All Episodes
Nov. 14, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:29:30
Episode 2659 CWSA 11/14/24

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, Predictive Models, Approved Human Use Drugs, Ivermectin, X Advertising Revenue, AI "Crazy Eyes" ID, Luis Elizondo UAP, US National Correction, Dumb Generals, Lawfare, Hollywood Celebrities, Political Money Laundering, DEI, Don Lemon, Rachel Zegler, Jack Smith, Trump Biden Meeting, Senator Thune, AG Matt Gaetz, WSJ Editorial Board, DOJ Lawfare, Recess Appointments, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Marco Rubio, 2025 Inauguration Security Concern, Bill Pulte HUD, Kevin Shipp, MLK Assassination, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A little bit mixed today.
But we have high hopes.
High hopes.
Let me call up some comments.
And we'll have a show for you.
Let me tell you.
It'll be amazing.
Trust me, it'll be amazing.
Probably the best thing you've ever seen.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time in your whole life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank of shells, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Thank you, Paul.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
Let's see.
It's been 24 hours since I talked to you last.
23, actually.
So, did anything happen?
Was there any news made in the last 24 hours?
Anything at all?
No!
Wait, is my cat inside out?
No, my cap is not inside out.
You bastards!
This is the official coffee with Scott Adams hat.
There you go.
There you go.
You see, it's me.
And then that's also me.
I know this can be confusing for you.
This is me and this is me.
Try to keep those straight.
Alright, did you know that caffeine's impact on your brain could reduce your cravings for alcohol?
That's right.
Is there anything that coffee can't do?
Let me check my notes.
Anything coffee can't do?
It can't help Kamala Harris win the presidency.
But besides that, there's nothing it can't do.
So coffee, according to the SciPost, might make it easier to get off of alcohol if you wanted to.
Did you know that climate models, as incredible and valuable and accurate as they are, all hundred of them that are different, they're going to make them even better.
Wow!
Talk about the golden age, huh?
You got your climate models that are totally believable, And now they're going to add, wait for it, AI. That's right.
That's right.
The existing climate models, oh, almost perfect.
Almost just right.
But what they need is one extra layer of total bullshit called AI. Because if you can't trust your AI model for predicting the temperature of the Earth in 80 years, what can you trust?
Well, for those of you who have never been around predictive models, let me tell you something.
It's not the data, and it's not the model that determines the answer.
Do you know what determines the answer?
It's not the data, and it's not the model.
What is it?
It's the assumptions.
Because the assumptions are not data.
They're assumptions about, well, I think we got all the variables.
And then you compare it to all the other models and you go, well, they're making different assumptions about the clouds, but we like our assumptions.
It's the assumptions that give you the output.
And if they didn't like the output, they wouldn't tell you what AI did to it.
It's pretty much just the assumptions.
Well, meanwhile, scientists have developed a breakthrough nasal spray that could delay Alzheimer's for over a decade.
According to SciTech Daily, but they have only put it into animals so far.
Now, I don't know how many animals actually get Alzheimer's or how many animals even live 10 years, so you can check.
But the way you do it is you give it to the animal, let's say a cow, and then you wait 10 years and you say to the cow, hey, do you recognize me?
And if the cow just stares at you like it doesn't even know you, That's Alzheimer's.
But...
Okay, I'm just kidding.
They don't give it to cows, probably.
Might be a rat or something.
All right, but here's my scientific knowledge question for you.
I asked a version of this on X. This will sound like I'm leading to something, but it's really for your general knowledge.
Number one, if something is tested in the lab, and it works in the lab...
And then it also works in animals.
What are the odds it will work in a person?
Go.
In the comments, tell me the odds there's something that works in the lab, and it kills things in a test tube, and it works in an animal, and it's safe enough and effective enough in the animal.
What are the odds that that will translate to human usefulness?
Your numbers are way too big, 25%, but you're being funny.
The real answer is five to ten percent.
Five to ten percent.
Now, let's make it more interesting.
There are two reasons that a drug would not be approved for human use.
One is if it's too dangerous.
Two, if it's not, let's say, bioavailable, meaning that if it could get to the right part of your body, you know, cross whatever membranes and get into whatever parts, then it might be effective.
But if it doesn't in a human, but maybe it does in a rat, then that would be another reason it doesn't work.
Now there could be lots of other reasons it doesn't work, but those are two big ones.
So now I'm going to revise my question.
Let's say you're dealing with an already improved drug that's being used for a different purpose.
So it's approved and it's safe and the safety profile is excellent.
So you know for sure that it works in the lab You already tested that it works in animals, and you know for sure, because it's an improved drug that's been around forever, that it won't hurt you.
Now, what are your odds that it would be approved for a human?
Works in a lab, works in an animal, definitely doesn't hurt anybody.
What's your odds now?
The answer is, nobody knows.
Which is weird.
Because it seems to me that would be a really important thing to know if you were in that line of work.
What percentage of drugs do you think work, even in a human, but at the end they go, oh, damn, it works, it totally works, but 10% of the people who took it died, so it can't be approved.
I don't know.
But you have to assume that some amount of the drugs are only rejected because they hurt humans, but they didn't hurt the rat.
All right.
Now, suppose you knew also that since it was an approved drug, it had a good ability to sort of become bioavailable.
In other words, it's already something used in humans, so it must be able to get to the good parts of a human.
But depending on what your new use for it is, it might need to get into the brain versus the heart versus the bone.
So maybe there's a difference there.
So let's say you knew it was bioavailable In general, for some other purpose.
Worked in a lab, worked in an animal, definitely is not dangerous, and is bioavailable, meaning it gets to the right parts of the body, for some other use.
Now what?
What are the odds that that would work?
If you want to know what the reason I'm asking for, is that ivermectin works against cancer in a lab.
And apparently it's worked against cancer in some animals.
And ivermectin is known to be safe for human use.
I mean, nothing is 100%, but in terms of meds, it's one of the safer ones.
And we know it's bioavailable because it works against not only what it was meant for, some kind of parasites or whatever, but it also seemed to have some related benefits for COVID, which would be a whole different thing.
So it can get to a worm or a bug in your body, whatever it is.
And it can also get to whatever is affecting a virus.
So now, what are the odds, knowing all of those things, that the lab tests of ivermectin would translate into human success?
Does anybody have a guess?
Well, I don't, but it would be really interesting if that's the sort of thing that science can sort out.
Because wouldn't you like to know what the odds of a specific drug is versus what are the odds of drugs in general?
So if you say to me, we developed this thing, and it works in a lab, and it works in an animal, and then you calculate the odds from that alone, I feel like that's not treating it as individual enough.
I feel like each specific drug, probably scientists could come up with an estimate for that kind of drug.
You know, more like, well, this one's 80%, but this one's more like 10%.
So anyway, we should know that.
All right, so let's get into the politics.
So according to Ars Technica, the advertisers who may have been hesitant to advertise on X before because of politics or because of their own preferences or whatever, may be looking to moderate that and maybe get back to advertising on X. Do you know why?
Because the advertisers are concerned That if they don't advertise on X, Elon Musk might have a bad opinion of them for not advertising on his platform, and he might have the ear of the president, and the president controls the government, which has a lot of control over companies.
So if you were a company that ever wanted the U.S. government to do something in the future that would help you, it might be good to know that you had advertised on the only free speech platform.
How much do I like that?
Not at all.
You shouldn't be happy about that.
Because what is being described is essentially bribery.
Am I right?
I mean, it wouldn't be illegal.
But if the reason that somebody is going to advertise on X is so that they can preserve their options with the government, that's not good.
That's not the country you want to live in.
You don't want people choosing their advertising space based on revenge from the government.
So no, not cool.
Now, I'm also not sure that it's real.
Ars Technica says that people are thinking this way.
And it would be consistent with everything we know about how money works.
We do know big companies will move large amounts of money to whatever is influential, whether it's lobbyists or anything else.
So I don't think they're wrong in terms of a prediction, but I don't love to see it.
As much as I love everything about X and I love seeing Elon Musk involved in the government exactly the way he is, I don't love that this is the way X would become profitable.
Although, I want it to be profitable, so...
Anyway, it's not exactly the right incentive structure.
Meanwhile, in news that it took me 30 minutes to believe, the first 30 minutes I thought it was a joke, that Alex Jones' InfoWars, all the assets for that company that went up for auction because of the Sandy Hook issues, was purchased by the company that owns The Onion.
So obviously I didn't believe it.
I'm like, okay, that didn't happen.
No, the satirical company, that's why it's a joke, because it'd be funny if The Onion bought it.
So obviously it's not The Onion.
And then I would see another post on X, and I'd think, huh, wow, this is a good prank.
It really fooled a lot of people.
And then I'd see more, and then I'd see it attributed to the AP. And I thought, wait a minute, there are a lot of details on this story.
And then I found out, like, the name of the parent company.
And I'm thinking, huh, did this actually happen in the actual real world?
The Onion bought InfoWars.
Now, I heard somebody say that they thought that the Sandy Hook victims were behind it to get it to be an anti-gun platform or something.
But am I wrong that The Onion stopped being funny several years ago?
Am I wrong about that?
Do you remember when The Onion was the funniest thing on the internet?
I mean, by far.
It was just the funniest thing on the internet.
And then something happened.
And I don't know.
I think maybe I thought I changed or maybe I just wasn't seeing their posts as much.
But they kind of disappeared.
Or at least they didn't produce any viral content because I just stopped seeing them.
So I didn't know what happened to The Onion.
I thought, you know, they closed or something.
But apparently they changed management.
And I don't know what their management is up to, but they've now bought two properties that...
You'd have to wonder why they would do it.
The Onion as it was dying and Infowars just the assets.
But if he's buying a studio situation and an IP and a bunch of customers...
Maybe.
But if you were left-leaning, what good would it be to have a bunch of customer lists of people who watched InfoWars?
I don't know.
There's something about this story that isn't making sense.
So until we see what the buyer has in mind for this, we won't really know what's happening here.
All right, I got a question for you.
There's another story.
Sounds like the same story that's every day in the news.
But there's another teacher.
This one's a woman who is allegedly...
She raped a 13-year-old, I assume, boy.
And she ditched her husband for the boy that she called her crystal meth.
So...
Now, when they show the picture of the woman...
You look at her eyes in the photograph and you say to yourself, oh, okay, I've seen those eyes before.
You've seen them on Adam Schiff.
You've seen them in Charles Manson.
You've seen them in AOC. And you've seen them in a lot of TikTok videos where people were shaving their heads and acting crazy.
And so here's my question.
Do you believe that AI can spot crazy people by their eyes if you asked it to?
Let me tell you the answer in advance.
Yes, you definitely can.
If you trained AI to spot people who are mentally ill, or at least going to be acting way outside the box of normal behavior, you could do it.
Now, I don't think you could do it 100%.
I do think there are some people who just have sort of bug eyes.
And maybe Adam Schiff is one of them.
I don't know.
But I think you could get 80%.
Wouldn't you like to know if somebody's got mental illness just by their eyes?
And that's just by how wide they are.
I think if you started looking at the pupils, you'd get a whole different level of knowledge.
So yes, I believe it is inevitable that AI will start trying to spot crazy people by their eyes.
Not crazy, but maybe criminally inappropriate people.
Well, in the midst of the busiest news day, we're going to talk about all the appointments, there was a UAP hearing.
UAP being the new word for UFOs, basically.
And there's a whistleblower, Lou Elizondo, who says the United States has UAP technologies not made by our government or any other government.
And Tim Gallaudet, He's telling us that UAPs represent a new realization.
We are not the only advanced intelligence in our universe.
And allegedly, other governments also have some UAP technology that they're trying to reverse engineer.
If I may summarize all of this news, once again, there's somebody who does not have a photograph.
It has no personal first-hand knowledge of anything.
And no, I don't believe a single thing about the UAP reports.
Not a single thing.
I do not believe there is an alien intelligence.
I do not believe there is an ancient civilization of beings that are in the ocean and they've got, you know, crafts that sometimes come out of the ocean.
I do not believe one thing about this story.
Do you know why?
Because this story could have been the same story for the last 50 years.
There's not one time that I've been alive that you couldn't trot down a whistleblower to say the same damn stuff.
What changed?
Where's my video?
Where's my piece of material that could have only been made in space?
Nothing?
Nothing.
Just nothing.
So, no.
I could be wrong.
And normally I would take this as what I call a recreational belief.
Like, I want to believe it.
I'd love to believe it.
But no.
This fits every pattern of a thing that hasn't been true and won't be true for my entire life, basically.
So I hate to ruin it, but I don't think there are any UAPs.
However, in the Dilbert comic, which you would have to subscribe to on either X or the Locals platform, To see, Dogbert does have a UAP. So Dogbert's going to be using Dilbert's UAP that he invented in his home lab.
Well, here's my big theme for today.
Are you ready for a big theme for today?
Big theme.
A national correction is in process.
Meaning that the United States have gone completely off the rails.
But for reasons that seem to be almost entirely about Trump, everything seems to have reversed and started moving in the right direction.
Just everywhere.
Now, there might be some exceptions, of course, but the number of things that are suddenly moving in the right direction are mind-boggling, jaw-dropping, makes your hair catch on fire.
Let me give you some examples.
Now the Republicans have the presidency, the Senate, they have, it's now confirmed they will have the House by maybe four or five votes, and of course the majority in the Supreme Court.
So that is clearly the country saying, hey, these people, the Democrats, we're not getting it done, so we're going to correct.
And boy, did they correct.
Not only did they correct, they gave us a An advantage in the actual total vote, not just the Electoral College, you know, the popular vote.
So that's big.
We've seen a couple of Soros DAs removed in California.
So as long as the number of Soros prosecutors are moving backwards, that's great.
We've seen that Elon Musk is committed to getting Republicans elected.
So he'll have a sort of an anti-Soros fund that will be operating against Soros.
That's great.
We see that the Trump transition team is considering creating some kind of border review to remove generals and admirals that are too woke and too worthless.
Yes.
Thank you.
You know, I've been telling you for a long time that I was trying to understand why if you see, let's say, a senator...
Who does an interview on the news?
Even if you don't agree with them, and even if you think they're lying, you come away thinking, okay, that's a pretty smart person.
You know, I don't trust him, but, you know, smart.
And you'd see a scientist.
You'd say, ah, I'm not sure I believe all that, but obviously you're smart.
And generally speaking, public figures who have reached some level, they're usually pretty smart.
But whenever I would watch the generals who would come on, let's say, during the Trump administration and even before that, when they were done, I would think to myself, why don't they come off as smart?
Like, why does General Milley...
Just doesn't look like even a Democrat senator or...
He just doesn't come off as smart.
And I won't name names, but there are several others that fall in that category where they're not just not smart.
They seem almost aggressively dumb.
And not because of their politics, because they don't really get political most of the time.
So I'm not even judging them on politics.
I'm just demeanor and presentation and, you know, just the vibe.
It's like, you know, you just don't seem that smart.
So if you add that to the fact that, you know, there's wokeness that's infected them and their political appointees, in many cases, they didn't get all the way there based on talent.
It was maybe politics.
It's good to see that there's going to be a tough look at which ones to remove.
I would argue that lawfare may have ended.
Lawfare against Trump may have ended.
And now that the Republicans are firmly in charge, I would expect that there will not be more lawfare against Republicans.
What we hope...
Well, I guess we don't all hope this, but I hope, what I hope, is that there is not any gross lawfare against Democrats.
I want to say clearly and loudly and publicly, I do not favor any revenge lawfare.
None.
I do favor really going after real crimes.
And to me, it seems there are some pretty obvious real crimes that have not been addressed.
So if Matt Gaetz, as you all know by now, Matt Gaetz has been nominated.
We don't know if he can get confirmed, even if there's a recess appointment.
Apparently there's some question about that.
But I do love the fact that whoever is going to be the AG, whether it's Matt Gaetz or not, it's going to end lawfare, at least against Republicans.
Now, I think we have an obligation and a responsibility.
It's a Spider-Man problem.
Republicans now have the power.
And the Republican voters, I argue, have power over the government.
That is not the case the other way.
I don't believe the public has power over the Democrat government except to remove them.
But in the Republican world, they really do listen to the base, and they respond pretty quickly.
So I think that those who support the government should make sure that if you got your choice, the best way to keep it is to not go crazy with lawfare when it's just not called for.
But again, nobody's above the law, so if it's a real crime and we all saw it and there's transparency involved about going after it, yes.
Yes on that.
Diddy is in jail and Hollywood is basically completely neutered.
And these celebrities that were talking about Harris, they decided to shut the F up after the election because I think they noticed they're not the majority.
I think the illusion that Hollywood was always under is that they were sort of the leading voices of the rational majority.
That was sort of the minimum they had to understand about themselves, their role in the world.
Well, I'm an actor, and I wouldn't get involved in this, except the majority doesn't have as good a voice as I do, because I get attention.
So for the benefit of the majority, I will be their voice.
And then they found out they weren't the majority.
I think that that is the greatest mind F of all time.
It didn't happen to me, so I'm not experiencing it.
But imagine if you thought you were the majority.
And you found out you weren't.
And you thought that you were on the side of the angels.
And you found out you were pretty much supporting a criminal gang.
Because I think the Democrats are just filled with RICO problems and money laundering and bribery.
I don't know how much we'll ever uncover, but it seems like the entire Democratic Party is just a criminal organization at this point.
And by the way, I'm not joking about that.
In my personal opinion, without the benefit of any court cases that would back me up on this, my impression is, if you look at the totality of what Democrats are doing and have been doing, it looks like a criminal organization.
Like, actually, literally, it's made to move large amounts of money through various organizations that they control.
And that appears to be the main purpose.
Because the only thing they're always in favor of is moving a large amount of money through any Democrat-controlled organization.
It doesn't even matter if it's BLM or climate change or anything else.
Large amounts of money.
Move it through a big activity.
Because then they all get a taste.
That's where the bribery happens.
That's where the money laundering happens.
So to me, I think the overwhelming driving force of the Democrat Party has been money laundering and bribery at the working level.
And then the voters have just been confused.
Because I think the voters said, I'm looking at two political parties.
And I like what one of them says.
But why is it that when I keep agreeing and voting for the one that keeps saying what I like to hear, my life is not improving?
And that's what everybody noticed.
Their life didn't improve.
They were buying into what the Democrats were saying, but their life didn't get better.
And now everybody noticed.
That was the benefit of having Trump having been in office once.
You just had a direct comparison.
You could just look at it and say, I like that better.
So I think a more correct frame is that the Democrat Party, in my opinion, and again, without the benefit of court-endorsed findings, it looks like it's primarily...
Criminal activity, at least at the leadership levels.
They're trading stocks and making deals and getting their gold bars and pointing people to jobs that they're not qualified for.
It just all looks like criminal to me.
Now, when you look at the Republican side, let us try to find some unity here.
And let me say this.
Do I believe that there are no Republicans trying to get away with stealing money.
No, I don't believe that.
I'm sure there's some Republicans looking to steal some money.
What I don't see is that it seems like that's their only job.
The Democrats act like it's their only job.
It's like everything is pushing in that direction.
And the Republicans are trying to actually do a variety of things that seem like they're good for the country.
All right, here's some more corrections.
So maybe this Diddy thing and the fact that there will be a Republican AG may take a big bite out of the whole pedophile situation, which I've never known how big it really was.
But Hollywood took a beating on the election and everything else.
The old Diddy situation is shutting people up.
And here's another one.
According to Fortune magazine...
Trump's election is going to create a DEI reckoning that forces companies to either double down or to step away from it.
That seems like really good news.
So there are now, I think, maybe 20 companies, big-ish companies that have canceled or cut down on their DEI, and there should be more to come.
But I also expect that when the government says it's illegal, so you have to get rid of it in the government, I think the big companies have to fold.
I think they have to follow.
So you may see the end of DEI. I can tell you that I've heard almost no wokeness for a week.
It used to be all the news, all the zeitgeist was, here's some more wokeness, and then we would complain about it.
Here's some more, and then we'd complain about it, and it just never stopped.
I feel like the wokeness just stopped.
The people who would even bring up these topics, they just stopped.
Because now they realize what the public thinks.
The entire trans situation, which I always like to remind, I'm pro-trans adults doing whatever they need to, want to, just living their life the way they want to.
But of course, kids in bathrooms and sports are special cases and they have to be educated, adjudicated.
But I feel like the trans topic will just sort of disappear.
Or not disappear.
I think it will shrink to the size it should have been naturally.
Its natural size should have been small.
And maybe we'll just go back to that.
But again, I wish the best for the trans community.
CNN and MSNBC both look like they're dead.
It looks like they're just, you know, on fumes.
Is the Huffington Post still alive?
Did the Huffington Post close?
And the Daily Beast is having problems and Gawker closed.
And of course the old version of Twitter is dead.
And now the ABC is apparently trying to figure out how to bring in a pro-Trump voice to The View and maybe some of their other shows because ABC got hammered so badly for handling the debates poorly.
So imagine how in the world are they going to put a pro-Trump voice on The View?
Alright, I'll do it.
I'll do it.
Now, I'm going to obviously need to identify as a woman, but if there was one place in the world I could identify as a woman and everybody would shut the fuck up about it, it would be The View.
So, if you want me on The View, I am willing to identify as a woman.
I'll still dress the same, because I'll be like a poorly dressed woman.
They'll look exactly the same, just very poorly dressed.
And I think I'd be great.
But I'd have to do it at home because I don't want to commute.
Joy Reid deleted her X account.
Aww.
Aww.
Now there is no Joy on X. Aww.
So that's moving in the right direction.
I will not have to see her mental illness being presented as content.
But who else?
Oh, Don Lemon is quitting.
So Don Lemon, the unluckiest person in media, decided that he would quit X on the same week that Trump set the entire news business on fire by nominating the most provocative people you could possibly ever nominate.
And then poor Don Lemon is trying to get some attention.
And I'm quitting what I call Twitter because that's an insult to it.
Have you heard that Pete Hegseth is going to be the Secretary of Defense.
I know, but have anybody heard I'm quitting Twitter?
The Attorney General is going to be Matt Gaetz, maybe.
I know, but also, also, I won't be posting on Twitter.
Sorry, Don, your message has been cancelled by Bigger News.
No one cares.
Meanwhile, the star for Disney's Snow White, Rachel Zegler, she has ill feelings about Trump and all of his voters.
So that means that Disney's Snow White movie will lose about a billion dollars.
So do you think that you could be an actress and get another job if you just cost your employer a billion dollars?
Because this probably cost them a billion dollars.
I don't know how many conservatives would have watched this piece of garbage content anyway, but once the main actress says fuck you to half of the country, half of the country is going to leave that on the shelf.
So let's say half the country's children will not be indoctrinated by whatever the hell is on Snow White.
So that's good news.
Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning biological males from girls' bathrooms.
Most of you would call that a move in the right direction, wouldn't you?
And let's see.
Did you know that FEMA... You know that story about the woman who was in charge of one area and she told people to stay away from homes that had Trump signs?
In other words, don't help Trump voters in an emergency.
Now, the first time I heard that, I told you, I thought, oh, that's not true.
I mean, that's like an obvious hoax.
Obviously, there could not possibly be anything in writing at FEMA, in writing, that says don't help Trump supporters during an emergency.
That couldn't possibly be true.
It's true.
It's completely true.
It's worse than that.
It wasn't just one person.
The FEMA worker who got fired says it's not isolated and the FEMA workers were instructed to do it in the Carolinas too, according to the Gateway Pundit.
It's not only true, it was a general FEMA, it was wider than one area, it wasn't completely probably.
Now, that's the bad news, right?
Here's the good news.
Trump's in charge of FEMA now.
I guess that shit just got fixed.
So here's another thing that got fixed just because Trump is coming.
He's not even there yet.
And I guarantee you they're getting rid of that rule, right?
Right?
Do you think FEMA is waiting until they get a new boss?
Or are they saying, maybe we should kind of quickly revise the way we've been doing this before he gets in charge?
Maybe we should hurry up and clean up our own house and delete all these records?
So watching how guilty people know they are and watching them change their behavior just in anticipation of Trump is pretty awesome.
It's pretty awesome.
Anyway, so those are all the things that are going our way.
Have you ever seen so many things go your way at the same time?
It really is a remarkable time.
You know, when Trump called it the golden age, you always wonder, is that hyperbole?
I don't think it is.
I think everything is lining up in a way I've never seen.
I've never seen or felt anything like this.
It's the golden age.
It's really here.
Now, of course, we have to make it.
It's not going to be easy.
There will be plenty of challenges.
But Rasmussen did a poll on mass deportations.
64% of likely voters approve of Trump's promise to, quote, on day one, Launched the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out.
Two-thirds of the country is on board with a massive deportation.
Do you think things are changing?
Everything.
Everything is moving in the right direction at the moment.
Meanwhile, Jack Smith, one of the guys going after Trump in the lawfare cases, reportedly he's going to step down before Trump gets into office.
Okay, once again, we see things are being set right simply by Trump is on the way.
Trump hasn't even gotten there to fire anybody yet, and they're quitting in anticipation, correctly, that they will be fired.
Meanwhile, Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have ordered the FBI to preserve, or requested, to preserve all records on the Jack Smith investigation.
Yes, they're going to investigate the investigator.
How great is that?
They're going to investigate the investigator because he damn well needs to be investigated.
From a public perspective, he definitely needs to be investigated.
I mean, There's some stuff we need to know about that situation.
Meanwhile, Mark Ruffalo, you know him from The Avengers and other movies, he said now about the election, because he was one of the notable backers of Harris, he said, quote, and this is according to a Breitbart headline, he said, quote, we got our asses kicked.
Now, Breitbart...
I don't normally like to give advice to publications.
Breitbart, you really missed an opportunity here.
This is the story.
Mark Ruffalo said we got our asses kicked.
Here's the headline you should have used.
Hulk sulk.
You're welcome.
It's my best joke of the day.
Hulk.
Sulk.
If you watch the Avengers, that's pretty funny.
All right.
Seattle has started throwing shoplifters and petty criminals in jail for the first time in four years.
I guess the first two years they said it was the pandemic.
You know, they didn't want people in close quarters, so they reduced their people in jail.
And then they said they didn't have resources because they probably defunded the police.
But now they have resources and they have room in jail, so they're throwing their petty criminals back in jail.
So again, things are going your way.
In this big self-correcting country that we have that is so wonderful this week.
Joe Rogan says that the Harris-Waltz campaign...
Wanted to make sure that he didn't talk about marijuana legalization if he did an interview with Harris.
Now, he said, quote, I think they had requirements on things that she didn't want to talk about.
She didn't want to talk about marijuana legalization, which I thought was hilarious, said Joe Rogan.
Now, here's my question.
I was struck in two different ways.
Number one, of course, the fact that anybody would go to an interview and say there's something that's off-topic, that's just so weak, especially if the topic is one of national concern and you're ready for office.
Yeah, no, there should not be anything off-topic.
So the Harris campaign looks weak and pathetic, and you can see why they lost.
However, I'm not entirely sure that a private conversation with the campaign should be divulged.
On the other hand, it's a public interest.
So I'm going to say yes.
In this special case, yes.
But generally speaking, I'm not a fan of anybody revealing a private conversation.
But it was somebody running for president, and it was a matter of national concern, and the event's over.
There's no security issue to it now.
But if she had become president, I think that maybe then he should have maybe...
Well, I don't know.
Maybe it's still appropriate.
Yeah, I'm just sort of thinking that one through as I go.
I just don't like private conversations being revealed unless you have a really good reason.
I've revealed a few private things that Trump said to me that one time in 2018 when I met him for a few minutes.
But it was only because they make him look smart.
So I feel completely confident that if I say Trump knew something was going to happen years before it happened, that if he heard that, he'd say, oh, that's fine.
So I don't feel like that's a risk.
Did you watch the video of Biden and Trump meeting for their peaceful turnover of power?
Apparently they had a good chat for two hours.
Biden was all smiles.
I've never seen him so happy to turn over power to Hiller.
Do you think...
That watching him roll over so happily is enough to convince Democrats that they've been lied to about Hitler coming into office?
Do you think they've figured it out yet?
Because I figure that's enough for at least some of them to say, wait a minute, you said Hitler was coming, but every one of you is acting like Hitler isn't coming.
So how did you immediately go from Hitler's coming to, oh, everything's normal?
How'd you do that?
Were you lying to us the entire time?
And of course they were lying to the public the entire time.
But do Democrats see it?
Because as obvious as it is to Republicans, the way cognitive dissonance works Is that it can blind even a smart person to the obvious.
So I suspect that even smart Democrats somehow are creating in their minds a blind spot to turn off the fact that everybody said he was Hitler for sure.
And as soon as he got elected, they acted like he's definitely not Hitler.
One thing we know for sure, there's not even a chance of it.
Like, it didn't even go from definitely Hitler to, well, you better watch out, he might be Hitler.
Like, that would seem like the normal way to step down.
But it went from, he's definitely Hitler, to there's not really any problem here at all that we see.
Let's just act totally normally, and I think everything will be fine.
How do you not notice that?
Anyway.
That should be the end of the Democrat Party for a decade.
Do you think that Trump made any deals with Biden?
It's possible, although it would be kind of a risky way to do it, you know, because things could get out.
But if I were Trump, you could imagine a scenario in which he would say privately to Biden, look, I think you and I should make an agreement.
We're going to keep our families out of it.
And I plan to pardon Hunter.
If you'd like me to pardon you or any member of your family, I will take care of that.
But I'm going to ask for the same.
But basically, I want you to cooperate, basically.
I don't know.
Would that be illegal?
To make a deal like that?
I think the president has that flexibility.
I don't know if it's all legal, but I wouldn't mind as much as I think Hunter did some imprisonable stuff.
I would rather the country climb back from attacking families.
We should at least get back to mafia standards, where the family's left out of it.
You can go as hard as you want at the candidate, but just leave the family out of it.
So you can sort of imagine Trump saying, you went too far with my family.
I'm not going to return that to you.
And just say, can we make a piece?
Can we bury that hatchet?
Now, I don't think it happened.
It's just sort of a recreationally fun speculation.
Anyway, a reporter asked Biden as he was in the, I guess, one of that little ceremonial rooms, he asked him if he thinks he can get a hostage deal done by the end of the term.
And when Biden was asked if he could get a hostage deal done by the end of the term for Israel, Biden said, quote, do you think that you can get a hit in the head by the camera behind you?
Okay.
So that's what we have.
And what we're moving to is Trump.
Did Trump get anything done yesterday?
Yes.
Well, Trump didn't do this, but the Senate picked their majority leader, Thune.
Now, I don't know much about this particular senator, but there will be a lot of news breaking about him, and I believe I'll learn about him soon.
Sorry I had to do that.
I have some concerns about whether he will really work with Trump as well as he says he will.
I think on most things he will.
But he's been critical of Trump in the past, so he does not count as a loyalist, per se.
Definitely a loyal Republican, but not a Trump loyalist.
So we'll see.
I would say the The verdict is out.
So Thune can either be a superstar or less than that.
And I believe that that is completely in his hands.
He's a little bit of a blank slate.
I mean, people who really know the inner workings of things may have an opinion.
But the rest of us don't really have any idea.
He's just like a brand new character on the stage for most of us.
So I'm going to say open mind.
He might be great.
But keep an eye on it.
So as you've already heard, Matt Gaetz has been nominated by Trump to be the Attorney General.
The Wall Street Journal, which is not wild about this, says, quote, in the editorial, this is a bad choice for the Attorney General that would undermine confidence in the law.
Undermine confidence in the law?
Are you kidding?
Who has confidence in the law?
How could you possibly undermine confidence in the law?
It's 2024.
We've been lawfared way beyond any sense that the law has been operating on our behalf.
No, I don't have any confidence in the fucking law.
Are you kidding me?
Or science or just about anything else at the moment.
So...
And then they noted that Gates has a law degree from William and Mary, but that he's going to cause all kinds of provocations, and it's going to be a bunch of problems, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, their argument seems to be that he's a performer and provocateur, and that that's the wrong fit for the Attorney General.
Can I give some education to the Wall Street Journal editorial board?
Would you mind?
If I taught the people who are supposedly experts in business some basic facts about business, do you mind if I educate them?
All right, Wall Street Journal editorial board, I'm taking you aside.
Let me explain something to you.
It goes like this.
If I were to encounter a kitten...
Here's how I would act.
Aw, cute little kitten.
Aw, here's a little scratch.
If I were to encounter somebody trying to kill me, I would react more like, and try to fight it off.
If I went to a job interview, I would act polite and professional.
If I were elected to Congress, and I knew that getting attention was just like money, I would be provocative.
In other words, because I have a functional brain, I will modify my behavior for the circumstances so that I get the best pull from this certain circumstance.
Now, if the Wall Street Journal thinks that Gates...
Is going to go to the Attorney General job and act the same way that he acted in Congress, where provocation was rewarded, and then he would go where provocation is definitely not rewarded, and he would not figure that out, and you don't think he's smart enough to know that the way you act as an Attorney General is different than you act if you're a member of Congress, especially a young member of Congress.
And different than you would act if you were on the Supreme Court.
And different than you would act if you were a babysitter.
And different than you would act in every fucking place in the world.
How about everybody acts different when the context changes?
Trump does.
Have you ever seen Trump interact with, say, teenagers or the barbershop or the employees at McDonald's?
Does Trump act exactly the same way when he's talking to the employees at McDonald's as he does when he's talking to the fake news?
No.
He modifies his performance to the situation.
If you don't think Gates is smart enough to modify his performance for the situation, you shouldn't be writing editorials for the Wall Street Journal.
I mean, that's kid stuff.
This is basic.
So that's disappointing from the Wall Street Journal.
And then, of course, there's a lot of worry that this is signaling that Trump is going to get busy with lawfare.
Maybe.
So let me say this clearly.
Having a loyalist whose risk-reward profile is what Gates is, It does open the possibility that we could be, I would be surprised by it, but that there could be a little bit of lawfare that you didn't see coming, some little revenge-y stuff.
Now, as I've told you too many times, I would not be in favor of that at all, and I will immediately at least be one of the voices pushing back if I think he goes too far.
However, that is a risk I'm really willing to take, right?
The world is not risk-free.
But what we have is a situation where the Department of Justice, in my opinion, is completely broken and has become a lawfare organization.
The only person I would trust to dismantle an existing lawfare situation is somebody like Matt Gaetz.
Or, if I may say, exactly Matt Gaetz.
And not even just somebody like Matt Gaetz.
Matt fucking Gaetz!
Like, he would be my number one choice in the whole world because he's young enough, he's aggressive enough, he has the, you know, he has the ear of the president, and he's watched the lawfare, and presumably some of it was against him.
So we need more than we need anything in this country.
We need somebody to go in and just brutally get rid of the lawfare-leaning people.
Now, Does that give you the risk that the pendulum goes too far and then Republicans become a little law fairy themselves?
Yes, that is a risk.
And that is your job, not just Matt Gaetz's job, not the President's job alone.
This is your job as supporters of the President, if you were, or even if you weren't, if you're just acting as a citizen.
As a citizen, You need to be the gatekeepers to make sure that doesn't go too far.
I plan to be very serious about that because it's a legitimate concern.
If I were a Democrat, I would definitely be worried about that.
No doubt about it.
I'd be worried about that.
And I think it's our responsibility to make sure that that stays within, you know, if you broke a real law, then that has to be addressed.
Now, who would be worried about that?
Well, We've got Adam Schiff who's a little worried about it.
And yeah, so Adam Schiff is not too happy about the Matt Gaetz situation.
Now Matt Gaetz might not be confirmed, so he might not have enough support and there might not, certainly if he needs Democrats, but Apparently they can do something clever with the rules where if Trump,
let's see, if the two members of Congress, if the Senate and the House do not agree on an adjournment, let's say one wants to adjourn and one doesn't, then if they don't agree or they don't agree on the timing of it, then the president can adjourn them.
So once they're adjourned, then you can do these recess appointments.
Now, I think they're not permanent.
I think they're two years at most or something like that, but you can get a lot done in two years.
So we don't know for sure if the Democrats have a way to thwart that, but it'll be fun to watch.
Now, the point...
And Matt Gaetz has already resigned his job, by the way, which, as some have pointed out, is a total baller move because he's basically said, you know, I'm in.
You know, I'm going to do whatever it takes.
I'm in.
On the other hand, it might be a practical decision because it also opens up space and it gives Trump another hit on the Overton window.
So the Overton window is you create so much news that even if there's some of it that normally would be negative to you, you overwhelm it with new news.
So this would create the situation where Trump, obviously talking to DeSantis, it would be DeSantis' decision, Could, I think, just select a temporary new representative.
Is that how it works?
Do I have the process right?
It's DeSantis, right?
DeSantis gets to fill the space until the next election.
Is that correct?
Now, who do you think he'd fill the space with?
Well, it turns out that Laura Trump has expressed interest in an interview.
Now, she didn't say it directly.
She just said, if asked, she would, of course, serve.
Now, that's a yes.
How much fun would that be?
Because she's coming off what looks like a terrific job for the RNC, and she checks off every box.
She's definitely smart enough.
She's great on TV. She's got central casting looks.
She's as loyal as you could possibly be.
It's hard to imagine that there's any box she doesn't check.
So I'd be for it.
But it would also be great provocative news to add to the whole cycle.
Then there's also people who say that there's some ethics report that might be in the works against Gates.
And if he's no longer in the House, then any ethics report would presumably just go away because there's no point in it.
So there could be several reasons for him to announce he's leaving early.
But it sure made things interesting.
Let's see.
Eric Swalwell doesn't like it.
Adam Schiff doesn't like Gates being there.
And what do those two guys have in common?
Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell.
What do they have in common?
I think I've told you that...
In the Democrat world, they have regular liars.
That would be just, you know, any senator or representative.
They're going to say things that are exaggerations about Trump, or maybe they'll spread one of the hoaxes or something.
But sort of general, ordinary political lying.
But when they need somebody to lie the big lies, like the really big whoppers, the ones that Even the regular Democrats won't touch.
They trot out Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell every time.
It's always those two.
So once you realize that they're the designated liars and that the ones that come out with them are like Woodward and Brennan, sometimes Clapper.
There's this group of people who always accompany the biggest lie.
So the two of the biggest lie guys, Adam Schiff and Eric Swallow, are like, oh no.
They're all over TV and, well, not on TV in Schiff's case.
But they're both the vocal ones.
Now, I think they both have something to worry about.
Again, they should be completely protected against lawfare.
100%.
But It seems to me there are observable behaviors that need to be looked into that a normal, reasonable person would say, yeah, we kind of need to look into that.
So I don't want it to cross any barriers into lawfare, but I can see why they'd be worried.
All right, the choice of Peter Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.
I'm watching a number of people have a reaction very similar to my own, which is, what?
That can't be true.
P. Hegseth.
Wait, you're talking about P. Hegseth?
Are you pronouncing that right?
You're talking about the Fox weekend host?
You couldn't even get like a weekday host?
You had to get like a weekend host?
And then you dig down and you find out that, number one, he's brilliant.
And he's got, you know, Harvard and Yale on his resume.
And he spent a lot of time in some pretty serious military positions.
And he was once considered for head of the VA, the first administration, because he's done so much work for veterans.
And then I said to myself, wait a minute.
He knows the military from the bottom up.
He's definitely loyal to Trump.
And then I watched some clips where he's super anti-woke and wants to get rid of all the generals who would be DEI and woke people.
And I said to myself, I've never seen anyone more perfect for the job.
He also has the central casting thing.
He has the look.
So I went from, this is stupid.
Is this genius?
Is this as smart as it looks?
Because it might be.
Not Yale?
I saw Yale.
I thought there was some Yale.
He had two degrees.
So I'll take a fact check on that.
There might be a fact check on his degrees, but in any case, he is both brilliant and he has enough connections with and experience with, in all the right ways, the military, that he doesn't have to do the jobs of the people who would work for him.
That's their jobs.
But for the big decision-making things, the bold changes, the getting rid of a general...
The, you know, the big changes that we might need to make in funding and spending and all those things.
Yeah.
You know what?
I say open mind.
And, you know, I'm sure he was looked at very carefully for that job.
And let's see what happens.
I do think that I want somebody that Trump can trust more than I want somebody with experience.
And I'll say that with no hesitation.
For that job, the experience doesn't count as much because, you know, it knows how to run itself no matter who the boss is.
But for the special things that the boss has to do, such as fire a general or change the general direction to be more compatible with what Trump wants, or even just to make sure that when Trump says he wants something, it actually gets executed and not slow-walked.
So you need somebody who can recognize the slow walk.
Like when something's ordered, they go, oh yeah, we'll do that.
But it takes five years, so...
And then you need somebody to say, no it doesn't.
It takes two months.
Do it.
Anyway, so he might be a great choice.
Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence.
Let me say one more thing about Pete Hegseth.
I saw a video by Don Lemon before he left Twitter, as he calls it.
I call it X. And he was laughing and mocking that Pete Hegseth would be chosen for Secretary of Defense.
So let me summarize the situation for you.
There was a guy named Don Lemon who worked for a network TV outfit.
There was a guy named P. Hegseth who worked for a competing TV news outlet.
Probably pretty similar pay, pretty similar visibility.
And one of them just got promoted to the Secretary of Defense in charge of the strongest military in the history of the known universe.
The other one is Don Lemon.
And he just left X. Okay.
So you can sort of see why he'd have an attitude about it.
Didn't work out the way he hoped.
Now, who else got a good promotion?
Oh, somebody else got a good promotion.
There was this woman.
You may have heard of her.
She was on the terrorist watch list.
Yeah, she was on the terrorist watch list.
That's dangerous.
But she got promoted to be the director of national intelligence.
Her name is Tulsi Gabbard.
Yep, went from being on the terrorist watch list so she couldn't fly without people following around to the boss of all those people.
Well, not all the people in the TSA, I suppose.
But that's like the head intelligence shop.
Now, is Tulsi Gabbard the right choice for that?
I like it.
I like it a lot.
Yeah, I'm all in on that one.
And again, can you trust Tulsi Gabbard to be working productively and to be honest with Trump?
Yes.
Yes, yes.
Yes.
So, love it.
I think she'll be confirmed.
Rubio for Secretary of State.
Now, I know some of you are thinking, Rubio might be too neocon.
I don't think you have to worry about that at all.
Here's why.
He's got a boss called Trump.
Rubio's not going to be out doing his own thing.
Rubio is smart enough, he's been around enough, that he knows what that job is.
The job is to do the Do the work of the president.
If he has a problem with the president's direction, he'll talk to him privately.
But no, do I think that Rubio has the experience, the personality, the character, the vision?
Yes.
Yes.
He has all that.
Could Rubio be a president someday?
Yes.
Absolutely.
I don't know if he'd be my first choice.
Depends who's running.
But no, I don't have any problems with him at all.
And I'm not worried about the neocon thing, because I think that as long as Trump's the boss, that takes care of itself.
Then the left is running out of insults.
They can't even figure out how to insult anybody.
So you may have heard that the DOGE effort, D-O-G-E, which stands for Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk effort to make the government more efficient and smaller and cost less, will now be joined with Vivek Ramaswamy.
So they will partner on this effort.
I don't know if they have ones in charge or their partners or whatever.
Maybe they don't need to even have that.
But what do you think of that?
Let me tell you what Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC says.
He says that Musk got, quote, a humiliating demotion from the head of Doge, To simply a co-worker with Vivek.
Yeah, that was a humiliating demotion to find that one of the most capable people we've ever seen, even anywhere near our government, is going to work on the hardest problem we've ever had to crack, which is how do you fix the government?
Now, you have to work really hard to turn that positive into a negative, right?
It would be like if you found that Ben Franklin, if he had been alive at the same time, Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison have teamed up, and then Lawrence O'Donnell would be.
It's a humiliating demotion for Ben Franklin.
And I'd be like, okay, you realize they're probably better together, right?
Humiliating demotion.
And then you look at Lawrence O'Donnell's face, and he has that mental illness face where his smile doesn't match what he's saying.
And a humiliating devotion.
He's like enjoying it too much.
It's like some weird, almost looks like he's masturbating under the desk when he talks.
Almost.
Anyway, there was some concern about security.
Because if you start cutting the government, there's a lot of people in the government who are very, very bad people and literally murderers.
Or killers, let's say.
But our government includes a lot of people who have killed people.
People who are in the military have killed people.
People in the intelligence community have killed people.
People in the Senate have voted for things that they knew would kill people.
So the government is actually the one organization that has more killers in it than prison, I think, as a percentage.
Certainly as a number.
But don't you think there are more killers, literally killers, in the government than there are in our prisons?
Because most of the prisoners are not murderers.
But there's a whole lot of people in the State Department, the military, and the government who have been in the military and literally have killed people.
So if you're trying to downsize and take away something that's valuable to the largest group of literally killers that we have outside of the military itself, the active military, it's dangerous.
So Musk actually said on X, yeah, I have to say that cutting this much waste We'll make a lot of bad people angry.
We need extra tight security.
But Joshua Hartley, On X, took it to another level, and I boosted this one.
He said, maybe we should skip the massive inauguration ceremony.
Too much security risk, given who you are planning to expose, fire, and dismantle, have been waging shadow wars domestically and internationally for the past 60 years.
Celebrate when balance and order are restored.
You know what?
I agree with that.
As much as I think an inauguration ceremony is sort of good for the body of the country, it gives us moments, and these moments create the country, these moments where we all focus on the same thing.
But I think it's too dangerous to put this government outdoors at this point in time.
And it's outdoors, right?
Now, all it takes is Well, I don't have to give the bad guys any ideas, right?
I think maybe the era of large outdoor events where you have multiple members of government there.
Like, are we going to put our president and our vice president on the same stage?
Are we really going to do that?
Because if any one of them is on the stage, the other one needs to be in the bunker.
Or, you know, at least the Vice President does.
So, and what if somebody says it's more than a twofer?
You know, what if you get several of them?
Like some kind of event that kills more than one person.
This is really scary.
Now, Trump is not likely to back down.
So I think he is most likely to go ahead and do it publicly.
But let me just say, from the perspective of one citizen, This is just my opinion.
This is not worth the risk to me.
So I'll just say personally, that level of risk of going in public with these people that you've chosen especially, that's more risk than I'm willing to accept for the benefit of just having a TV event that you didn't really need to do.
So maybe some of you disagree with me, and I would respect that disagreement, but we really are in a different time, and we don't know the size of the risk.
And I think all of us have said, why are the Democrats so quiet?
It's almost like they have a plan.
And I don't like any of it.
So without knowing what the plan is, I would assume the worst.
Just assume the worst.
Now, it's possible that the reason Democrats are so quiet is that they've been thoroughly destroyed.
And even when they talk among themselves, all they can do is argue about whose fault it was?
Probably.
So there could be two reasons.
One is they're completely dismantled.
There's just nobody to talk to anybody or have any good ideas.
But the other is that they do have a plan, and that one's scary.
We're still waiting for more announcements and more nominations.
The one that excites me the most, although I'm really excited about all the ones we have so far, would be, hopefully, the head of HUD will be Bill Pulte, if he's willing to take the job.
I think he might.
But he has the whole stack, people.
Like, he's got the building industry experience.
It's his blood.
He was literally born to it and worked with it.
He's an entrepreneur.
He's pro-Trump.
He's one of the best communicators I've ever seen in my life.
I saw one of his hits yesterday on one of the networks.
I think it was Fox Business.
And I was just sort of looking at the quality of his answers.
Oh, my God.
You know how impressed you are when you watch Vivek or you watch JD Vance and you say to yourself, we don't have people who talk that well.
This is a whole new game where somebody's answer isn't just complete, but it's right on target, hits every point, hits all the persuasion points, and shows intelligence and empathy at the same time.
And that's what Pulte has.
You have to watch it.
If you haven't seen him talk, just watch how well he answers questions.
And you tell me that Trump doesn't want more of that.
He does.
So we don't know if this can happen, but HUD right now is housing and urban development.
But I think it would be the natural place that the Trump freedom cities would be focused.
And I think that's the most exciting thing for the future of the country.
You know, AI will be part of it and self-driving cars will be part of it and all that.
But we need to redesign cities.
So I don't know if I've ever said this directly, so maybe there's a reason you don't know why I'm so excited about designing cities.
We need to figure out how to design one that works really well and then reproduce it.
What we're not going to be able to do is tweak the existing cities.
They're just too structurally hard to change.
You're going to have to figure out maybe a variety of different flavors of cities designed with completely different intentions and different organizational assumptions and just see which ones work.
Some will work for some kind of people, some will work with others, but there's nothing more important.
Because our expenses and our jobs are so focused around building and homes, everything from the furniture to the carpenters, that if we can reinvigorate the building industry in a way that's not just do some more building, that's like 1% or 2% on the GDP. I mean, we're talking really fun then.
Then we're really having fun.
Anyway, the head of PolyMarkets, which we talked a lot about, has been, I guess his phones and electronic devices have been seized by authorities.
And we don't know what he's charged with, if anything, or if he will be.
But it made Mike Surinovich point out that his own comments about his phone suddenly getting slow.
Did anybody have the experience that their phone started slowing down in the last month or so?
Because I had that experience too.
My phone went from battery life lasting all day to maybe an hour.
Or at least it seems like it.
It's almost useless.
My phone is almost useless because I always just have to worry about charging it.
Now, I thought that Apple was doing that thing where they make your phone bad just in time for when you're thinking about an upgrade.
I'm thinking about an upgrade and there's a new upgrade cycle coming.
And then just like before in prior upgrades, my phone's battery gets really bad when it's time to look for a new phone.
And yes, it was enough to convince me to buy a new phone.
I haven't done it yet, but I'm definitely buying a new phone because my current one doesn't work well enough to keep.
Now, Sertovich would be on a pretty short list of people that bad guys would want to see if they could get any dirt on, right?
You figure if there's any bad guys using surveillance in ways that maybe isn't appropriate, He would be on the short list.
I, too, would be on the short list of people that they would look at if they're just searching around looking for some dirt.
Now, in my case, I'm not going to find anything because, as I've told you many times, for at least 25 years, I've lived my life like there are no secrets, meaning that it doesn't mean there aren't things that would be maybe like embarrassing or something, but I don't care about being embarrassed.
So literally, anytime I write anything, if it were found, I'd have to explain it.
I don't care.
I'm fine.
There are plenty of things I might have to explain.
But, okay.
None of them are going to embarrass me enough that I care.
So...
So I'm not going to make a...
I guess I won't say that I know what's happening, because the odds that it's just a technology and marketing reason that my phone is dying, it's pretty good.
But it is true that if your phone gets slow, it could be an indication that somebody's in it.
That's true.
I do believe that my phone is penetrated, but I wouldn't know if it's our country or China or anything else.
But yes, I assume my phone is not secure.
So the Harris campaign, we hear from MSNBC, oh no, we hear from somebody else, that donated half a million dollars to Al Sharpton's nonprofit before he interviewed her on what is called a softball interview on MSNBC. Now, is that an example of money laundering?
Coincidentally, his non-profit, which I'm sure pays him a salary, and maybe pays for some of his expenses, suddenly got half a million dollars from the very person that he's going to endorse.
Now, how about those other celebrities that got millions of dollars and then also endorsed?
Now, on paper, it looks like they got their millions of dollars maybe to entertain or maybe to appear.
But in reality, to us, it just looks like money laundering.
It looks like bribery.
I guess bribery and money laundering are different, but it looks like the combination of bribery and money laundering.
Now, is it?
Remember I told you earlier that it seems like literally everything Democrats do It all has the same element where there's a large amount of money that's being pushed through sketchy organizations so everybody can get a taste.
And it's just over and over and over again.
This is the reason I think you need to build new cities because the existing cities allow the elected politicians to decide where the big contracts and bids go to.
Which means that all cities are corrupt.
If you give local politicians the power to decide where the money goes, you're guaranteed to have corruption.
Guaranteed.
That responsibility needs to be taken away from the city leaders.
They shouldn't have control over money flowing through the system in that way.
Or there's more transparency.
You could get to it that way.
That's central planning.
Well, everything is centrally planned.
It's just what the center is.
Anyway, Candace Owens had a whistleblower, CIA whistleblower, Kevin Shipp, and he says that Martin Luther King was murdered by the CIA, which is interesting because Trump had promised that he would release those files as well.
And he says that was a CIA operation because they considered him a dangerous communist and the FBI was bugging the churches, was giving some of his speeches.
He was a top target for elimination.
How many of you believe that the CIA killed Martin Luther King?
I always just assumed it.
Didn't you always assume that?
I don't know when I first started assuming it, but I always thought it was so obvious.
I mean, after I was at a school, you know, when I was in school, of course, I was just propagandized.
But once I became an adult and started seeing how the real world worked, it didn't take me long to piece it together.
And it wasn't because I saw something on the news.
The whole time I was like, wait a minute.
So they're saying that the CIA or somebody may have killed Kennedy.
And he was...
Provocative, but elected president.
What are the odds that Martin Luther King was a totally random shooter?
So I think I'd work that one out on my own.
That didn't really look like a coincidence to me.
So he was dangerous to the system.
So he was considered dangerous to the system.
Now, isn't it interesting that the same people who allegedly killed him Elevated him to a symbol of peace and a model to follow.
Here's what I think.
I think that Martin Luther King was elevated by the white leadership of the country because he preached peace And so as long as they focused on the peaceful part, they could keep control of the part of the country they wanted to control, apparently.
And they would use him as their brainwashing operation, while at the same time their internal view was that he was so bad he had to be killed.
But if they could sell him as a symbol of peace, then he could keep future generations passive.
So I always thought he was just an op.
Well, he wasn't the op.
He was doing his thing, but that he was used as part of somebody else's op.
Anyway, there's research in SciPost that suggests people are getting more bored because of phones and stuff.
I will disagree with that because I have not been bored since phones were smartphones.
How many of you would say the same?
I don't remember the last time I was bored, but boredom when I was a child was my number one problem.
My number one problem.
I was bored out of my freaking skull as a child.
In school, bored.
In college, bored.
Bored.
Now, not in the fun parts, but bored in the classes and stuff.
So, boredom's been, and I've said this before, boredom's been one of my biggest challenges in my whole life.
And that went completely away when smartphones became workable.
Because I'm standing in line, I'm looking at my phone, I'm fascinated.
There's not a time when there isn't something on my phone that fascinates me.
So I haven't been bored.
Have any of you?
Maybe you're bored.
You may be lonely more than you're bored.
Loneliness is still real.
Your phone won't solve loneliness.
And now there's thoughts from the Harvard.
Crimson is writing about some research that pesticide consumption might be linked to male infertility.
It's a Harvard study.
So they say if you're eating some fruit that's got thick skin, maybe it's not so bad.
But if you're eating thin-skinned stuff like a strawberry, maybe the pesticides are getting in there.
And maybe you should think of some organic strawberries that are small and weird-looking.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion.
of my incredible podcast for today.
And I'm going to say a few words to the local subscribers privately.
I'm going to say goodbye to X and YouTube and Rumble.
Thanks for joining.
You've been awesome.
And what a week.
Export Selection