to at least tell us the truth is on point.
But you know what truth I want?
I want to know the inflammation ratio.
I want a big number right on the front of it, like from 1 to 10.
That tells me what it's going to do to my inflammation.
Wouldn't you?
And I would just ignore all the high inflammation ones, which is going to end up being a lot of your junk foods anyway.
So that's what I want to see.
All right, I have a theme for today.
The theme for today is, oh my God, am I impressed by the founders of this country, who came up with a system some 250 years ago-ish, in which they said, if we follow these rules and this constitution, even if things go terribly off the rails, we can pull it back.
And I thought maybe that wasn't true.
I felt until this last election that maybe the slippery slope was just nothing you could do anything about.
Things were going off the rails.
People were going crazy.
We were doing things that were clearly not beneficial for the country and actually existential threats to the country.
And it didn't look like there was a correcting mechanism.
And then there was.
And that's going to be my theme today.
There was a correcting mechanism.
In fact, the correcting mechanism was so big, it changed everything.
And we'll get into that a little bit.
Number one, the judge in Trump's hushbunny trial.
It looks like all the lawfare against Trump is going to be thrown out.
So did the system solve the lawfare problem?
It might have.
So we had this big problem with lawfare that none of us liked.
And if it had been successful, oh my God, what then?
Right?
Then we'd just become the country of lawfare.
But it looks like it won't be successful.
And so there again, the monster got out of the cage.
But 250 years ago, some people wrote the Constitution and And it put the monster back in the cage.
Because we elected Trump, and that fixed that problem.
So, alright, that's a win.
Win for the founders.
Jack Smith, not so happy.
Now, I'm not entirely sure that every one of Trump's legal problems will go away, because there might be some clever evil on the other side, but at the moment, it looks like that's been corrected.
And that was corrected by, here's the important point, the majority of voters.
That's the important part.
In fact, that's the biggest point today.
The majority, the majority of voters fixed that.
That's how that's supposed to work.
There's a mystery better.
You probably heard this story.
Somebody was betting millions, many millions, In the Trump election.
And one mystery bettor, allegedly from France, but we're not entirely sure about this story, allegedly won $50 million on bets.
And the story, and again, there's a little question about whether every part of the story is true, but this is what we think we know.
There was some just investor person who was good with numbers who made several large bets.
And listen to these bets.
He bet that Trump would win the presidency, but also he bet that he would win the popular vote.
Somebody bet millions that he would win the popular vote.
And also that he would win the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all three.
And he won on every bet.
Do you know what was the basis for his bets?
Guess what was the insight he used to win $50 million?
His insight was, the polls are bullshit and they're underestimating Trump's popularity.
Now, I don't know if you remember in 2016, when I was somewhat famously predicting Trump would win, and I had an argument for it that made sense to some people, but it didn't seem like a long shot.
There were a number of people Who got back to me later, who said they won anything from $100,000 to a million dollars because they bet, based on watching my periscopes, they bet that Trump was being under-polled.
So it's worked twice.
I don't know if anybody lost money in 2020.
Probably they did, so I won't take credit for that.
But apparently people betting against the pollsters...
It has been a good bet.
Now, we're still waiting to find out, you know, what's up with the polls versus the actuals.
But of course, that broke into two complete movies as well.
So which movie are you in?
So there's two movies running right now.
One of them is that the polls said it would be really, really tight.
And most of the polls said it would be tight at the end.
And then, sure enough, we didn't know who was going to win.
But it turned out, you know, Trump won, but it was within the margin of the polls, and therefore the polls were successful.
That's one movie.
Are you in that movie?
That the polls were ultimately very successful.
Because they said it was going to be super close, and it was.
And then there's the other movie that says, which one of the polls said that Trump would win so hard that he would win in the Senate, he would win in the House...
And you would effectively destroy the Democratic Party while you watched.
Who said that?
Which pollsters got that one right?
So you can actually look at this as two opposites.
It's literally the same facts, and you can interpret them as opposites.
One, well, they said it'd be close, and it was close.
The other is, they said it'd be close, and Republicans won everything.
Everything that mattered.
They want even the popular vote, for God's sakes.
So I don't know which of those I'm going to accept yet, but I think I'm leaning toward the pollsters were under-polling Trump and that there were some hidden people, and I think they were men.
I think the people who weren't talking to the pollsters were mostly men and across all types.
It turns out it wasn't white men.
It wasn't Hispanic men.
It wasn't black men.
Or Asian American men.
We always forget to throw in the Asian Americans because they just quietly are awesome all the time.
So they don't cause many problems in the country.
They just make money and pay taxes.
So they don't get mentioned as often.
But should be.
But should be.
Yeah, well, so we think somebody made $50 million just betting against the fake news, basically.
That was really a bet.
It was a bet against the fake news, is what it was.
And he won $50 million betting against the news being real.
Because remember, it's not just the pollsters.
If the polls were weird, but the people in the news were aware of it, then they would have reported it thusly.
So it's really a bet against the fake news, not just the polls.
How many of you heard or saw on social media that the number of votes that Kamala Harris will ultimately get seems to be 15 to 20 million votes short of what Biden got and therefore logically we have discovered that 2020 was a stolen election because where did 15 million voters go because we know that they didn't stay home.
And the answer is, it's all bullshit.
All that story is bullshit.
Forget it.
Don't forward that one.
Don't forward it unless you're forwarding it as fake news.
The reason the 15 million-ish, I think it's down to 14, are missing is that they literally just haven't counted them yet.
Half of them are in California.
It's just ordinary.
So the projected number of total voters will look a lot like 2020.
It's just that Trump got more of them.
Now, does that mean that 2020 wasn't rigged?
Well, it depends what you call rigging.
I guess it depends what you call rigging.
Now, it could also be that you would only need to rig a few key swing states and you get everything you need.
So it doesn't necessarily mean that 20 million voters are missing.
It could mean 100,000 voters that didn't belong got into the system.
So we can't say one way or another whether the 2020 election has been proven to be fraudulent or not.
I have my questions, but I have zero confirmed facts on that.
So I'm going to try to kick off the golden age being honest.
I always try to do that, but I think it's good to set the standard.
So let me tell you, people who are watching this, we got taken.
I'm going to put myself in that category, even though I didn't fall for that one.
But I'm in the team, right?
We're in the same team.
We got taken.
That was not real.
That was fake news.
And it was feeding into what you thought was true.
It was too on the nose.
Wouldn't that be a little too simple?
Oh, there was 20 million votes that were fake.
Yeah, a little too on the nose.
So that one I didn't accept, but I'm also open-minded.
If it turns out that the final vote count is missing, I don't know, 5 million voters, I would certainly take a look at that.
That would get my interest.
But at this point, we do not have evidence that 2020 was cheated.
All right.
It may have been, and I have my deep suspicions, but no evidence that I'm aware of.
So, if we find some someday, and I think that's a possibility, then we'll have that conversation.
But at the moment, don't see it.
And by the way, I'm not sure if this is premature yet.
This is probably premature.
But I had predicted that Trump would get the most votes.
So I'll give myself credit for the prediction that he would get the most votes.
Now, keep in mind, I didn't say that he would just win the election.
I said he would win the popular vote.
Now, that's the most votes.
Now, I don't know how many people were predicting he'd win the popular vote.
But I did.
Now, I also predicted, and this part is either not going to be true or not true yet.
I predicted that we would not have a smooth confirmation, you know, deal and that it would take to the end of January to sort it out.
I feel, and how many of you have this feeling, the Democrats are too quiet.
Do you feel that?
Do you feel that the Democrats, they're doing the usual whining and complaining and finger-pointing, but they're too quiet about what they're going to do about the situation they find themselves in, as in maybe they have a plan and we're going to find out.
So I'm not completely confident that we've got a smooth sailing through the swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.
So I'm going to keep my prediction.
My prediction has so far shown no evidence of being true.
And if it's not true, I'm going to actually congratulate Democrats for some fair play, which I would appreciate a lot.
So let's keep that one open.
I'm still on full alert that there might be some tricks in the bags that we don't know about.
But I do think the fact that even Democrats believe that Trump won the majority is the mindfuck of all mindfucks, and that whatever's happening in Democrat brains today has got to be severe.
And we'll talk about that a little bit more.
Here's another fake news.
How many of you saw?
And I got taken in by this one.
So this is my bad.
This is only partially fake news.
So this is fake news that is directionally accurate, but I think it's worth saying when you got taken.
All right?
So I'm going to raise my hand.
We're in a world where we're going to get taken by fakes and Rupar edits and bad actors.
And if you do what I do, which is you repost a lot of stuff that looks interesting, you're going to get taken.
So I feel like I should just start right out and say, I'm going to fall in that puddle like a lot.
So here's one I fell into.
There was a video that seemed to show Jake Tapper being amazed that there were no counties in the country, not a single one, in which Harris did better than Biden.
It turns out that that was a root bar, and if you'd watched the whole video, there are, in fact, I think several dozen counties in which she did better.
Now, that doesn't change the general story.
It's still directionally correct.
I guess there was another filter that they weren't putting on it, and if you saw the other filter, it would say, like, 58 counties she did better, something like that.
But that's 58 out of...
Thousands?
Lots of counties.
So the message is exactly the same.
But when you get taken by a hoax, I feel like we have some responsibility to the people who have been living in what I call the hoaxocracy.
Like, we need to model what it looks like When you know you got taken by a hoax.
You got to show how to walk yourself down from that.
That's got to be routine.
That's got to be something everybody learns to do.
It's like, oh man, I walked right into that.
Total face plant.
My bad.
Sorry.
So at least that would be a healthy, healthy situation.
Well, young voters made up...
I'm loving all the stuff we're finding from the election outcome.
It's just fascinating on so many levels.
So young voters made up 16% of the electors.
That's between 18 and 29.
And it turns out that men between the ages of 18 and 29 voted decisively for Trump.
Why?
Why?
Why did men break for Trump?
Well, number one, probably not worried about bodily autonomy.
So that wasn't an issue.
Abortion presumably weighs much bigger on the minds of young women.
And it should.
But I think the Joe Rogan, Dana White, kind of Elon Musk...
I'll even throw a fake in there.
There's a whole bunch of manly, positive manly things happening.
Trump getting shot and jumping up and yelling, fight, fight, fight.
There are a lot of things there that Trump does right.
Men like strength.
We like leadership.
We like certainty.
We like Not to be talking about your character and your characteristics and your personality.
Can you tell me how much it's going to cost me?
Can you tell me how to fix this thing?
Can you keep me out of a war that is just a stupid fucking war?
So these are everything that young men care about.
Can I get a job?
Can I afford to live?
Can I pay for shit?
It's everything.
So...
I am really mad at my neighbor right now for having agreed not to do loud noises when I'm doing my live stream.
But there's a bulldozer right under my window.
Or some kind of earth moving machine.
Anyway, I won't let that get to me.
So here's a reframe I'm going to give you before we have some fun talking about all the people who are sad because Trump won.
We're going to talk about all the You know, the late-night hosts are all crying and choked up, and life was ending for them, and they were despondent, and Jimmy Kimmel was beside himself, and Bette Midler, she canceled her account after this, and Barbara Streisand just doesn't have the words.
She's feeling so bad.
And here's what I think.
I think we need a reframe.
I don't know that this one will work.
But maybe for some of your family members it might.
It goes like this.
You go into a political event and you say to yourself, I want the character with the best policies.
But then somebody else says, okay, you might like his policies or her policies, but what about their character, their personality?
What about their values?
You can't really have that kind of a leader.
Now that's the frame that we were living under.
I like his policies because everybody agreed the polls were very clear that on economics and the border and even war, I think, Trump was preferred.
So if you were going to argue policy, you probably went to Trump.
So is it a surprise that men went for Trump when policy was the main appeal?
No.
No.
Because men can quite easily work with men that they can't stand.
We don't really have a problem with that.
Do women know that?
Are women aware that men can work productively with men they don't like at all?
It doesn't even bother us.
Because when I see men with whatever problems they have, whatever character faults, I usually just see my own.
I'm like, well, I'm like one degree away from being like that.
So we don't really judge other men and we can kind of work with them.
So if you've got a good policy, if you're a plumber, I'm not going to ask you who you voted for.
You know, just fix my pipes, okay?
Now, women apparently were a little more drawn to the character frame.
You can't have somebody who somebody else says is a fascist.
You can't have somebody who somebody else says is going to round up the LGBTQ and put them in camps.
Now, none of that's true, but it became, you know, part of the story that Trump had the character who was going to be the The strong man, Hitler kind of person.
So we allowed, as a public, we sort of passively allowed two frames to pop up.
One was, can you handle his character?
And then you had to say stuff like, well, I don't like all of his social media posts.
Like, it just became a thing you had to say that.
I do like closing the borders, but I don't like everything he says, some of the ways he says it.
All right, so we had to do that.
I would submit that these are the wrong frames.
And if you fall into these frames, you have a world of continuous disunity.
I would suggest...
I don't think we're there yet, but there is an awakening that's happening that's unmistakable.
And part of that awakening is that the pro-Democrat part of the country woke up to find out they're not...
The majority.
Imagine waking up to that.
The single number one thing that Democrats were sure about is that there were more of them than there were of those damn disgusting mega people.
So as long as they were in the goodly angels of the majority...
They can feel pretty confident that they have the right take.
And it's always the criminals are always the minority, right?
It's like, ugh, the people, the rapists, they're the minority.
Thank God they're the minority.
So as long as you were in the majority, and you felt that majority, and every time you turned on the TV, the news was talking your talk, and you turned on the late night show, and Jimmy Kimmel's talking right to you, just like you think, and you think, well, all of my good people are saying that I'm a good person, and so that's got to be true.
And then you woke up to find out that more than half of the people who voted were I think that none of that's true.
That you live in a world of, I call it the hoaxocracy.
It's actually an artificial reality that's built up by the propaganda brainwashing regimes.
Let's say the brainwashing industrial complex of the news plus the people who pay the news, you know, the pharmas and etc.
And so here's the frame that we should be entering.
I don't know if we're ready.
But if ever there was a time we'd be ready, it'd be just about now.
And it's because of this surprising election result and because it changed people's opinion of what the majority looks like.
Here's the reframe.
It's not about policies or character.
It's about brainwashing.
Those who came out of the brainwashing joined Trump.
You saw it a bunch of times.
You saw the Bill Ackman saying, I thought the fine people hoax was real.
And as soon as I found out that it wasn't real, that opened up, suddenly it was like a door opened, and I realized the other stuff wasn't real either.
I said, Sean McGuire, do I have the right name?
Another Silicon Valley investor.
Same thing.
Saw the fine people hoax, said, wait a minute.
Everybody said that was true.
Everybody.
Everybody.
That they were watching.
And when they found out that was a lie, and not only was it a lie, it was a lie that was most easily debunked.
All you had to do was play another 15 seconds of video.
That's it.
And not any of the mainstream video, none of the mainstream did it.
Now, you might know that for years I've been saying that the fine people hoax is the tentpole hoax.
It's the way out.
Now, I saw this years ago.
This is where hypnosis training helps you out.
You can kind of see around corners.
I knew that if you could take down the tent pole, the main pole that's holding up the tent, that all the little poles would just fall.
You just had to get rid of the big one.
And that's what happened for some prominent people.
So...
If you understand that the correct frame is that we're under a brainwashing regime, and if you can escape the brainwashing, you're likely to vote for Trump, and if you can't escape the brainwashing, you're likely to vote for whatever Democrat they put.
Because the fact that they could trade out Biden and put in Harris, I mean, they're not the same at all.
And the fact that they could just flip out one and flip in the other tells you that the Democrats are a machine, you're not really voting for a character or a policy, and that you're in a brainwashing environment.
If you can make your relatives understand that you won't talk about policy or character, but you would be happy to talk about what things in the news are true or false, That might be a way out.
And if you can at least convince them that the fine people hoax was a hoax, you should say from that, I promise you that I'm not evil.
I promise you that you've been brainwashed.
Now, here's the problem.
When you tell somebody they've been brainwashed, how does that go?
Have you ever tried to do that?
I do that a lot.
So far, 0% success.
It's never worked.
And I'm good at it, right?
Literally, I'm a trained persuader.
I can't do it.
You cannot tell somebody they're brainwashed.
You also cannot tell people that they're experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Because cognitive dissonance and brainwashing are the things that are telling you that the outside voices are wrong.
So you can't really penetrate that.
They have to discover it themselves.
So you have to give them the space...
That is sort of like managing a boss.
Those of you who have worked for big companies, you know how to do this.
Your boss wants to automatically disagree with you.
So you try to make it look like the boss's idea.
Oh, that's a good idea.
You had their boss, even though two weeks ago it was your idea.
So you may have to get the people you're trying to un-brainwash.
If you say, you are brainwashed, I will un-brainwash you now.
Nope.
No chance that's going to work.
You say instead...
I'll make you a deal.
If I can debunk one hoax that you thought was true, will you be open to the idea that you're in an environment of hoaxes?
We'll only look at one.
You can do the rest on your own.
But we'll just do one, and I'd say go to AmericanDebunks.com.
Is there an S on it?
Or AmericanDebunk.com?
Damn it, I wish I could remember if there's an S on debunk.
But you'll find it either way.
It's AmericanDebunk or debunks.com.
And point them to the find people hoax.
And just say, do me a favor.
If you're panicked, just look at this one hoax.
Once you understand how that was done, you'll understand how the other ones were done as well.
And you'll see that there's nothing that they can put on the screen that isn't ridiculous that they can't make you believe.
So you should never leave the brainwashing frame.
Don't let them get into character.
Don't let them even get into policy.
Just say, why is it do you think you believe that, and why do you think that the majority of the country doesn't see Godzilla coming, or whatever they think Trump is?
Wow.
All right, so the reframe is it's brainwashing.
I saw some interviews on the street with older, educated white women, what they thought about Trump getting elected, and they are just destroyed.
Because they all believe, they actually believe that he's going to steal their democracy and their bodily autonomy.
Now, I think Trump did a terrible job on the bodily autonomy argument.
He had a superhighway right through it, which is to say there are more women in the States, and it'll take a little while, but you'll get exactly what you want.
And we took the men in the Supreme Court out of it completely.
I took myself out of it.
We took the federal government out of it, and you can figure it out.
Now, one of the things that...
I think that we have to give some credit, though, to the Republican strategy of overturning Roe vs.
Wade.
When that happened, did you not say to yourself, oh, shit, no Republicans can ever win another election?
How many of you said that to yourselves?
Oh no, there's no way you're going to get past this.
There's no way the women in America, collectively, are going to let that stand.
And then, did you see what happened in the election?
There were a few states that had abortion issues on the ballot, so you could vote for more permissive abortion.
At the same time, there was a presidential election.
So there were cases where the state would say yes on Trump, But also, yes, on more abortion.
More abortion rights.
That means that the Republicans did what Republicans do.
God, I love this.
Republicans knew that if they got rid of Roe, they would take a gut punch for about at least two years and maybe longer.
That they would be kind of not competitive for a while.
It would take a while to For people to understand that the states were, in fact, adjusting as was the plan.
It was a short-term investment for long-term complete dominance.
They had to get abortion off of forever, the federal election conversation, and they did.
They did.
Because now that you see that two states could vote for Trump at the same time they could vote to have more abortion rights, and you know that Trump is very firm on, he doesn't want a national ban, because that would get you right back to the same problem you had before, a political problem, if nothing else.
Then you see the genius of it.
Now, at the time, I was optimistic.
That once the Roe vs.
Wade thing worked its way through the system and the state started adjusting to whatever the state wanted, then it would take the issue away.
But wow, did it work.
So, you know, if you trust instinct and you look at, you know, Trump's instinct to take a run at that, that...
Whatever Republicans could see past that horizon and could see that that was a long-term good, that's who I want in charge.
Like, that's the kind of brains I want running stuff.
I want somebody to say, you know what, we're going to suck.
We're just going to take it hard for a few years.
But if we get through this, we're going to be in a much better place.
And that's what happened.
The Republicans took it in the chops.
Trump lost in 2020.
And then they came back.
Stronger.
Strongest they've ever been.
So, every time you don't want to trust Trump's hunches, I would just ask you to look at the track record.
He is a hunch master.
I mean, his hunches and just the way he reads a room is really unparalleled.
I don't think we've ever seen it in modern politics.
Anyway, so the older white women think we're going to enter a period of fascism and authoritarianism.
The examples given on the street by the random interview people Or that children will be denied books if it includes stuff about trans.
That was one of the things they were panicked about.
That young children would be denied explicit books about being gay and trans.
Little kids.
Like, that was a top issue.
And I'm thinking, what is wrong with you?
What's wrong with you that that's your top issue?
How does that get in the top two?
And then the bodily autonomy one, I think, is just framed wrong.
You know, once the states start giving women what the women in those states want, they're fine.
And here's something that I'm so dumb I didn't realize, because I thought abortion would be a bigger factor.
And I say, okay, let's say you're a woman in California, and you really, really care about abortion.
But you already have it.
So, I mean, are you going to vote for somebody else's rights?
How many people in California are like, yeah, let's give those Missourians more rights?
Nobody.
And then if you're in Missouri, I'm just picking a random state, or let's say you're in some state where abortion is restricted.
Well, it's probably restricted because most of the people in that state like it that way.
So we got this weird situation where the people in the states probably had something like exactly what they wanted, or at least what their state wanted, collectively.
And it was hard to get mad about that.
Oh, we have what we want in my state, but I'm really mad about Rhode Island.
And it's just hard to get mad about another state.
Alright, Trump won Latino men.
What?
What?
Trump won.
He didn't just do better.
Like you expect that story.
He did better than somebody else did.
He outright won.
Latino men.
He won.
Now, Who is it who's been telling you for now several years that whatever you think about the Hispanic community coming in, if you don't have the good luck to be associated with them closely, you would not know that they're all born Republicans.
They're all Republicans.
They don't know it.
They may not have ever heard that word.
They might not even speak English.
But they're Republicans.
They like their family.
They like hard work.
They like hard work.
They like providing.
They like their God.
They want their government to leave them alone.
Bring them in.
So yes, of course it was the men in that group, not surprised.
And he won it handily.
Oh my God.
Now there's a change.
We're not going back from that.
So I'd like to also say, this would be the right time to say, that the worry that we've had about the illegal migrants, many of them are legal, the migrants coming in and changing the vote, doesn't look like it happened.
Would you agree?
Does it look like we had any abuse of the system from the incoming people?
I haven't heard it.
Now, keep in mind, when people said they were worried about illegal voting, sometimes they were worried about the actual non-citizens voting.
But I think we all knew that wasn't going to be a big number.
We were more worried that somebody was farming their ballots so that they could put them in all at once.
As far as I can tell, that didn't happen.
And I think that we don't know why that didn't happen.
One reason it didn't happen could be it's never happened.
It's possible.
It's possible that nobody has ever tried to collect the ballots up of non-citizens in case they had ballots.
It's possible.
I wouldn't know one way or the other.
It's also possible and I'd say a little more possible That the good work of Whatley and Trump, Laura Trump in this case, to make sure that there were a billion lawyers standing on every corner looking at everything that happened, maybe that was the reason.
Maybe that was the reason.
But we'll never know.
Which is sort of annoying.
I'd like to know if I was completely wrong about that risk.
Now, but there's the short term and the long term.
The short term is you're worried about ballot farming, of ballots that shouldn't even exist.
But in the long run, you're worried that the settlement of the newcomers will change the long-term character of the area.
Or in the short run, it could change the census, which could change how much representation they have.
But I would look at this election and look at Trump winning Latino men and I would say the following.
How about having some policies that work for everybody?
You're not going to worry about getting elected if you've got some policies that every common sense person says, yeah, you do have to close that border.
And they did.
Let's talk about some of the characters having a hard time with it.
Howard Stern thinks that the real story might be the Kamler's one because behind closed doors, he hears men say things that you don't hear about how men won't back a woman.
May I... Can I have permission from men?
Men, I'm going to ask for permission.
Do you mind if I tell the women who are watching some secrets about what happens behind closed doors when men are talking?
You okay with that, everybody?
Men?
Because we have sort of an unwritten code that if it's man-to-man, it's behind closed doors.
You've got to keep it there.
There is a man code.
But I feel that Howard Stern is breaking the man code.
Howard Stern, you're not supposed to tell anybody what men say behind closed doors.
So, first of all, you're kicked out of the man club.
You're out.
And now I'm going to do the same thing, but I'm doing it just to correct this.
So I'm a correcting person.
Mechanism.
Do men behind closed doors say things such as, my God, I don't want a woman to be a president?
Yes.
Yes, they do.
Yep.
Yep.
They'll say it on social media, too.
Yep.
Yep.
So that part's true.
But is there something left off?
There is something left off.
Let me explain men for you.
Women, this is everything you need to know about men.
Yeah, we don't want a woman who's the leader, unless she's really good.
And then fine.
If you leave that part out, it all sounds different, right?
You show me a strong leader who just happens to be female.
Do you think I'm really going to have a problem with that?
Do you think even the people in the room who said I'd never vote for a woman...
If they had the Trump of women, you just imagine there's a Trump of women, which there is in other places.
Would I vote for the Trump of women?
Sure.
Absolutely.
Would the men who said, oh, I don't want a woman in charge, would they vote for the Trump of women?
Yes, they would.
So that's the secret from behind the door of men.
Men want things to work.
Mostly.
If you said, it's a blank slate, everybody's equal, you know, then their prejudices come out.
But if you say, do you want Tulsi Gabbard to run your military or Kamala Harris?
Well, now everything's clear.
You know, right?
You can say, oh, I want the one I trust.
The one who has, you know, the track record that I like.
So yes, Behind closed doors, people will say every racist, sexist thing you could ever imagine.
But we also don't take it too seriously.
If you show me Byron Donalds, I say, my God, that guy's really talented.
I could see him as my next president.
But is somebody going to say something behind a closed door that I would find repugnant?
Of course.
Men will say repugnant things behind closed doors, but when it comes down to what makes sense, we almost always go with what makes sense.
So, let me give you an example.
Probably most Democrats think that Republicans are anti-LGBTQ. Wouldn't you say?
Democrats think that Republicans are anti-LGBTQ. But they also don't watch our news.
So they don't see that Scott Pressler is being held up as like the icon of the perfect Republican.
Happens to be gay.
Did anybody complain to you about that?
Behind any closed doors?
Men?
Men, have you been behind any closed doors where somebody said, oh, Scott Pressler can't get people to vote?
He's gay.
No.
Not a single person said that.
Not once, not anywhere.
They said, what's this guy doing?
He's getting people to register to vote?
He's succeeding?
And he wants to do more?
He wants to make America great?
He likes the ideas of the Republican candidates?
He likes Trump?
We're done here.
We're done here.
Anything else you want to say?
Not interested.
Rick Grinnell is being one of the names kicked around for State Department.
Is there even any one person, Republican, behind a closed door who is ever going to say, oh, Rick Grinnell's the wrong person for that job because he's gay?
No.
Probably never.
Probably exactly zero times.
So if you don't understand this basic character about Republicans and conservatives, you're really living in a scary world.
Because the way they talk doesn't match the way they act.
The way they act is performance, performance, performance.
If you've got the goods, you've got the job.
And that is every conservative I've ever met.
No exception.
If you got the goods, you got the job.
Period.
That's it.
And I've never seen anybody disagree with that statement.
Look in the comments, right?
You'll see zero disagreement in the comments.
But behind closed doors, Sure.
We'll say anything behind closed doors.
Because, you know, when men are talking to men behind closed doors, we're often attracted to whatever is the most inappropriate thing to say.
So you have to understand that saying the most inappropriate thing is just part of its entertainment, if it's just men to men.
James Carville says that the Democrats are going to have to fill the vacuum left in the party after Trump's win because the Democrats are, he says, listless and lacking leadership.
Eric Gabinanti's post on this I saw on X. Where do Democrats go from here?
We need a leader.
There's no Nancy Pelosi.
There's not an identifiable opposition leader.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's my time.
You laughed when I registered as a Democrat just to stay off any kill lists.
But who's laughing now?
Yeah, who's laughing now?
So I plan to announce my run for President of the United States in 2028.
I promise to lose to whoever the Republican candidate is.
So you're welcome.
No, I'm not going to run for office.
That'd be crazy.
But I do agree that the Democrats don't have anything that looks like leadership.
And I don't believe that they have any leaders who can even say things like, it's not about character.
Because they've got, you know, the scaredy-cat leaders, oh, I'm scared of the fascists.
That's not going to fly.
I think we're never going to elect one of those again, or at least not in a while.
So who do you have?
Who is the...
Is it Dean Phillips?
Dean Phillips is the one who was running.
He was trying to run against Biden for a while.
I saw Dean Phillips just give an interview on TV. Now, he's a Democrat, and so probably I would not agree with all of his policies.
But I'm listening to him talk, and I'm thinking, hey, you're talking about all the important stuff.
And wait a minute, I'm not hearing any hoaxes.
He didn't have any hoaxes.
He just talked about what's important and what we should do, and there were no hoaxes.
And there was no, like, weird character things.
Oh, the character.
Oh, the fascist.
And I thought to myself, America could back that guy.
America could totally back that guy.
You'd have to hear a lot more about everything else, but the Democrats do have some reasonable, smart...
Patriotic people.
We'll see if the way they're organized, they can lift them to the top.
It didn't work in his case.
But I think they've got a machine problem.
Trump so completely destroyed whatever the Republican Party used to be that he didn't have a machine problem this time because he is the machine.
But they've got a machine problem.
The whole system of who's in charge and who talks to who and how they make the decisions.
So it looks like they've gutted the whole Obama wing of the Democrat Party.
So there's that.
Okay.
The Democrats being the party that hate everybody, they're starting to hate themselves, and they're trying to come up with all their best reasons for why they lost.
So here are the ones that are bubbling to the top.
And if there's one thing I can teach you about multiple explanations for things, whenever there are a lot of explanations for one event, it usually means nobody knows what happened.
When there is one explanation, Well, maybe that's the right explanation.
But when you have 10 explanations for the thing you saw, nobody knows what's going on.
So here are some things that Harris lost because she had only 107 days to prepare, and you can't expect anybody to prepare that fast.
Come on.
Seriously?
Are you telling me that the vice president, the sitting vice president, was not willing and able...
To walk in front of any audience at the drop of a pin and give a smart-sounding interview or debate on their topics.
Can you tell me that J.D. Vance couldn't have pulled that off in 170 days?
J.D. Vance would have been on CNN within eight hours of getting the pick.
And Harris was so incompetent, they had to hide her.
No, the 170 days, that doesn't apply to qualified people.
All they had to do is have somebody qualified that maybe had some track record as well, and they would have been fine.
Because remember, they were running against Trump.
They only had to put up somebody who could breathe and talk and not sound like an idiot, and they failed to find somebody who could breathe and talk and not sound like an idiot.
They literally couldn't find somebody who didn't sound like an idiot.
How does that have anything to do with 107 days?
Like, if we gave her 200 days, was she not going to be an idiot?
Was her brain going to grow in?
So no, the 170 days, I reject.
They also say it's because Walsh was a weak choice.
No, it wasn't.
Now, you might argue that maybe it could have made a difference in Pennsylvania.
Maybe.
But...
I don't think anybody voted for or against Walls.
I don't really think so.
You could argue the Pennsylvania Ben Shapiro thing, but not that Walls was just too weak in general.
He seemed to be exactly what Democrats wanted.
And there weren't any Republicans who were going to vote for the vice president.
Some say that Harris didn't say enough about her economic policies.
Some say she didn't put enough distance between her and Biden.
And of course, there's the sexism thing, Howard Stern.
And others say, other Democrats are saying, why was our polling so off?
Now, imagine waking up and realizing that polling is not real, you're not in the majority, and that the majority of the people Didn't believe any of the hoaxes about Trump.
Imagine waking up into that reality, where you thought the news was real, you thought the polls were legitimate, and you thought Trump was a monster that everybody could see clearly.
And then you wake up and you find out the majority don't see him as a monster.
They prefer him.
That's got to be really a mindfuck.
I mean, there must be people who just don't even know, like, what reality they're in when they wake up.
And the problem is that they've been in a hoaxocracy, and they've just saw the corners of it, like a little light got through, and they're like, wait a minute.
That little light that got through into my darkened hoaxocracy, it doesn't make sense.
How could there be this little light that got through, and then everything falls apart?
Even Bernie Sanders is tough on the Democrats.
He said it should come as no surprise that a Democratic Party, which has abandoned working-class people, would find that the working class has abandoned them.
Well said, Bernie.
He said also on a post on X, while the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change, and they're right, Sanders added, and they're right.
Did Sanders just endorse Trump?
Did he?
Because that got pretty close, didn't it?
You know, what's interesting is that, you know, Trump is called Bernie, crazy Bernie and stuff, but Trump has also defended Bernie against the Democrats, you know, their manipulations to keep him off the ballot.
So it makes me wonder if on some level...
Because Bernie is a populist and Trump is a populist?
Do you think on some level that they appreciate each other?
Or respect?
I'm going to say respect is a better word.
I feel like there's some bit of respect there.
Because what Bernie is saying is that Trump listened to the people and then he got elected and the Democrats didn't listen to the working class and lost and that the people are right.
So I think he's just saying that the people who backed Trump are right.
That's so close to an endorsement.
Now, obviously, it's not an endorsement.
But it's certainly a good sign.
You know, if you're looking for a country that has some hope of coming together, I appreciate this, Bernie Sanders.
Thank you.
Of course, Lawrence O'Donnell also is trying that Kamala lost because men do not yet believe in full equality for women.
Really, Lawrence O'Donnell?
Where exactly are you getting this information from?
Here's what I know in the reality I live in.
So here's my movie.
If you're running for office and you're a woman...
You've got an advantage.
If you're running for office and you're black, you've got an advantage.
If you're running for office and you're black and you're a woman, you've got two advantages.
Do you see the pattern I'm developing here?
For every person who does say, I'm not going to vote for somebody in this other category, there are three people who say I'm going to vote for them because they're in the category.
And not only because they're also in the category, but some people, like me, When Obama was running, I said, you know, it'd be great to get somebody in that category.
Like, just, let's get past it.
I thought it was good for the country.
It still is good for the country.
I don't like him as a person anymore, because he's still pushing the fine people hoax, so his wife has a cock.
That's my deal, if you haven't heard it yet.
As long as Obama says the fine people hoax is real, then I say his wife has a cock.
Neither of them are real.
But let's just keep it even, right?
Cock, fine people oaks, cock.
We'll just call it a tie and move on.
But even I thought that Obama as a president was a good idea for the country because then we could say, oh, okay, you know, we can get out of our little box a little bit and things will work out fine.
So no, there's no such thing in America as you're less likely to get elected because you're a woman or you're black.
I'm pretty sure that we're close to a gay president at some point, if we haven't already had a few.
I think we've had a few, actually.
But somebody who's out.
And I think the country's ready for it.
All it would take, all it would take...
Is a Richard Grinnell type personality, somebody who's not making his politics about his bedroom preferences.
That's all.
The reason Obama worked is because he didn't make it about being black.
That's all I ask.
Just don't make it about being black.
If you're a woman running for president like Hillary Clinton was, just don't make it about that.
Just be quiet on that, and I will agree you have plenty of experience and plenty of brains.
And Hillary Clinton was very well equipped.
I didn't like her as a choice, but certainly nobody said she can't be president because she's a woman.
I never heard that.
That's not like a real problem.
Anyway, I saw a comment on Wall Street Apes on X. That's an account on X. It said, when there is real-time access to the truth, he's talking about the truth coming out on the X platform.
When there is real-time access to the truth, all of a sudden the media no longer looked like media.
It looked like a parody or bad comedy skits.
It was truly something to watch.
How many of you had that experience?
Because I did.
The news, which I used to be so angered and annoyed at, it doesn't look like they're trying anymore.
It looks like they've gone into full theater mode.
So they seem like theater kids who grew up and they're just pushing their theater choices.
And now they look funny.
Because they're no longer even associated with the mainstream, because now they're in the minority.
So, I had exactly the same reaction.
For the last two days, I've been binge-watching...
How many of you are doing this?
I've been binge-watching MSNBC for the laughs.
Like, how many of you are doing that?
I'm watching MSNBC for the laughs, and that's not hyperbole.
I'm not exaggerating.
I literally watch it for the laughs, and I'm kind of hooked to it because I just watch it.
Oh, my God.
And then I think about the people who believe that what they're saying is true or valid or framed right, and I just laugh.
So, anyway, that's fun.
Here are some stories I don't think are necessarily true, or maybe they're overblown.
We saw a story the other day that the Hooties said they want to cease fire, they're done, just at the same time that Trump got elected.
And then people said, well, I don't know if this is a coincidence.
Looks like maybe they're afraid of Trump.
And then today there's a story in Newsweek that says that Hamas is calling for an immediate end to the war after the Trump win, thinking maybe this is an opening to end the war.
And we don't know about Hezbollah, but Hezbollah might be looking for their sixth best leader if the top five are gone.
So I would say I wouldn't take any of these reports literally.
You know, obviously both sides always call for a piece in the media ceasefire, but, you know, they want it on their terms.
So if you're calling for a ceasefire, but you only want it on your terms, you're not really calling for a ceasefire.
So I wouldn't take it too seriously.
But it was only today I realized that the three problems in that area are the three H's.
The Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
So Trump could actually do the hat trick.
Trump could solve three wars before taking office.
Now, I want to see him do it not just because I want to see three wars.
No, he can do four.
He can solve four wars before he's sworn in.
All he has to do is signal what's going to happen when he's sworn in.
And they'll wrap it up.
Because Ukraine knows that the fuse has been lit on their war.
They're not going to be at war in a year, probably.
In all likelihood, Ukraine will not be in war here.
So they're probably thinking about How do we handle the after war?
They may already be thinking past the sale.
Because you know what?
Trump does so well.
He makes you think past the sale.
The sale is, should we stop the war?
If he makes him think past it and say, look, we're going to rebuild Ukraine.
We're going to make it the model of the country.
We're going to make sure Putin never gets near you.
And then you start thinking about, oh, well, that after the war period...
And if he can make you think about after the war more than the war, he can get you there pretty fast.
So he might solve Ukraine, the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah just on the knowledge of how he would deal with it when he got into office.
It might click all of them into the after-peace mode.
Because they know a peace guy is coming in, and he's going to either destroy you or push you into peace, but he's not going to have war.
Like, we're not going to put up with war anymore.
One way or another, he's not going to put up with war.
So you can either do your war and get crushed, or you can work with us to get out of war, but we're done with war.
I think that's the message that Trump brings, and maybe the most powerful message we've ever seen.
When Trump said about Ukraine...
I want people to not die.
That's a reframe.
Everybody else was an idiot and said, oh, we want Ukraine to protect its sovereign territory, which is not unimportant.
But the right answer was, I want people to stop dying.
And I think that that answer works for all four of these wars, if you can call them that.
Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ukraine.
Find a place where people don't die.
You don't have to find the military victory.
You don't have to find a peace that people don't like.
Find the place where we don't die.
That place exists.
I would like to make a suggestion, and I think this has been made in some way, for ending the Gaza problem.
And I've said this before, many times actually.
It's the filter-fence idea.
If you want, if you think that the only way things will end is if there's a two-state solution, there is a way to get to the two-state solution that I think Israel would agree with, believe it or not.
Because, you know, Netanyahu is not too big on the news.
He's more of a one-state guy.
But if you simply said, we're going to build it in a place where there are zero people...
So on day one, the Palestinian...
The world would be no people.
Just be, you know, a house with a fence around it.
And then the people who would like to be in the peaceful place that will be peaceful forever, with no terrorists in there, will be interviewed and vetted, etc.
And then you let a family in.
And you're like, there it is.
There's your second state.
If anybody else wants to get in, we'll help you build a house, but we have to vet you to make sure you don't have any terrorists.
Second family comes in, hey, you guys are great.
The second country's working really well.
And you just let all the people in who want to sign on to a second country that doesn't want to kill the other country.
All the other people, you let them rot.
Because if they have the point of view that they don't want to exist unless they kill you first, just let them starve to death, die.
You just can't put any energy into that.
That's a waste of time.
But you can take 100% of the people who want to live in peace and give them that opportunity.
You just can't have it all in the same place.
There's got to be a big, big fence that keeps the people who want to live in peace away from the people who want to hide with them and send missiles.
So yes, it can be done, and I think Trump could do that.
Trump and his transition team, it is rumored, I don't know if this is confirmed, that Trump doesn't want former generals on his national security team, prefers business people and CEOs.
Boy, do I love that.
Imagine the signal that you're sending to other countries.
If your national security team is generals, the signal is, you know, wars are a go-to.
If your national security team are businessmen and CEOs, then your first question is, wait a minute, how do we do business with these guys?
Can we set up some trade?
Can we get rid of our tariffs?
So I love the signaling of having the people who want you to be rich to be in charge of your future.
The generals, you need them.
There's time for them.
We need them.
But maybe not as our face to the rest of the world.
Maybe our face should be business and our backup should be bullets.
According to the Hill...
RFK Jr.
says that maybe entire departments at the FDA have to go.
This, of course, made some dentists in the comments say, I tell you as a dentist that if the FDA departments are degraded, that people will die because the FDA is keeping us safe.
To which I say, let me explain this to people who do not have a experience in business.
When people who have experience in business say things like, quote, entire departments need to go, that does not mean that the function that they did is going to disappear.
You'd have to have no experience in the real world to think that getting rid of a department equals getting rid of what they do.
Those are different.
The whole point of reorganizing is to still do the main mission of the organization to keep you safe, but to do it in an efficient, better engineered way where there's not cross-communication, where the person in charge is qualified, you know, the ordinary stuff.
So no, getting rid of departments has nothing to do with getting rid of functions.
Did Twitter get rid of functions?
No.
Twitter got rid of 80% of its employees and doubled its features.
That's what it means to get rid of departments.
More features.
So the FDA would get better, not worse.
You know, so don't get upset on the getting rid of whole departments.
And by the way, that's the way the real important people think.
The way Elon Musk is going to, and I can say this without reading his mind, I can safely say this, because above a certain level of intelligence, it would be a universally true thing to say, and he's way above that level.
Above a certain level of intelligence, I can say for sure that when Elon's looking at paring back the government, he's not looking at getting rid of stuff he likes.
He's looking at doing it cheaper, better, and if he can't do that, he probably wouldn't change that thing.
So he's not going to go and say, let me change things because I'll make it smaller.
He's going to go and say, look at each thing.
Does this thing make sense?
Does it make sense as a standalone?
Is there a way you could do it at 10% of the cost?
Would it make sense to fold it into a different organization and get rid of all the management?
So he's going to ask those questions.
Why do I know that?
Because of how smart he is.
100% of the people who are above a certain level would do it that way.
They'll all do it that way.
Like, the dumb way would be, let's cut 20% off of everything.
So he's not going to do it that way.
You don't have to worry about it.
I see some articles that are already suggesting Musk will be the most powerful single citizen in the country because of his, not only his wealth, but his access to the government through his good work with Trump.
And I would, it made me think of this definition of charisma, which I love to go back to.
It's not my own definition, but one definition of charisma is it's power plus empathy.
And I've explained this before.
If somebody has power, but you think they don't care about you, you want to stay away from them.
Because of all that power, it could be dangerous to you as long as if they don't have your best interests in mind.
If somebody has empathy, but no power, you might want to stay away from them too.
Because they're not going to do too well, and they're probably going to need your help.
But if you have empathy, I suppose you'll help anyway.
But...
If you have tremendous power, as Elon Musk does, and it's matched with tremendous empathy for people, which I believe is unmatched.
Well, it's unbeaten.
I won't say unmatched.
He leads with people first.
Even when he talks about sending rockets to Mars, his message is to expand the light of human consciousness.
So the way he talks about it, and I think in his mind as well, it's not fake, that he thinks people first.
And you see it in everything he does.
It's like people, people, people.
I make machines for people, people, people.
But it's people.
So if you give me the most powerful man in the country, and you give me somebody who's got a very clear record of empathy...
Oh my God, I'm all in.
I'm all in.
So, yes, Godspeed, Elon Musk.
Make it happen.
I would like to read to you a longish piece by David Sachs, entitled Why Trump Won.
I'm just going to read it because he wrote it so well.
Matches everything I was thinking.
So just listen to this beautiful piece of writing from David Sachs, from the All In podcast.
You know him.
Why Trump won.
While the legacy media has a meltdown searching for hitherto undiagnosed psychoses in the electorate to explain its embrace of a Hitlerian strongman, the truth is much simpler than their fictions.
This election is a reminder that after all the manufactured drama and overheated rhetoric, politics is still about issues.
Whether you agreed with him or not, Trump ran a substantive campaign based on issues like the border, inflation, crime, and war.
True.
Harris ran on vibes, celebrity endorsements, name-calling, convicted felon fascist, debunked hoaxes, very fine people, and platitudes, democracy.
She would neither defend the Biden-Harris record nor say that what she would do differently.
When she did talk about the specific issues, they were often stolen from Trump, like child tax credits, no tax and tips, border funding.
On this one issue where Democrats had an advantage, abortion, Trump definitely got ahead of the issue by rejecting a national ban and removing problematic language from the GOP platform.
He did.
Harris wore out the issue by blatantly lying about Trump's position and by exhibiting her own party's extremism.
Nobody needed to see an abortion truck at the DNC. While Trump expanded his coalition with MAHA, Make America Healthy Again, and DOGE, the government efficiency thing, Harris concluded her ersatz campaign by going all in on demonizing her opponent, pretending Madison Square Garden was a Nazi convention.
The fact that voters saw through it should be reassuring, even if you don't agree with the result.
Voters want to know how a candidate will give them a better life, and increasingly, they have learned to tune out the rest as noise.
While the legacy media creates excuses and impunes the motives of voters to explain why Trump won, the reason is simple.
Trump is the candidate who spoke to voters' concerns directly.
It's the issues, stupid.
What do you think?
Was it the issues?
I think it was.
I think it was.
I think it was actually the issues.
And somehow the legacy media missed that.
That citizens cared about the issues.
Now, do you know why the media missed it?
The mainstream media thought that they still controlled how people think.
This was the year they found out they don't.
Especially young people.
Especially men.
Found out that they weren't getting their news from watching the talking ladies get angry on TV. So it turns out that the issues drove that.
And that people don't believe the news anymore, so they just looked at the issues.
Did I have more money under Trump?
Yes.
The most common thing I see, whenever I see, especially black men, when they're interviewed on the street, you know, why do you like Trump?
Almost every time they say, I had more money under Trump.
Now, I don't even know if that's true, but certainly they have that point of view.
All right, here's some potentially amazing news.
Science blog says there's a sensor that could detect lung cancer just by breathing on it.
That's cool.
The sooner you get it, the sooner you can treat it, I guess.
There's not too much you can do with lung cancer, but sooner is better.
And apparently there's some kind of California law that got passed, or I don't know what you call it, but some ballot proposition that got passed that makes it okay to marry anybody you want.
And the critics are worried that people are going to start marrying their dogs.
To which I say, if the dog doesn't mind, is that really any of my business?
I mean, as long as the dog is happy.
But if the dog is coerced into it, then I say, no, no coercing dogs.
Well, I'm not too worried that dogs and people will marry, but if they want to, as long as their dog doesn't poop on my lawn, no, as long as their spouse doesn't poop on my lawn, it's okay with me.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, The Dilbert Calendar is for sale at Dilbert.com, the only place you can find the link to buy it.
And if you'd like to know more about persuasion relative to politics, my book, Windingly, the second edition, so it's lightly edited from the first, is available too.
That one's on Amazon, so you can find that easily.
And that's all I've got for you today.
I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately because they're awesome.
And I will see you all tomorrow, same time, same place.
▲
Export Selection