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, Laundry-Folding Robots, Josh Shapiro, Allan Lichtman, Lichtman 13 Keys, Complex Predictive Models, MSNBC Eyes, Anthony Nephew, Fluoride Water Danger, RFK Jr., Bill Ackman, D.O.G.E. Department Of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, President Trump, Climate Change, Pandemic Lying Experts, Kari Lake Vote Count, Election Integrity Claims, Senate Leadership Battle, Rick Scott, Rand Paul, Anti-Trump Policy Propaganda, Yale Amanda Calhoun, Shunning Trump Supporters, Tom Homan, Criminal Migrant Deportations, EU Trump, Pelosi Disrespects Bernie Sanders, Trump Campaign Analysis, Democrat Party Future, Identity Politics, Bill Pulte HUD, FEMA Pro-Discrimination Policy, 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
All right, we're going to put up some comments here, and before you know it, we're going to have the show of all shows.
Good morning, Paul.
Oh.
Good morning, Paul.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
This might be the best time you've ever had in your whole life, but if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, is called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Oh, digging deep for that one.
Sometimes you like it, sometimes you need it.
All right, so how many of you watched Saturday Night Live or saw the clips?
In which the cast tried to deal with the issue of Donald Trump being elected president.
And it apparently took all the humor out of him.
They're having a tough time with it.
So it doesn't look to me like they're going to be too happy.
Bill Burr was the special guest, what he called the host of the show.
And gotta say, he didn't land it this time.
So, it's difficult watching them try to adjust.
And you get the feeling that they don't get it yet.
It's like Saturday Night hasn't figured out that it's the majority.
And they have some more thinking to do, but they'll get there.
There's a company, let's see, it's called IHMC. They've got a robot they're making, Nadia.
They can open doors.
So it can play ping pong and it can open doors.
That's really all I need.
I feel like I'm ready to make the plunge and get this robot.
What can it do?
It can open a door?
Cool.
And it can play ping pong.
Do you know that's more than most of my friends can do?
I mean, they can all open doors.
Well, most of them.
But not many of them can play ping pong.
You put those two things together and I'm like, I think I just made a friend.
I've got a ping pong table sitting in my garage and I'm just waiting to find somebody who likes ping pong as much as I do to use that thing.
I need a ping pong robot.
Like actually, legitimately, no joking, no hyperbole.
If I could buy a robot that could open a door to simply go where the ping pong is and go recharge itself when it's done, and it could play ping pong, I would buy that right now.
It doesn't need to do anything else.
I don't need it to talk to me.
I don't need it to tell me the weather.
Just play ping pong.
Anyway, according to RoboDaily, there's another robot that is learning By observing people cleaning.
So they have a human using a sponge to clean a sink, and then the robot will generalize that skill to cleaning pots and pans and stuff.
Now, here's my problem with this story.
This story was today.
Do you know how long ago it was the first time I saw a video of a robot folding laundry?
And it would teach all the other robots how to fold laundry, because once they could do it, they'd all know how to do it.
20 years ago.
I think it was literally 20 years ago, I watched a robot that had been trained to fold laundry, and sure enough, it was folding laundry right in front of me.
And then I said, well, if that robot can fold laundry, it's gonna be on the market any minute now.
And there are no robots that can fold laundry on the market.
And yet, the most common demonstration we see is robots folding laundry.
And yet there are no laundry folding robots.
Do you know why?
Those of you who have worked in the real world, explain to me why, if robots have been folding laundry for 20 years, there's no robot folding laundry.
I can answer this question while doing no research whatsoever.
There's no such thing as a robot that can fold laundry, and there never has been.
Is there something that you could put on a 20-second video that looks like a robot can fold a shirt?
Yes, there is.
Yes, there is.
You can totally make a 20-second video where it'll do it right once.
Yep, you can do that.
But no, if any time in the last 20 years, any one of these fucking robots had been able to fold a shirt twice, you would already have it.
I would have that robot so fast if it could fold a shirt twice in a row.
I could put up with a lot of expense and I could put up with a lot of, you know, okay, this shirt's not perfect.
Clearly, robots can't fold shirts.
It's starting to be like climate models, where it starts out and you say to yourself, oh, climate model, projecting the temperature into the future.
Quite interesting.
Oh, it looks like they can do it.
Look at that.
They've got a 20-year accurate prediction of the temperature in the future.
Wow.
I guess science can do lots of things.
And look, there's a video of a robot folding a shirt.
Ha, ha, ha.
No, your robot can't fold a fucking shirt.
I don't know if it ever will.
And if you think I believe that this robot can play ping pong, no, I don't believe the robot can play ping pong.
I don't believe anything about any of the robots.
Let me just take a stand.
Every fucking thing you see that a robot can do is a lie.
They can't do any of the things that I tell you about every day.
If they could, they'd already be in the market.
It's obvious they can't do these.
They're all in demo mode and, you know, they can do three things right out of ten or whatever it is.
But the amount of robot bullshit we're going to see.
Oh, look, here's a robot that's, you know, cleaning a toilet.
Once.
All right.
So enough of my dunking on robots.
They had it coming, though.
According to a side post, there's a big study that says that there's a big decline in people wanting to stand out.
Are you surprised about that?
That people are afraid of standing out?
Has anybody been alive for the last 10 years?
Standing out is a sure way to get canceled.
Have you heard of social media?
If you stand out, you're going to get savaged.
You don't want to stand out.
No, I get it.
It used to be that standing out meant the people in your high school thought you were unique.
But now standing out means you can't get a job, like ever, because it's on your social media feed.
Now, maybe there's a really good reason people don't want to stand out.
It's just not safe.
Half of the world will hate you if you show an opinion.
Well, we have some reporting now that Josh Shapiro...
Governor of Pennsylvania is the one who turned down Harris.
So if you say to yourself, oh, that Harris made a big mistake, she should have picked Josh Shapiro, and then she would have won.
Nope.
Well, first of all, she wouldn't have won because she picked Josh Shapiro.
It's pretty obvious that Trump was going to win either way.
But it turns out Shapiro turned her down.
Do you know what that makes me think of Josh Shapiro?
It makes me like him, because I'm thinking to myself, oh, wow, he was smart enough to know that was a death trap.
It was a death trap.
It was basically a political death trap.
But now he's keeping his powder dry, and if he wants to run for president, he's fresh.
And he turned down Harris, and you say to yourself, well, I don't like a Democrat, perhaps, but he did turn down Harris.
So he's got that going for him.
So, so far, the thing we know is that Josh Shapiro is smart.
I'm not sure I trust him, so trust would be a whole different dimension, but he's clearly smart.
He's clearly smart.
Do you remember Alan Lichtman?
He was that quirky, science-y kind of guy who said he had 13 keys that would accurately tell you who was going to be president, and it works every time.
Do you remember him?
And this time he came out and he showed his 13 keys and he said, it's showing that Harris is going to win.
Do you remember what I said?
I debunked them.
I said, you're not even interpreting your own keys right.
You had 13 things, and you could just look at them and say, well, you're not even looking.
What race are you looking at?
You're not even interpreting your own signals right.
Like, obviously.
Like, everybody who looked at it said, is there something wrong with you?
Your own signals are actually pointing the other way, but you're saying they're pointing this way.
Because there's a lot of subjectivity in it.
And he was wrong.
He was more wrong than us looking at it and saying, huh, looks like Trump's going to win.
So there's your science.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, I thought that you believed that complex predictive models always work.
No, they never work.
Complex, predictive models never work.
So you might say to me, but Scott, it worked 13 out of 13 times until now.
To which I say, no, it didn't.
If the signals were subjective, it means that the person who decided what the signals meant was simply looking at the race and making a smart decision about who was probably going to win.
So probably the signals had nothing to do with anything.
The most likely situation is that Alan Lichtman is really good at knowing who's going to win, just looking at everything.
And then he says, oh, I'll fit this to my 13, or whatever it is.
I'll fit this to my variables.
So I've got a feeling that he's just really good at knowing who's going to win, and then he can, you know, work backwards to fit it into his model and make it all look like it made sense.
But, you know, if there were a million people with a million different models trying to predict who wins every time, there would be guaranteed a whole bunch of models that accurately predicted for 50 years in a row.
But it would be like, if the penguin leaves its habitat and turns left, that means the Democrat will win.
And you'll find out that the penguin has gotten it right like 50 years in a row.
But it's because there were a million people doing a million different things to predict the outcome.
There's going to be a penguin that gets it right, right?
If all the penguins were involved, you could expect at least one of them would get it right 50 times in a row.
Well, not 50 times in a row, but you know what I mean.
Did you hear the tragic story of a man who killed himself, his wife, and his two sons over Trump winning?
Anthony Nephew is his name.
Now, that's about as tragic as you could possibly get, but I would like to point out two things.
They showed the picture of the dad, the one who killed the rest of the family and himself, and he had what could only be called, and I'm introducing a new term, MSNBC eyes.
You have to see his picture.
Just look at his eyes and tell me that you don't see the problem.
Oh, okay.
So on Locals, they're already posting the picture so you can see the eyes.
He has MSNBC eyes.
Do you know what I mean?
When you see, like, Joy Reid talking to Rachel Maddow and you look in their eyes and you're like, what is wrong with you two?
You look like you have severe mental illness.
And then you look at the sky and you go, oh, I've seen those eyes before.
Yeah, MSNBC. So I do believe that the eyes suggest that somebody is existing in this reality, but their mind is concocting a different reality.
So very much like the murderer, the people on MSNBC are simply experiencing a reality that's not matching the one that their body's in.
And it's got to be pretty distressing if you're in that situation.
This is a genuine major, major medical problem.
So don't let me convince you that this is a joke topic.
It's not.
These are real people who are dead.
And here's what's missing in the story.
Do you know what is not in any of these stories about this tragic event?
Who's to blame?
Now, our legal system clearly says the father who did the killing is to blame, and I understand that.
But do you think he came up with these ideas on his own?
Do you think he was sitting there in a darkened room and said, wait a minute, I think Trump is Hitler.
I better kill my whole family because it's better for them in the long run.
Nope.
No, he was hypnotized, brainwashed, subject to propaganda, and because of where his mind was at, which was a weakened state, it looks like, he was turned into a murderer of the worst possible kind, his own family.
Now, that is absolutely a product of media propaganda.
Would you all agree that that's a perfectly safe statement?
I don't have to be the doctor.
I don't have to be his therapist.
It's pretty obvious if you killed your family over Trump, it's because the media told you something that was ridiculously untrue.
So this is on the media.
And you'll never see the media say, uh-oh, maybe we went too far.
We talked somebody into killing this whole family.
Now, as I said, our system...
Is designed, and I think this is a good design, it's just nothing's perfect.
It's a good design to say that the only person who goes to jail is the shooter.
So I'm not saying you should extend that to the brainwashers.
There's just no way you can make that work.
But it is the story.
If you're not in court and trying to put somebody in jail, you should be able to talk about it.
It's obvious he didn't get that way on his own.
He was moved in that direction by pretty evil forces.
That's the story.
Well, meanwhile, you know this RFK Jr.
wants to get rid of the fluoride in our water sources, says he'll do that right away.
Trump has not weighed in on that except to say he's open to that conversation, basically.
So Trump's open to it, but he doesn't sound like he's looked into it much.
Now, The Hill does a little story about this, and it never shows both sides of the topic.
And I thought to myself, how can you do a story that RFK Jr.
says the fluoride's dangerous, but other people say it's not dangerous, and then the only side you show is the side that shows it's not dangerous?
Don't you think?
So the only thing that they smear Kennedy with is that it's true that if you had too much fluoride, you know, much more than it would be in our water source, that that could be bad for health.
So everybody agrees if you overdose on it, it's bad for health.
But do you think that's what RFK Jr.
is talking about?
Do you think that his concern is the overdose amount?
No.
Do you think that there is no study whatsoever that RFK Jr.
has looked at to decide that fluoride is a bad idea?
Of course there is.
Why wouldn't that be mentioned in the article?
Why would the article only say the World Health Organization says it's safe?
Or some other big organizations.
So basically, you get a story that says that the same entities that gave us the COVID pandemic say fluoride's perfectly safe.
And then I'm looking for the part where the part you expect to find But RFK Jr.
has looked at this study and this study, and they indicate that there's a problem.
So if these studies are correct, then RFK Jr.
is correct.
Right?
Or, if there are no studies that show that fluoride in the water is dangerous, they should say that.
There are no studies, but all the people who have studied it say it's safe.
Now that would be a story that tells me, oh, RFK Jr.
might be a little crackpot then, huh?
But if you don't say anything about how RFK Jr.
came to this opinion, He didn't just sit in a darkened room and make it up.
Again, it's like the guy who murdered his family.
He didn't sit in a darkened room and just come up with that idea.
RFK Jr.
wasn't sitting alone one day and think, fluoride, it's dangerous.
And then when he looked into it, it was only massive overdoses of it were dangerous.
And then he thought, I think I'll extend this to all fluoride in the water is dangerous.
Is that what happened?
I don't think that's what happened.
But if you read The Hill, it just looks like he's a kook.
But boy, once you learn to read between the lines and see what's missing, the most valuable skill is to read a story that's about politics or in the news and just see what's obviously missing.
What's obviously missing is why does RFK Jr.
have this opinion?
It's a story about his opinion.
And they leave out the part why he has that opinion.
It's the height of irresponsibility.
Now, by the way, I don't have a personal opinion on fluoride.
Do you know why?
Because I keep reading this fucking story and it never tells me why RFK Jr.
thinks it's dangerous.
Not once.
Not once have I seen his source.
Do you think he has no source?
Of course he has sources.
Of course he does.
But the news just acts like it doesn't exist.
Now, I don't know if his sources are good.
That's another story and worthy of investigation.
Well, more magic is happening.
Investor Bill Ackman was asked on X if he'd ever be interested in joining Elon Musk in the Department of Government Efficiency.
And Ackman said, yes.
What?
There's almost so much golden age of goodness happening that it's hard to hold it all in my head.
But are you kidding me?
The level of brilliance and capability that's being attracted to the Trump campaign.
Here's what I think is the magic.
And I've been saying it forever, and the mainstream media has been telling you the opposite.
So it's been hidden for a few years.
But now I think the secret's out.
And the secret goes like this.
Trump actually looks to the public, the voters, and experts in all fields, even the ones that might be disagreeing with the mainstream experts.
He has a very wide scope of what he's looking at.
And then he tries to pick the best ideas out of it and sometimes makes them fight it out for supremacy until somebody wins.
But I like everything about that.
So why would a Bill Ackman say yes to this?
One reason.
One reason only.
Because he would trust that Trump would take good advice.
Have you ever heard anybody say Trump refused to take good advice?
I've never heard that.
You would think that would be a thing that you would hear, you know, sort of a natural criticism if he didn't.
But clearly, Trump is taking good advice from Elon Musk.
Clearly, he's taking advice from, you know, Vivek and probably Tulsi.
You know, you can see that Trump is absorbing the goodness from the best people.
You know, the smartest, best, most informed, most patriotic people.
He's basically a creature of their Of their creativity at this point.
Now, he's, of course, a unique character in history.
There's nobody like him.
But he's powering up, or he's energizing through the capabilities of some of the most capable people in the country.
So yeah, if you can start attracting somebody like Bill Ackman to not just endorse him, but say he stopped doing what he's doing and spend time on this, that's as good as it gets.
That's like, this is now the gold standard of how I want my government to operate.
Yeah, let me just say this.
Here's the gold standard.
The gold standard is your president says we got, you know, these various problems.
One of them is the government spends too much money.
Then the citizens say, hey, I'm really good at this.
How about I do it for free and I'll go help you solve the biggest problem there is.
Can you beat that?
How do you beat that?
That's the government that beats every other government.
If the government becomes a coach where they can recruit the best players and it's not about who donated the most or any of that stuff, it's just the people who wanted to join because they're really good at it.
Bill Ackman looking for inefficiencies in the system?
Yes, please.
I'll take that all day long.
All right.
So that's pretty golden agey.
Loving that.
Apparently, climate change didn't have much influence on the election.
Now, Trump's called it a hoax, and of course, the Democrats say it's the most important thing.
But my observation was the Democrats didn't push climate change.
Is it because they knew it was a losing message?
Because I don't know that it's a losing message.
It seems like, at least if they want to keep their base, it might be a strong one.
But maybe it doesn't get any undecideds.
That could be the problem.
Now, how is that possible?
So I think there's a little bit of a mystery to this.
Is it true?
Well, let me take a hypothesis.
I think if we had not experienced the pandemic, if we'd never had the pandemic with all the lying from the experts, I think the climate change argument would look five times stronger than it is today.
But once we saw that they could lie to us about our health, about a needle that's going in your arm, about a mask you're putting on your face, They lied to us about that, and all of them.
And we saw that getting 98% of the experts to be on one side meant nothing.
It meant nothing that all the experts were on the same side.
And that really is the only argument for climate change.
All the experts are on the same side.
Now, I'm exaggerating.
It's not all the experts.
But the argument was that the largest body of experts were on one side.
The pandemic destroyed that.
There's no argument if your only argument is the experts seem to be weighted in one direction.
That ends up rounding to zero.
It doesn't have any value, in my opinion, as Currently, no value at all.
None.
It's not even slightly leading me in that direction.
It used to.
Even a few years ago, I would have said, well, if so many people think it's true, that's got to be worth something.
And it's not.
It's actually worth nothing.
It might even be an anti-signal, where if 98% are saying it, but they can't prove it to you, but 98% are saying it.
That might be just a signal it's not true going forward.
I mean, I'm definitely going to treat it that way.
Like if I see another one of these, well, we can't prove it to you in a way that you as a citizen would accept that it's been proven, but we all have bosses, and there's one right answer, and we're all saying the right answer.
If you see that situation again, and by the way, that's exactly climate change, you know you can't trust it.
It doesn't mean they're wrong.
They might be right this time, but you wouldn't trust it automatically.
So I'm not too surprised.
And of course, gas prices and the price of eggs are more immediate than climate change, so it could be nothing but the immediacy of it versus the timing of other things.
Well, Trump has now officially won all seven swing states.
He's got Arizona.
Now, what are you going to think about the system if Trump wins Arizona but Carrie Lake doesn't?
Because I think she might still be just a little bit behind in her race.
Would that make you think there's some manipulation going on?
I think it's possible.
It's within the realm of possibility that Trump would get more votes.
But given that Carrie Lake is...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't she as close as you can get to a female Trump?
Meaning that she's fully on board with his policies, she's a great communicator, has the charisma, has the power, the energy.
How do you vote for Trump and then not Carrie Lake?
Who exactly is watching what news that you would even ever come up with that idea?
That you take Trump and then the other guy?
I don't know.
Depending on the numbers, you know, if it looks like it would have been close no matter what, then we're not going to know anything.
But if there was one place that I wanted to see maybe a recount and You know, put the maximum amount of attention on it and really for the benefit of the country.
You know, I would prefer that Carrie Lake wins her race.
So on that level, you know, I have a self-interest.
But beyond that, don't you all want to know that the race was fair?
And isn't this the one place you think, if I had to look for a problem...
I would look here.
This is the first place I'd look.
So I think that the Republicans need to focus all of their resources there at the moment because the public needs to know.
We need to know.
And by the way, why do you think there was no cheating this time?
Or there were no oversized claims of cheating.
There were little things that came up.
But according to...
Brianna Lyman in The Federalist.
It could be, and I'm open to this hypothesis, but I don't think it's proven.
That the reason that it didn't look like cheating is that there wasn't, and that the reason that there wasn't, at least in terms of Trump's election, and the reason there wasn't is that the Republicans did such a good job of, yeah, the Laura Trump and the Michael Whatley did such a good job of organizing the Watchers.
Now, apparently there are a number of claims, and again, these are anecdotal, you know, maybe you're not hearing it right, but claims that there were things that the watchers, the observers, had to fix on the spot.
So there was one claim of some sealed machines that became unsealed and nobody knew why, but the observers caught it.
And so that might be the source, there might be a recount there.
There was other claims that they were going to be barred from watching something, but they stopped it and they made sure they were not barred.
They probably had watchers everywhere that a truck might pull up to a landing dock or something.
I don't know exactly where they were watching, but if they had figured out all the places they should be watching and they watched, that could be the reason that there was no cheating or no cheating that we have discovered that is of a scale that would have made a difference.
Do you think that's the whole answer?
And do you think, hypothetically, and there's no evidence of this, do you think that maybe somebody had...
I'm seeing a funny meme go by on the local site.
That was too good.
That was a good meme.
Anyway, it's possible that There was a plan to cheat.
The plan to cheat was going to kick in at night.
And then they looked at the count and they said, oh, shoot.
If we cheat this much, there's no way we get away with it.
So it could be there was a plan and it didn't get implemented, not just because of the observers, which would be an extra risk, but it could be because of the threats.
You know, Trump and the campaign were making threats that you're definitely going to jail if you cheat.
That may have made a difference.
And it could be that just the natural size of the victory was so big that the cheaters said, oh, hold off, hold off.
We can't even cheat this amount.
It might have been too big to cheat.
But we'll never know, will we?
You know what the other possibility is?
The elections were always fair.
Anything's possible.
Because I don't know the answer to why it doesn't look unfair this time.
That's a genuine mystery to me.
I'm, of course, leaning toward my preferred recreational belief that it's because the Republicans did such a good job of watching any place that could have been a problem.
I'd love that to be true.
That's my preferred explanation.
But you know what I can't rule out?
That they've always been fair and accurate.
I can't rule it out.
It's not likely, it doesn't seem likely in our real world, To me, it seems like anything that can be cheated that has so much at stake will be cheated.
It just seems to be obvious.
It's true of every system, everywhere, all the time, through all of human history.
So why wouldn't it be true in this case?
But maybe.
Anything's possible.
Anyway, according to a Fox News survey, more than half of Harris voters want to relocate because Trump won.
Well, that's better than killing your family, but I don't think any of them mean it.
They might mean it at the moment, but they don't really mean it.
But at least there's one thing that the country can agree on, because the Republicans are saying, wait, you want to leave the country?
Okay.
Okay.
Can I open the door for you?
Can I buy you a ticket?
So finally, unity.
Democrats want to leave the country.
Trump supporters are saying, sounds good to me.
Unity.
All right, so as you know, there's a fight going on for who's going to be Speaker of the House.
And I want to teach you something about reputation.
Your reputation is so important to you in ways that you don't realize until maybe years have gone by.
But here's where reputation really makes a difference.
I guess there were three people who were sort of on the short list that might be picked as the Speaker of the House.
And I didn't know much, well, I didn't know enough about any of them.
Was it Thune and Cornyn and Rick Scott?
So I said to myself, all right, well, who am I going to trust?
So I thought, I could think of several people that if they said one of them was the good choice, that I would have just said, all right, I trust you.
But the first person I saw who endorsed that made a difference was Rand Paul.
And Rand Paul is down for Rick Scott.
And here's where reputation is important.
I'm done.
I'm done.
It's Rick Scott.
Do you know why?
Because Rand Paul said he'd pick Rick Scott.
That's where reputation matters.
So Rand Paul, by being Rand Paul and never being anybody but Rand Paul for however many years he's been around, And he'll walk into trouble if he needs to.
He'll vote against your ass if he needs to.
He'll say the unpopular thing if he needs to.
But every time he talks, he still ran Paul.
And that's a good thing.
So I have so much respect for his opinion, and he's obviously closer to all the people, that when I see him endorse, I don't really treat Rand Paul's endorsement like I would treat some other congressperson.
I treat it like I'm looking at the truth, because that's what he's offered us.
He's offered us the truth for years.
So I'll just take your opinion, Rand Paul.
You earned that.
So Rick Scott, I don't know much of anything about him, but if Rand Paul says he's the one to pick of those three, I'm on board.
So let's see if we can make this happen.
If anybody has an alternative opinion, I'll listen to it.
But I just appreciate that somebody could put their life on the line, Rand Paul, Literally puts his life on the line for the country.
He's been attacked twice.
And his credibility is now so high that I'm willing to just take his opinion on who to pick for Speaker of the House.
And I don't feel like I even need to research it.
But if you have something that's important, let me know.
All right.
I saw some random Democrat on X say that...
He was mad at Trump and said that Trump will be taking away hundreds of millions of people's basic rights.
And so I said, like what?
How are there still people who think Trump's going to take their basic rights?
Now, of course, they come up with things like an abortion ban.
But Trump has said clearly and unambiguously he does not want a national abortion ban.
Indeed, not only does he not want an abortion ban, but when he talked about Florida's law, he thought it was too restrictive.
So, do you really think he's for a national ban when he thought Florida's law was too restrictive?
He wanted a longer time for the woman to still be legally able to get an abortion?
So, Where did they come up with these ideas that Trump would change his mind from he's always been a little bit of abortion in some cases is good.
He's always been that.
He's not going to change his mind on that.
But, you know, they worry that he would.
And what else is there?
What other rights is he taking away?
Then they throw in birth control and IVF and stuff, and Trump's completely on their side with all of that, always has been.
What exactly is the rights they're taking away from?
Do they just say that, but they don't have anything in mind?
Do they really think he's going to round up the people who just voted him into office?
Trump just got the, you know, a historically sensational amount of minority.
I'm not even sure if it's minority anymore.
But, you know, black voters and Hispanic voters.
He's the guy who's going to round up the same people who just voted for him?
How does anybody believe that?
If anything, he's going to double down on being nice to those groups.
Do you know why?
Because they just voted for him.
Of course he is.
All right.
So I would love to see what the argument is that he's taking away rights.
I think they talk about abortion and maybe the fact that he sent it to the states is such a good argument that it's not about him anymore.
I don't know what they're up to.
There's a Yale psychologist, according to the Daily Wire, who's saying it may be essential for Kamala Harris voters to cut off Trump-voting family members for holidays.
It was essential.
So Yale University Chief Psychiatry Resident, Dr.
Amanda Calhoun.
Made remarks on MSNBC Joy Reid Show, of course.
You may have to cut off here.
All right.
So, what are you going to do if you go to your holidays and you have the anti-Trump people in your family and you know there's going to be a big fight?
Here's my recommendation.
And here you can model me.
They're going to say something like, if they say Trump's a racist, then you point out that he won more of the black and brown vote of any Republican ever.
Which is a pretty darn good...
It's a pretty good argument.
Because what you're saying is, are you telling me that black people can't identify as racist?
Like one-third of black people can't even tell?
No.
One-third of black people, not only can they get an ID, surprise, but they can identify a real racist.
Now, the fact that two-thirds of them are voting for Democrat, it's just because that's their home.
Most people just vote the way they've always voted.
So two-thirds voting one way doesn't really mean anything.
But if you can get one-third of the group that never votes Republican, To suddenly be kind of Republican, that would suggest the opposite of being a racist.
That would suggest that people were looking at the same thing you're looking at, or saying, you know what, I think we're going to give this guy a chance.
We've seen four years of him.
Didn't bother us then.
But here's the kill shot.
Here's how to get out of trouble.
If your family members say, Trump is going to take away my rights, you ask them which rights they're talking about.
And then, I suggest to you, you say this.
If he tries to take away that right, or any of your rights, constitutional rights, I will join you immediately in trying to fight that.
Because that just takes all the energy out of it.
If you're right, I will join your team immediately.
And I say that and I mean it.
I mean it.
If Trump said something that would take away a right that is given to you in the Constitution, whatever it is, I'm out.
I'm completely out of any Trump support if he tries to take away any rights from ordinary people.
Now I'm talking about constitutional rights.
I'm not talking about, you know, trans surgeries and stuff like that.
That's different.
And a lot of that is state interest, not federal.
So you can join the people who are on the other side and say, you know what?
I hear your worry.
I think it's because the media, they're the ones that are making you think there is this risk.
But in the unlikely event that Trump tries this, Or tries to stay in power after his term is over, I promise you I'm on your side.
We will not tolerate a third term under any conditions.
That's just not the Constitution.
And we will not tolerate the removal of any rights that the Constitution grants you.
So, now there may be cases where we think rights should be determined in the states, but that's not anything to do with Trump.
People will tend to not be mad at you if you're agreeing with them.
So you can say, I agree with you, and the moment you're proven right, I'm on your team, and I will fight harder than you will fight.
And by the way, it is a true statement that if Trump tried to take away anybody's constitutional rights, he would be hip-checked hard by Republicans.
He couldn't get away with that.
Do you think the Daily Wire would be like, oh, he wanted to take away some constitutional rights, but it's okay because we like him?
Nope.
Nope.
Do you think Breitbart would be writing glowing articles if Trump was trying to take away any of your constitutional rights?
Nope.
Not a chance.
Do you think Fox News, as much as a lot of the people on there love him, do you think they're going to back him if he's trying to take away a constitutional right?
If you do, then you don't know anything about Republicans.
Absolutely nothing.
It's their basic, basic, most important thing.
Don't mess with our constitutional rights unless you do it in a constitutionally appropriate way.
Anyway, you can definitely be on the same team as the Democrats in terms of if they're right about Trump being or becoming a monster, just tell them you're on their side.
But not until then.
Until then, you want to pursue common sense.
All right.
According to the Daily Mail, Tom Homan, who is likely to be in charge of the border, as he was before under Trump, he said that Trump would use the army to round up and Deport the worst of the worst illegal migrants.
Now, that's not the arresting part, because the army doesn't have authority to arrest people, but they might be transporting them safely, and they might be building some walls, and they might be helpful some way.
But Holman is talking like he's definitely gearing up to deport 20 million people.
Now, that is the correct thing for him to say in public, and it is the correct thing for him to gear up to do, because the president got elected saying he would do that.
I will tell you again that if they put most of their resources on the criminals, and it takes several years to get all the criminals, and they build a wall and they cut down on how many are coming in, the ones who are already here And if they end up getting jobs, because otherwise they'd probably starve to death, you're not going to care that much.
Three or four years?
You won't care about the 20 million.
You'll forget about it entirely.
But if the criminals are gone, The pressure will be off as long as there's not nuance coming in.
So I can completely agree with having the messaging not match what I think is reality.
Normally, I would want the messaging and the reality to line up.
But remember, we're trying to persuade other countries.
Don't come here.
So if you're trying to persuade other countries to not send people here, this is the way to do it.
This is the exact way to do it.
We're going to round up all 20 million of you with our military.
That is the right message.
What you actually do with your military and who you start with and how far you go is That's really a separate question.
And I think you can play that by ear.
Anyway, so the Trump effect is definitely strong, unless there's a bunch of coincidences.
But you probably heard that Qatar, the country of Qatar, as you call it.
I call it Qatar because then it makes me sound smarter.
Says that Hamas is no longer welcome to use their country as a safe space.
That seems like a pretty big deal.
Then also, Breitbart News is reporting that the European Union chief is looking to replace Russia LNG gas with American gas.
And apparently that comes after a phone call with Trump.
And now, if you heard that story and you said, oh, the European Union wants to buy more American gas instead of Russian gas, and it's because there was a phone call with Trump, Now, if I hear that story, I say to myself, well, I'll bet those are not connected.
I'll bet it was just, you know, winter's coming, they're looking for a good deal, buying some more of our gas.
They had a phone call with Trump, so we were just trying to connect these two things that weren't related.
Turns out they're totally related.
And this is...
So the EU president said that they wanted to build good relations with the incoming Trump administration from the very beginning.
And absolutely, the European Union is saying, we're going to buy more gas from you because we want to suck up to you, President Trump.
They're saying it directly.
So you don't even have to wonder, is that a Trump effect?
Yup.
Yep.
They just said it's a Trump effect.
We're going to buy more gas from you because Trump's your president.
Okay.
Add that to the GDP. Trump has announced that he would not be considering for his new administration Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo.
I think that was pretty smart of him.
New York Post is reporting this.
And it's not just because I think they don't fit in his administration, even though I don't think they would fit.
People are talking about it too much.
So, you know, he could just take it off the table.
It's a distraction.
And I think that was good because there was a lot of heated conversation about those two names and if he's already ruled them out.
And I think that's fair.
Let's take it off the table.
Good move.
According to the New York Post, Nancy Pelosi isn't too happy with Bernie Sanders.
And, you know, Bernie criticized the Democrat Party for not paying attention to the working class so much.
And Pelosi said that she doesn't respect him for saying that.
Now, do you notice how that answer plays?
I don't respect him for saying that.
The Democrats don't have any idea what the problem is, do they?
Let me say how you should say this if you'd like to have unity in the Democrat Party.
I don't agree with Senator Sanders, but I certainly respect his ability to, you know, I respect his opinion.
But I don't agree with it in this case.
She actually said, I don't respect him.
That's the very thing that Republicans are so triggered by.
It's like, why are you talking about us?
Like, we want to talk about policies and what's good for the country, but you're talking about us.
Stop talking about us, right?
If there's any person in public who's maligning another human being, maybe you should do more policy stuff.
We could use that.
So even when they're just talking to each other, they're modeling what they get wrong, which is making it about the person.
Anyway, there's a lot of after-election thinking about what went wrong and what worked.
And a lot of people are saying that Trump's anti-trans funding of transitioning in prisons specifically, that his commercials about that were really effective.
Do you think that's true or could be known by the data that we have?
Do you think we could even know if that's the case, that those commercials made the biggest difference?
Because I've not yet heard anybody who said they changed the vote because of it.
I mean, I do get that it's really visual.
So here's sort of a persuasion lesson.
You don't have to have an actual picture to be visual.
If you can make the picture in somebody's head, it's visual enough.
So if you're talking about prisoners in jail, everybody can picture that really clearly.
If you're talking about that prisoner who is clearly looking male in your imagination, and they're asking for a sex change operation, Suddenly you're thinking about their balls, literally.
And you're thinking about what they do after that.
And you think about, oh my God, are they going to be transferred to the women's prison?
And so there's this whole movie that's created in your mind.
It's all visual.
It's all dark.
So it certainly makes sense that that kind of message would be persuasive.
But on the other hand...
I don't think a single person has mentioned it as a reason for their vote.
Now, a lot of people have said, I'm sure other people were influenced by it, but I was already going to vote for Trump.
But I think other people were influenced by it.
I don't know.
How would you really know?
So I would wait on this one.
I think it's very possible that it did make a difference.
But I don't know if they'd change minds.
Maybe it got a few extra people to go vote.
I don't know.
So I would be skeptical of all explanations of what worked.
I heard this about the movie business years ago.
It always stuck with me.
That if you make a movie in Hollywood and it works and everybody loves it and it's a big hit, then all the critics will say that all the parts were good.
So if something's like a great movie, what you never hear is, wow, it's a great movie despite the bad casting.
Or that the costumes were crap, but still overall it worked.
They don't.
If something works, they say everything worked.
Casting was great, the costumes, the writing, the editing, the producing, it was all terrific.
The sound man.
And there's something like a glow to success.
But I think you've got the same problem with the election.
Trump won, and he won big, like a hit movie.
So, like the hit movie, we look at everything that Trump did, and we say, oh, the ads were great, his campaign was great, his messaging was great, his opponent was weak.
So, if you know it's not true with the movie, and the movie is a pretty good analogy, it's like, it's a winning thing, and then you think all the components must be winners, too.
I think we don't exactly know what happened.
And maybe we never will.
It could be that it was the accumulation of a whole bunch of things.
It could be it was nothing but the pendulum.
We had simply gone too long in one direction, and the country just said, ah, that's enough.
That's the pendulum.
It could be there was almost no thinking whatsoever.
It's just we knew we were going too far off whatever all of us thought were normal, and we thought we can't go that far past normal, so let's pull it back a little bit.
Could be that there was almost no thinking involved.
It was just an adjustment back to the norm.
Could be.
And if I had to...
If I had to break it down and pick maybe my top three, and again, this is conflicting with my opinion that we'll never know, and maybe it was just a lot of things.
I would say, number one, Trump's campaign was about the best campaign you'll ever see in your life.
Unbelievably good.
And good vice president, just really everything.
It was just amazingly good.
At the same time, The first Biden campaign and then Kamala Harris.
I think one of the worst.
So you're comparing one of the best campaigns and the most influential candidates of all time against the worst campaign and one of the worst candidates of all time.
So if you didn't know anything except you were running the best candidate of all time against the worst candidate of all time, You shouldn't have to overthink that, right?
Do you need to get into the weeds?
Well, we ran the worst candidate against the best candidate.
You mean the best ones that could have run this year?
Yes, but also the best and the worst of all time.
Of all time.
So it's hard to imagine that anything but cheating could have made it go in any other direction.
But I will say that the fine people hoax and having that pop probably made a big difference.
I think that living through the pandemic made people much more skeptical about everything.
I think that the trans stuff being promoted to the most important thing that we have to talk about all day long drove everybody who wasn't trans or a best friend with a trans person fucking crazy.
Now, How many of you wondered why I, who like to talk about all things politics and the trans thing was one of the biggest things in the news, have you ever wondered why I talked about it so little?
You know, unless there was some funny story or something.
And I never, like, waded into it.
I would say things like, you know, of course I'm not in favor of it for children, but adults can do what they want to do.
But beyond that, Did you notice I didn't really take a side?
Didn't really play it too hard because I like trans people.
Don't have, you know, nothing against trans.
Here's why.
I'm going to reveal to you for the first time my actual deep thinking on the topic.
It was incredible.
The more the better.
You know why?
Because I thought...
That the more they concentrated on trans, the less future the Democrats had.
Because there was no way that that message was working for the general public.
So the longer it went on, the more the entire structure of their party was crumbling.
So that's what I saw.
What I didn't need to do was make it go away.
You know, if I wanted the topic to go away, I would have waited in hard and said, we've got to just make this decision and do it this way.
No, I liked it being the top story.
Because every day there was a trans story that was the top headline, I saw the Democratic Party fading into obscurity.
And I said, how about a little bit more of that, please?
Yeah, let's push that.
And then when it went all the way to transitioning in prison, the public was ready.
Because they'd already been primed by, even if they were pro-trans, and I'm pro-trans, we're spending too much time on it.
It's a pretty small group, and although we should treat everybody, you know, with empathy and humanity, it's a small group.
We were all ready to move on.
We needed that reason, though.
We needed something about the topic that everybody could say, that's too far.
And when Kamala Harris offered up, we're going to do free trans surgery for prisoners, then everybody normal said, there it is.
There you go.
That's too far.
Now I can tell all of my friends, including my trans friends, That that's too far.
You could even tell your best friend who's trans, okay, I don't agree with the prison thing.
That's too far.
And you wouldn't feel embarrassed about that, even if your best friend was trans.
Right?
It's a whole different situation.
It's about how you spend your money at that point.
Well, anyway, the woke thing was ready to crumble under its own weight.
And I didn't know it was going to happen this election, but I did know...
That the pronoun thing would go away.
You could know with a great deal of certainty that the weird pronoun thing wasn't going to be a 20-year problem.
It might be a 10-year problem, but it's not going to be a 20-year problem.
We're not going to put up with that shit too long.
And sure enough, I don't think I've had a single pronoun situation in In my life, it's never once been an issue.
If it ever did, and somebody said, call me this or that, I'd be like, sure, whatever, because it's just such a non-issue in my life.
But San Francisco Mayor London Breed, I can't remember if she lost or got recalled, and then the Oakland Mayor lost or got recalled.
So two of the big problems in my local area, Got taken out, along with two Soros prosecutors, one in my area, my county, up here, and one in LA. Those are big, big corrections.
Big, big, big corrections for here.
Now, California is often sort of a warning shot for the rest of the country.
You know, the things that happen in California, they're going to ripple through the rest of the country, but it might be a few years later.
You know, it seems like everything happens here first.
And if you see California just saying, this is crazy.
We can't do this anymore.
Then you can feel fairly confident that that's the end of it.
In other words, it's the beginning of the end of it.
So I could not be happier about the direction of things right now.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are in chaos, and here's my take on that.
So they don't have a leader, they don't have a They seem to all be pointing fingers at each other.
It's a circular firing squad, as they like to say.
But here's what you assume.
Don't you assume that a year from now they'll be back organized and they'll have somebody in charge and maybe Nancy Pelosi will retire and then there'll be a strong new leader and he or she will pull everybody together and then the Democrats will be back and they'll put up a good fight.
I'm going to go contrarian on this.
They have created a system that they can't recover from, which is unique.
Almost anything else you could recover from.
Here's how they can't recover.
If they keep making things about identity, they will lose again.
Everybody there so far?
If they keep hammering identity...
They will just keep going down in power because it just didn't work and it's not going to start working.
So identity as their main mechanism definitely, definitely will keep them in the losing position forever.
But suppose they go the other way.
Suppose they drop identity to focus on, let's say, the working class.
What happens then?
Well, then they definitely lose.
Do you know why?
Because they've trained their base that identity is the most important thing.
So they trained their base that identity has to be their primary thing, and they also proved that it will make them lose forever.
There's no path back.
There's no path back.
If they go identity first again, they lose forever.
And if they try to change it, their base will object because they've been brainwashed and that their identity is their main thing.
There's no way you're going to unbrainwash them fast enough.
I think the Democrats have taken themselves essentially out of power for 20 years.
I mean, I don't know how long it would take before the people who think identity is the most important thing literally age out and die, but probably that's what's going to happen.
The Democrats will probably have to wait for a generation to die or to grow older and get smarter or come up with something.
But there is no way out.
They've created the ultimate self-trap, right?
Now, because you can't really think of anything else that would act that way.
You could take any policy that maybe if you ran an election and you lost on, let's take abortion.
So the way Republicans handled abortion forever probably hurt them.
But when they finally got their way and moved to the States, probably hurt them, at least in 2020.
But they were quite wise in knowing that eventually it would take that issue off the table federally, and I think it did.
I think their plan worked perfectly.
So you can see a case where somebody could lose maybe one election or two.
But there's an adjustment that's there.
They can change how they're dealing with abortion without really changing their values.
They're just changing the system preference.
So that's a change you can make, and a productive one.
But there's no way the Democrats can escape from their identity trap that they made for themselves.
They either push it and lose, or they abandon it and lose.
No other way out.
Well, I think the Republican Party is going to get a lot bigger.
Anyway, and also half of the Democrat Party is committed to impractical policies.
I think we have to say that, right?
A full half of the Democrat Party is Are committed to impractical policies.
Leaving the border open, for example.
Equity, reparations, public schooling without a private option or any kind of competition.
These are just plainly bad ideas.
Just plainly bad ideas.
It's not like just, I prefer this way or I prefer...
It's not even a preference.
It's just bad versus good.
And that's uncommon.
Because most things are actually a preference.
Like, oh, I'd like to spend a little bit more if I get better healthcare.
That's a preference.
It's not a bad idea or a good idea.
Alright, here's some more good news for the country in the golden age.
You know, there's going to be a lot of backstabbing and fighting over at Mar-a-Lago as people jockey for position to get, you know, cabinet positions and stuff like that.
But...
If you know Bill Pulte, and I think most of you do, you know Bill Pulte, he's the grandson of the Pulte who built Pulte Homes.
He's not directly involved with Pulte Homes now.
He's doing his own thing.
But he would be the most qualified, most perfect HUD head you could ever have, housing and urban development.
Oh my God.
He would be the whale that we need for that position.
In fact, it would be hard to imagine anybody else's even a close second because he's got all the building experience.
He's rock solid on, you know, solid fit with Trump.
You know, he would fit perfectly.
They know each other.
They like each other.
So they would get along, personalities would work, he would be out of the box.
He could talk to Trump about building and construction in a way that Trump would understand.
Let me explain it this way.
Imagine Ben Carson in HUD, where he was in the first administration, then imagine Bill Pulte.
Now imagine the conversation with Trump.
Ben Carson comes in with his medical background and says, ah, I think we should do this or that.
And Trump, who is an experienced builder, is like not really in the same domain for the conversation.
Now imagine Bill Pulte walking in with some blueprints.
He says, hey, I want to build a freedom city, one of the Trump freedom cities that are considered, and just shows him a plan.
And then Trump's like, okay, because he looks at plans.
He's like, well, how about use less steel, more concrete?
Oh, we could do that.
What about we bring in a nuclear power plant to drive this new city?
Yeah, we could do that.
So if you just imagine the conversation between two people who understand the construction, building, housing world, and they're both on the same side, they want the GDP to grow, they want to build, build, build, build baby, and do it right and cheap and, you know, Bid for things and not have a bunch of corruption.
It's basically everything.
If you really want the housing prices to come down, the jobs to go up, the construction to go up, Pulte is the obvious choice.
So I don't know who else is running for it, but if you tell me there's somebody more qualified or more perfect, really, for this job than Bill Pulte, Trump should be begging him to take that job.
I don't know if he's interested, but I think he might be.
So if he's interested in the job, the Trump people should be begging him.
Let me put it in the starkest way.
I think Bill Pulte at HUD is 1-2% of the GDP. That's how big it is.
If you put the wrong person there, it's zero.
It's zero.
They'll add nothing.
If you put the right person there, construction takes off like we've never seen it.
And you're talking big, big, big money because the construction affects so many other things.
It's like this huge ripple effect.
And then if what you can build are cities that lower the cost of living, Look at the size of that wind.
Imagine if one of the cities, I've always fantasized about this, imagine if one of the cities is for people who can't get ahead.
So they're working as hard as they can, they've got a job, no problem getting a job, but it just, they can't save money.
Let's say they're, it's two teachers.
So they both got good jobs, they're teachers.
But you put them all together and you add a couple of kids and they just can't get enough for a house payment or a house down payment.
So suppose you built a city and you say, we've got this temporary city for people who want to come live here for five years, build up a little wealth and then go wherever you want.
So you go to a city where everything's super cheap, but you can still be a teacher.
You still get the same pay, but your housing is $900 a month instead of $4,000 a month or something crazy.
And you just save some money.
Five years later, you've got $100,000 in the bank and you put it on a down payment and you go somewhere else.
So I can think of probably 12 different ideas for small cities.
My other favorite one is build it around a small nuclear power plant and then make the city a part owner of the plant.
So in other words, if you live in the small town, You also become automatically a stockholder in the nuclear power plant.
So your taxes go down to zero because the nuclear power plant is serving your town, but also serving the nearby town maybe and just charging them for it.
So You can imagine lots of ways that you could start from scratch as if nobody had ever built a town or a city before and say, how would you do it if you started from scratch?
All right.
I also think you could probably get a lot of billionaires to build a city.
I'll bet you there's a bunch of billionaires who if you said to them, how about you build a city?
I'll just pick one.
Let's say Mark Benioff, Salesforce.
I like to pick him because I had enough of an interaction with him that he just impressed the hell out of me.
You know, he didn't get lucky.
He didn't build Salesforce because he got lucky.
He's got really the whole set of skills.
But if you go to somebody like him who's really interested in the larger good of community and say, how about you take a shot at a city?
Put your best ideas on it.
Hire your best designers.
Let's say you want to build a city that's great for whatever.
Let's say the working class.
How would you do it?
Here's some federal land.
If you come up with a plan, we'll approve it, and you can build a city.
You can make a profit on it, or not make a profit.
Go either way.
But you get to test out your idea of how a proper city should be designed.
I'll bet you you could get a bunch of billionaires that would say, yeah, I'll build a small one, and if it works out, we'll expand it.
I think the new city thing could be the future of the country, really.
We should be building a country that everybody wants to visit because our water and our air is clean and our food is healthy.
We don't have that yet, but we're working on it.
And the cost of being here is reasonable and the people are living in nice homes and there's no garbage and people on the streets.
Anyway, did you see the story about the FEMA person who put out a written instruction during the hurricane devastation recently that the FEMA people should not knock on the door of people who had Trump signs?
In other words, they were...
Officially, not unofficially, but officially, somebody in FEMA was instructing people to not help Trump supporters in an emergency.
Now, you might say to yourself, being fired isn't enough.
Because if you're leaving some people in an emergency...
I don't know if there's some law against that, but it seems like at least racial discrimination or something.
I don't know.
It feels like it should be illegal.
I don't know what law would be broken.
But anyway, the person responsible for that did get fired.
But here's my problem with it.
Again, of course, the person who does the act has to be the one who is responsible from a legal perspective.
No doubt about that.
But Don't the media brainwashers have to have some responsibility for that?
Because again, the person who works for FEMA did not sit in a darkened room all by herself and say, I've got an idea.
How about we're bad to Trump supporters?
That didn't happen.
This is somebody who watched the media and got brainwashed into thinking that That MAGA Trump supporters were so bad that you could let them die in an emergency so you could save the other people.
Now, she didn't come to that idea on her own.
That was a media, collectively media message.
And you don't see the same thing happening the other way, do you?
Imagine a world.
You can't even hold this in your imagination.
Watch.
I'm going to tell you to imagine something, and watch.
You can't even do it.
You won't even be able to do it.
Imagine the situation were reversed, and there were FEMA people telling people not to help people who had Democrat signs in their house.
I can't even imagine it.
Right?
Because there's nothing happening on the right-leaning media that They would tell me I shouldn't rescue my Democrat neighbor.
Nobody's saying anything like that.
And we are saying that Harris's policies could destroy the country.
We have strong feelings, but not any of those feelings are telling me that I'm not going to save my neighbor.
Like, how brainwashed do you have to be before you think that's okay that you can put it in writing?
She put it in writing.
Don't save mega people.
It's in writing.
Now, there's a difference, right?
And I don't think the difference is, you know, there are more crazy people on one side, even if there are.
The real difference is the brainwashing.
There's just nothing like this happening on the other side.
And when the Democrats try to make some kind of equivalent, you know, they do the things like, well, you called us garbage, so that's no worse than calling Trump Hitler, to which I say, those are completely different.
If garbage is the problem, I'll pick up the garbage.
If Hitler's the problem, I'm going to kill Hitler if I have a chance.
To imagine that those are somehow in the same domain is just crazy.
There's more crazy eyes.
Anyway, so that's my thoughts for today, for this Sunday.
I hope all the other podcasters are having fun sleeping in and not working hard, unlike me, who is here every single day for you, to keep you sane.
Now, let me ask you this.
How many of you have an overall better feeling now that the election appears to be over?
At least over enough.
Have any of you felt that your overall quality of life somehow went up?
Your optimism?
Maybe your patriotism?
Maybe your sense of hope?
I felt all of that.
I felt like I'll tell you, I said this yesterday, but I could feel a connection all the way back to 1776.
I felt that time and space collapsed, and that that time and this time were just the same time.
And the fact that our founders...
It created a system that could self-correct.
And boy, were we worried that it couldn't.
Because the Democrats had stretched reality and stretched good common sense to the point where it looked like it was broken and maybe it couldn't be fixed.
And not only was it fixed, but it was fixed by almost everywhere.
Almost at the same time, meaning that every demographic group seemed to be leaning toward Trump for a solution.
How does all of that get activated at the same time?
Is it just that he ran a better campaign and she didn't?
I don't know.
I feel like the results of the election were baked into us before the candidates were announced.
Meaning that I think the country was done with what the Democrats were offering, which was nothing but non-stop fighting and identity politics, and we were just over it.
Because it doesn't really match the real world.
In the real world, I don't really have many identity-related anythings.
Do you?
Except for being turned down for jobs or something.
It doesn't come up.
I mean, if there's a party where I live...
Oh, and here's something I don't think I've ever told you directly.
Have you ever wondered sort of honestly Is it better to have diversity?
Or wouldn't it be better, you know, if everybody looked like you?
You ever wonder that?
Well...
I'm sorry, I'm just getting some messages coming in that are distracting.
Here's something that should make you feel good.
So, where I live, In Northern California, you would not be surprised to learn that I live in a town that has a pretty good income and good schools.
We're also quite diverse, but not just diverse in black and white.
We're more internationally diverse.
So if you're picking up your kid at the school, And you're watching the, you know, as I have a number of times, and you're watching the other kids walk by on the sidewalk.
It looks like the United Nations.
I mean, it's just one of everything, you know, and it's not, it's not just, you know, Asian or it's not just Hispanic.
It's, you know, Middle Eastern.
It's, it's just everything.
So that's my reality.
Like every interaction, every event, every party, any situation where I live is going to look like the United Nations.
And it's freaking awesome.
Now, if you'd said, can you predict how this would be in advance?
I don't know if I would have predicted it's awesome.
But do you know why it's awesome?
There's one reason.
There's exactly one reason that diversity works really well here.
High incomes.
Everybody's doing okay.
You know, in general, obviously not everyone's doing okay.
But in terms of groups, You know, the Indian Americans who live here, usually, you know, tech jobs doing great, Asian Americans doing great, Hispanic Americans doing well over average.
Everybody's doing great.
Now, that's just because I live in an upscale neighborhood.
So, here's the key takeaway.
If you think that people are at each other because of identity, all you have to do is live in my neighborhood for like a year, and you realize the identity wasn't anything.
It's the income.
If you have the same income and often the same level of education, whether you got it on your own or any other way, We all get together.
We all get along, right?
So if my neighbor who is really smart and has figured out life is chatting with me, it doesn't matter who they are.
We're completely connected by just that life experience.
So do not be confused by any, this identity doesn't get along with this identity.
It's usually just income.
You know, it's just income.
And my neighborhood is the proof of that.
All right.
So if we all make more money, we're all better off.
And that's all I got.
I'm going to talk to the locals people just for a minute.
And privately.
So thanks for joining on X and YouTube and Rumble.