All Episodes
Nov. 15, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:06:58
Episode 2660 CWSA 11/15/24

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, Infowars Assets, AI Modified DNA, UN Usefulness, James Carville, Democrat Lie Blindness, Nancy Pelosi, CA Uncounted Ballots, Wisconsin 4AM Ballot Dump, PA Senate Race, Migrant Shelter Closures, Ukraine Funding Rush, Pentagon DEI Records, Scientific American Editor-in-Chief, Laura Helmuth, J6 Pipe Bomb Op Allegations, Sherrilyn Ifill, Los Angeles Sanctuary City, Elon Musk, Trump Dismantling Systemic Racism, Matt Gaetz, Ezra Klein, NK Suicide Drone Production, Trump Education Plan, HHS RFK Jr., Elizabeth Warren, 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
I'll get my comments working here.
There we go.
Good morning, everybody, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And 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 tanker shells inside a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better today with a little oxytocin 2.
Go.
Now, if that didn't make your loneliness go away, I don't know I will.
Because we're all here together today.
We're live.
We're figuring it out.
We're making the world a better place.
It's all good.
Well, here's some news about science.
Turns out that eggs, according to a new study, they might protect your brain health.
So if you eat eggs, you're less likely to have cognitive dysfunction in your middle age and longer.
Now, I was quite interested in this study, and I was thinking about taking on a loan to get myself one of these eggs.
If any of you have been lucky enough to be able to afford an egg, I hear they're good.
They're good for your brain.
If you can afford one, go get one.
Meanwhile, in the biggest surprise in all of science, there's a study that says that alcohol might be bad for your brain.
It's linked to Alzheimer's risk.
Huh.
A gigantic surprise.
Alcohol's not good for you.
Here's a fun one.
SciTech Daily says there's a breakthrough in regeneration.
Let's see.
They're adding synthetic peptides to your own blood, and it can mimic your own regenerative hematoma.
So somehow they take your own blood and they give it a little boost with some peptides.
And the next thing you know, you've got a super blood.
You will be enrolling in the X-Men School of Excellence with your super blood, or possibly it'll just make you healthier.
There's a study at, Cy Post is talking about a study that shows that politics can trump truth.
And it's funny they use the word trump there.
So here's what they did.
They gave people various facts, some true, some fake, about politics, and they noticed that people were more likely to believe things that agreed with them politically.
Huh, I wonder how they could have saved some money.
Well, you could have just asked me.
Yes, people do tend to agree with the people on their side and think that that's totally right and everybody else is totally wrong.
It's true.
It's true.
I know, it's a shocker.
Shocker.
But they found that Trump, they say that people who favor Trump were more likely, more likely to believe fake news if it agreed with their team.
Huh.
Raises an interesting question, doesn't it?
Apparently, there is a group of scientists who know what news is real.
Now, wouldn't it be helpful, instead of wasting their time on this study, if they had simply said, hey, we're scientists and we know which news is real.
Not only do we know which news is real, but we know it so certainly that we can have a test in which we put the news we know is real versus the news we know isn't real.
So thank goodness there's some people who know which news is real.
Okay.
Now, I think they probably didn't use real news.
They probably just made up some stuff, and I think almost anybody could tell made up stuff.
So I don't think there's any scientific validity to this whatsoever, but I still believe the conclusion.
And you didn't really need to do a test to find out that people like to agree with their side.
Oh, surprising.
I'm trying to figure out if the stories about Infowars are true.
Did I hear that Alex Jones debunked the report that the owner of The Onion bought Infowars assets?
So, do we even know what happened there?
I'm getting all kinds of weird, conflicting stories.
So the only thing I know is...
Somebody in the comments felt it was necessary to remind me that I'm not a scientist.
Should it also be necessary to mention that French press is a good way to make coffee?
Swimming is the best form of exercise.
And that food, that universal food, it might be Soylent Green.
And something reminds you of the Matrix.
So the NPCs are here to say all the obvious stuff.
So if anybody knows what happened to Infowars, could you let me know?
But I'm having trouble understanding why Infowars needs assets.
What assets do they need?
I mean, a few cameras and a laptop?
I mean, they don't really need the building, do they?
You could do it from your bedroom.
I don't know.
Well, here's something cool, according to a user on X called Vittorio.
Vittorio.
There's a new paper in Science, and they've used AI on DNA. Now, DNA, you could think of it almost like a bunch of zeros and ones.
It's almost like a code.
Or a language, if you will.
Now, AI is good with languages.
So it's good with human languages, and it's good with every kind of computer programming language.
So it's not a big surprise that when you show a DNA, it treats it like a language.
Or it could.
So in other words, in the same way it could arrange bits to make a computer program, or it could arrange words to make sentences that you understand, Apparently, there's some indication that it can look at DNA and figure out how to arrange it and or modify it to get better results.
Apparently.
So here's how I understand it.
It's possible that I don't understand this correctly because I'm trying to interpret it from material that's above my pay grade.
But I think what it means is that it looks at DNA as if it were any other language.
And then it can design its own sentences, which means it could rearrange DNA hypothetically.
And then you could put it through some kind of CRISPR or some technology I don't understand to actually rearrange the DNA. And you could...
Not only make new forms of medicines, potentially, but you could also make new life forms.
So we are right on the verge Being able to design and actually implement using technology to actually arrange the DNA and create a new life form.
So that's right around the corner.
And you thought that flamethrower robot dogs were interesting?
Ah!
Wait until we make a giant.
Wouldn't it be cool to have giants?
You know, like we just started creating military giants.
Well, we got one who's 100 feet tall.
Well, Project Veritas has an undercover video of a UN worker, a manager, telling the person on the undercover video that the only way the UN can make some serious money is if there's a war.
So they like wars and they like Nikki Haley because they can make more money from the wars.
Quote, the only way you make money in the UN is if you go to war.
You get paid more.
Who gets paid more if they go to war?
What job gets paid more if you're at war?
I mean, I can see if the actual military people are deployed.
They might get military pay or something.
But do the managers get paid more?
How does that work?
I don't know.
I'm not sure I believe that.
And then this manager said, 90% of the United Nations employees are squatting.
I could point to people every single day in the building who don't work.
What is the UN? It's an amorphous body of nothingness.
Now, this is coming from a manager at the UN. Now, I don't think that this one manager is necessarily expressing a universally accurate view, but certainly I would look at this whole UN situation to see if it's doing anything for us that we want done.
I'm not entirely sure it's doing what we want done all the time.
I'm sure it has benefits.
I just don't know the pluses and minuses.
This is funny.
James Carville, He actually said in an interview, quote, our side won't tolerate lies.
So James Carville said, Who's the smartest guy the Democrats have, apparently.
He believes, or at least he's willing to say in public, I don't know what he really believes, that because the corporate news on the left is more corporate and professional, that they won't let the Democrats get away with lies.
So the lies are mostly on the right because the media on the right lets them get away with lies.
Joe Biden ran on the find people hoax and didn't get a fact check once by the entire media on the left.
Not once.
Not a single time.
Not one time.
During the 2020 election, not once, in all those speeches, not once did the left media fact check him on the fine people hoax, the primary reason he ran for office.
And Carville said, no, we're all the honest ones.
So Carville thinks that Fox and Newsmax and One America, they're just out there Allowing all these lies.
He goes, quote, but our side won't tolerate lies.
Okay, if a Democrat goes on TV and says some lie, the New Republic is going to say, that's not right.
Or the New York Times is going to say, that's not right.
So how?
And I'm serious when I say this.
One side is constrained by the truth.
Yeah, I sure feel sorry if those Democrats were constrained by the truth.
Does he believe any of this?
What do you think?
I think he couldn't possibly believe it.
But on the other hand, he talks like he does.
Because he's sort of a straight shooter.
So you don't know when the straight shooter has decided that maybe a lie is what gets him what he needs.
I don't know.
It's hard to believe you can believe this is true.
You're kind of starting in a bad place, he says.
All right, well, Nancy Pelosi, who's 84 years old, has filed for re-election.
So we might get her until she's like 1,000.
Now, do you think the Democrats have learned anything?
If Nancy Pelosi gets re-elected at age 84 or 85, Well, she's gonna run in 2026.
Don't you think that that would be kind of evidence that they didn't learn a damn thing?
Do you think the country is looking for maybe a little younger leadership on the left?
On the right, Trump is getting up there in age, but he's surrounded by younger people who are pretty dynamic, so it looks different.
And he doesn't act that old.
He's got tons of energy still.
But Nancy Pelosi, good luck, Democrats.
Meanwhile, California still has 1.7 million uncounted ballots.
How long ago did we have that election, or alleged election, and California hasn't counted 1.7 million, and apparently they're taking pride in not being rushed?
See, here's what I think was the problem.
Where California went off the rails is they never should have decided to use the weed dispensaries as ballot counting centers.
They should have just kept those separate the whole time.
No, I made that up.
They did not use weed dispensaries as ballot counting centers because if they had, they'd be done by now.
Meanwhile, there are allegations of Voting irregularities in Wisconsin.
You've probably heard of them.
Gateway Pundits reporting more on it.
But apparently there was a, reportedly, there was a 4 a.m.
dump of ballots that went 90% to one candidate.
Which one do you think it was?
Let's see.
There was a late drop of ballots.
90% of them went to one candidate.
Let's see how many of you could guess, was it the Democrat or the Republican?
Who do you think got the 90%?
Just take a guess, see how close you can get.
It's a 50-50, right?
It's a toss-up.
So did 90% of the votes go to the Democrat or the Republican?
Anybody want to take a wild guess on this one?
Oh, yes, it was the Democrat.
Yeah.
Quite surprisingly, 90% of the late-night dump went to the Democrat.
There is a widespread concern.
They're trying to...
Let's see, what else is...
And now the Republican candidate's talking about it because I guess it seems to be, according to them, grossly obvious that there's cheating.
Grossly obvious.
What do you think?
Maybe.
I don't know.
All I know for sure is there's a report.
But there's suddenly 108,000 absentee ballots came and one person got 90% of the votes.
Do you think you could ever have 90% out of 108,000?
It's not really a thing, is it?
If that's true, so you have to worry about any parts of the report being true, but if it's true that 90% of the votes were for one candidate out of 108,000 ballots, I would call that proof of rigging.
Well, I don't even need to look into it, really.
If it came in at 4am and it was 90% for one person and it was 108,000 votes, you don't have to look into it too carefully.
You can just throw the whole fucking thing out.
I mean, that's just obviously rigged.
But the part you don't know is if the claim of 90% of the votes being one way is true.
All right so if that's not true then then nothing was found that was weird.
So I would look to get that validated with a couple of sources to make sure that you're not claiming a Kraken when there is none.
Meanwhile over in Pennsylvania The Republican has declared the winner by a number of sources, but there's still a recount.
I think there's going to be a recount.
And it looks like the Mark Elias and the Democrats might have a play here.
So they might try to eliminate some votes or add some votes and see if they can get a changed election.
So I didn't realize that Mark Elias was Part of getting Al Franken elected in that election that was so close they had to do the recount, I think.
And then Mark Elias managed to either include votes, new votes, or exclude some votes that had been counted until they changed the outcome.
So that's a real thing that could happen.
So we've got two states that on the surface appear to be rigged.
Do you think that's fair?
On the surface.
So, I don't know if the claims are correct, but there are claims coming from credible people, so that doesn't mean they're right, but the people seem credible and the claims seem specific, pretty specific claims.
And I would think maybe there's a way to check on at least some of that.
But the stuff that happens legally would be all transparent.
We just wouldn't like it if it goes the way you don't like.
Meanwhile, apparently some of the Democrat blue cities are...
Trying to get rid of their migrant shelters before Trump's inaugurated because they think Trump will start deporting people.
You know, if you were going to deport migrants, what would be more convenient than having them all in one migrant shelter?
The easiest way to round them up is if they're in a sanctuary city in a big shelter.
Are you telling me that entire hotel is filled with migrants?
Yeah, we put them in the hotel.
Okay.
Let's take everybody in the hotel and send them back.
Now, I don't think that works if they're asylum people, because the asylum people are here legally, at least temporarily legally.
But I can see why they would be racing to get rid of their sanctuary cities.
Now, some of it is because I think there was a marked drop in people coming in.
So I think that they're already trying to change their game because whoever comes in in the next few months is definitely going to get sent back.
Anybody who comes in today has a pretty high chance of being sent back if they get caught.
So New York City had a migrant shelter on Randalls Island.
It had up to 3,000 people in it, and they're going to shut that down by February.
And apparently the wave of new migrants arriving in New York has significantly slowed.
And 170,000 are already in the shelter.
Oh, have already moved on.
So those were 170,000 migrants were in shelters, but have somehow moved on to something closer to a permanent situation.
But there is a conspiracy theory.
By the Democrats that Elon Musk stole the election somehow using Starlink.
Now, I don't know if there's any evidence that Starlink was used for any part of any of the election, but the Democrats need something.
So according to Wired, there's a rumor going around on the Democrat side.
I haven't seen it on social media, but they say it's going around that the election was stolen.
Good luck with that.
The Daily Wire is reporting that Anthony Blinken says that Biden's going to funnel as much money as possible to Ukraine before Trump takes over.
Man, what does that sound like?
I'd love to think that they're doing that for all the right reasons.
But if they know that Trump's going to take over and just end the war, shouldn't they just end the war now?
Wouldn't it be smarter for them to say, hey, Mr.
Trump, you're going to end this anyway.
Why don't we start?
We'll get the end of the war going.
We'll get them talking, set up a meeting, get you all set up to end this war when you come in.
No.
Instead, they're going to send them as much money as possible.
As much as possible.
I'll tell you, everybody who voted for Trump is feeling happy about it at this moment.
Yep, send our money to another country as fast as possible, Tony Blinken, to achieve nothing, apparently.
Let's see, then there's...
There's a report by Christina Wong and Breitbart that the Pentagon is trying to get rid of its DEI records because Trump said he was going to fire the generals that were big on DEI. Now, I've got a problem with that hypothesis, or that strategy, I guess.
I've never been in the military, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't you think almost everybody who implemented DEI was just taking orders?
Even the generals?
Were there generals who were just sort of doing their own thing and they decided that DEI was going to be what they were going to pursue?
Or was it just a general military order to do more DEI? And then generals were maybe competing to see who could do more of it or do it better.
But I don't quite understand firing people in the military for DEI when they would have had to do it.
If it was ordered, what choice did they have?
Why would you fire somebody for following an order?
Unless those generals knew it was an illegal order and the country wasn't treating it like it was illegal.
So certainly there are some people at the top who need to be replaced.
I feel confident in saying that.
I don't know that you need to go all the way through all the generals.
There have got to be some generals who are just taking orders.
So I don't know how you sort that out.
Anyway.
But I love the fact that everybody's all worried that truth and the end of racism might be coming.
And they're struggling to hide in evidence.
Well, I would too if that were them.
Rand Paul says he's going to reinstate Trump's Remain in Mexico policy.
I guess he'll be the Senate committee chairman for whatever is the right committee for that.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
So, that's good.
Washington Times is reporting that.
Meanwhile, the editor-in-chief of Scientific American, Has resigned under pressure because she called all Trump voters fascists and bigots.
She decided to take some time off and think about what comes next.
Yeah, I looked at some of her posts.
Just batshit crazy racist.
Just crazy.
And how did she become the editor-in-chief of the Scientific American?
Do you think that was DEI? Well, based on her social media posts, she doesn't seem very bright or very nice.
She's definitely not nice, but to publicly put these opinions out there when you run a magazine, that's also stupid.
So, at the very least, she's not very nice, and she's stupid.
So, yeah, she needs to find maybe a job that doesn't have science in the name.
Here's a fun one, if it's true, Zero Hedge is reporting, that the FBI official who oversaw the January 6th pipe bomb probe, remember January 6th, there was reports of pipe bombs, and then we don't know who planted them, but luckily there's always cell phone information about where people are, so you could check the cell phone information and you could pretty well find out who was in that area at a certain time.
And you could then match the time to the video, because there's security video, and you would largely know for sure who planted them, because you'd have the video, you'd have the phone information, there was only one person there at that time, and there he is right on video.
Pretty easy.
And then we were told by the FBI official who was in charge of that, that they received corrupted files from the phone company.
And amazingly, and they admitted, it's just the weirdest thing.
This never happens.
But just the exact information that they needed about this one situation, the data was corrupt.
Wow.
So it was quite the gigantic coincidence.
Because it really, it would be weird for that to be corrupt.
And then we found out that the phone companies say, we didn't give anybody any corrupt information.
And if we did, nobody mentioned it.
And by the way, it doesn't look corrupt to us.
The FBI lied about the pipe bombs.
January 6th was probably exactly what you thought it was.
A giant FBI op.
Now, there is definitely not enough evidence to prove that's true.
There's definitely enough evidence to prove it's the main theory.
Would you agree with that?
I can't say it's true.
I could say it would be stupid to take it out from the top theory.
It's the top theory, right?
If nothing changes, it will still remain the top theory of what happened that day.
Something big would have to change my mind.
At this point, if the pipe bombs were really covered up, yeah, we have to assume the worst about the FBI. And maybe the FBI will get fixed.
MSNBC had a guest on to call Pete Hegseth, everybody knows, a white supremacist.
According to the guest, whose name was not on the screen, which is probably pretty smart, because I wouldn't want anybody to know my name either if I said something like that, that just says casually that Pete Hegseth is a known white supremacist.
And then Chris Hayes sits there and listens to it and does not say something such as, why would you say that?
Or, what evidence do you have that he's a white supremacist?
Because obviously there is none.
There's no evidence he's a white supremacist.
Duh.
But the guest on MSNBC was a racist, obviously.
And Chris Hayes has some Some questions that need to be answered too.
Why would he platform a racist?
I mean, a real obvious, overt, not hiding it kind of a racist.
Why would they do that?
And maybe that's why the total value of MSNBC is checking 75 cents.
Yeah, can't sell it at all.
Well, Scott Jennings, who does a great job on CNN, representing the Trump side of the world, some say he's up for discussion as the White House press secretary.
And that's making some people at CNN wonder why they're keeping him on the air, because if he's just sort of in the pocket for Trump, why should they have him on CNN? Can I explain this to the people at CN who are confused why the person they hired to express the point of view of the Trump people might be under consideration to be a person who expresses the point of view of
the Trump people?
Which is exactly what he was hired on CNN to do to express the point of view of the Trump people.
And so it would be a problem if he's being considered for a job to represent the opinion of the Trump people.
And that's CNN for you.
Now, I don't know which idiots on CNN thought that the person who was perfect for the job and was hired for that exact express purpose is now wrong for the job.
Because it's been proven that he's right for the job by being considered for a job that's even better than that that's the same job.
Expressing one side's point of view.
Wow.
So anyway, the Washington Post was reporting that CNN's wondering about that.
Jeremy Barr at the Washington Post.
The new elected LAPD chief says he's not going to help the feds with deportation.
So Los Angeles has, what, decided to leave the union?
On what basis does a local police department chief get to tell the United States government that they can't police the illegals?
So I wonder how much weaponry they have in LA because they're going to go up against the entire military of the United States.
How in the world is this going to work out?
Don't you think he's going to have to fold, right?
I think it's the thing you say when you're first day on the job.
But I don't think any of this sanctuary city stuff is going to hold.
Tom Homan already said, good luck.
We're going to do what we're going to do.
And he doesn't look like a guy who messes around.
And he's going to have the backing of the president and the entire government.
So, good luck, Los Angeles.
I saw a video showing the El Salvador prisons.
So as you know, President Bukele down in El Salvador is getting a lot of credit for lowering especially gang crime.
But the way he did it was he just locked up basically everybody with a tattoo.
I'm exaggerating, but that's pretty close because the gang members are heavily tattooed.
So it looks like he just built enormous Three football stadiums, it was described, buildings that are just full of gang members.
And they showed the conditions of the gang members.
They have water.
A little, I don't know, bucket or something that like 50 of them use for a bathroom.
They're all in the same cell, but there are lots of these cells with a whole bunch of people in them.
Every cell has a guard, an armed guard, standing in front of the cell.
Now there are multiple people in each little unit.
But there's literally a guard 24 hours just standing there looking at them.
Arm guard.
Because they're the most dangerous people in the world.
And they don't even have cushions on beds.
So they're sleeping on hard ground, drinking water, probably not eating the best food.
And I think they'll just be there forever.
So...
It's a weird situation because on one hand, I'm completely in favor of it.
On the other hand, I would add one thing.
I think they should have a suicide option.
Because if they're never getting out, I don't know who would want to live like that.
So why don't you give an option of killing themselves?
You know, peacefully, like you give them the suicide pills and say, all right, we'll come out of your cell, we'll put you in this special cell, just take these pills, and then we'll take your body off to be cremated.
Don't you think you would get rid of a lot of them?
I mean, assuming that they know they're going to be there forever, and if they got out, it wouldn't be that great either.
Let them kill themselves.
Because what I saw looked like torture.
Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't torture them, because it looks like they were pretty bad dudes.
So maybe they deserve everything they get.
Maybe it's better that they're tortured before they die.
But it seems like you could save a lot of time and money and space if you gave them the option.
I know it would seem like murder if you put them in a position where killing themselves was more pleasant than staying in jail.
But Bukele made a joke on it.
So he's happy about it, and it's certainly working.
Anyway, do you think we're going to do something like that in the United States?
No, we will not.
So Axios did a little study and said that...
None of the voters in their latest focus group, the Engageo Sago focus group, that's the best one, I guess.
None of them think that Trump having a close relationship with Elon Musk is a good idea.
Really?
Really?
You can't find anybody in a focus group who thinks that working with the smartest, most capable man on the planet could be good for you when he's working on the hardest problem in the world, which is reorganizing the government and the debt, and he's the person you would trust the most with that exact job, and you're worried about that?
That's the thing they're worried about.
Now, I do understand they don't want him to be like a shadow president or something, but what do you think you're going to get?
Bad decisions?
What happens if Elon Musk becomes a little bit too influential?
What problem exactly does that cause?
Because the whole time I'm just looking at it and I'm thinking, God, I hope he's influential.
Like, I hope Trump's taking him seriously.
I hope he lets him do his thing.
The only thing I want is for Elon to do his thing.
Because I don't think there's any chance that he's in it for any reason other than help the country.
Obviously, it's good for business, but it should be good for everybody's business if they get the government out of their back pocket.
So that's a weird opinion, but I guess it's widely held by some people in the focus group.
Speaking of...
So Axios is also reporting that Trump's initial cabinet picks...
Show that he's moving towards getting rid of the...
Well, he wants to be...
Let's see how they say it.
He's moving swiftly to implement anti-trans, anti-DEI, and anti-social justice agenda that underpinned his election.
Does that sound like a fair way to say it?
That he's moving to implement anti-trans, anti-DEI, and anti-social justice?
Here's another way to word it.
He's dismantling systemic racism in the government.
And he won a mandate by a landslide to do that.
Is that wrong?
Listen to my wording and then listen to Axios and tell me if my wording is more accurate.
Theirs again is that he's anti-trans, anti-DEI, and anti-social justice.
And I say that he's dismantling systemic racism.
And by the way, he's not anti-trans.
Nobody's anti-trans.
This is not a thing.
You might be anti-giving trans more rights than you think it makes sense for the other people in the public, but that's not exactly anti-trans.
But he's anti-DEI, which is racist, so he's anti-racism, and he's anti-social justice because the way it's used is racist and sexist.
So he's dismantling bigotry in the government.
That's what he's doing.
Meanwhile, do you remember former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe back from the Russia collusion days?
He says that Matt Gaetz, who's nominated to be the Attorney General, quote, couldn't get hired by the FBI. Huh.
So, is that true?
He couldn't get hired by the FBI, but he could be the Attorney General in charge of all that stuff?
Well, Probably true.
I'm going to say true, because there are enough, like, allegations running around that maybe that'd be a problem.
But I think this is a fun game, and we should play some more of it.
What kind of jobs our leaders couldn't get?
For example, Joe Biden, I don't believe, could get a job as a babysitter.
You know what I mean?
I don't think he could.
How about Kamala Harris?
Could she get a job as running your AA meetings?
Probably not.
Probably not.
Could Kamala Harris get a job that required a drug test?
I don't know.
Good question.
Could she?
Could Kamala Harris get a job as the head of the FBI? Again, I'm pretty sure you'd have to pass a drug test.
Vice President and President didn't have to pass any drug tests, right?
So, I don't know.
Just suspicions.
I don't have any proof that she does any drugs.
Alright.
So that's a fun game.
What you could not be hired to do.
Hugh Hewitt is saying that maybe the Gates nomination is some kind of 4-D chess.
Have you ever heard that before?
That Trump and Gates may be running a play, and the real purpose of it is to get Gates out of his ethics probe.
So he's under an ethics investigation in the House.
They haven't completed it, but since he's resigned, and he resigned under the cover of nomination for A.J., that they would naturally drop the investigation.
Although there's some thinking that the paper might be released.
But it wouldn't be binding on anything because he wouldn't be a member at that point.
So what do you think of that?
Do you think that the whole thing was a clever plan to simply avoid him being covered by that proceeding?
And do you think that...
Well, I think it could be just one of the benefits.
I think that genuinely Trump would feel more comfortable with his most loyal hell-raiser in that position.
So if he doesn't want Matt Gaetz in that position, then my question would be, who's better?
Who are we going to see that would be a better choice?
Now, definitely you could guess somebody who would be less controversial.
So that's easy.
And less controversy is worth something, right?
That's not nothing.
So, you know, indeed he could guess somebody less controversial.
But could he guess somebody who would trust more, who would more likely pull the weeds out by the roots, Than Gates?
I don't think so.
He might actually...
He's very high on my list as first choice.
So we'll see.
It could be that he wants him as AG. It could be that it also solves the problem of the ethics thing.
Could be.
But let me say this as unambiguously as possible.
I don't care what Matt Gates did as a single man.
Some of the things he's being accused of, You know, it would be, you could say, oh, I wish he hadn't done that, or he shouldn't brag about his, you know, his success with the ladies.
Yeah, okay.
I don't care.
I mean, I could agree with you that maybe less of that would be better, but I don't care.
And you can't make me care about his sex life.
Now, there's allegations that there was something illegal that I'm not even going to mention.
But he's not being brought up on any legal charges.
So if the government's legal mechanism can't find anything that they think is worth pursuing, then why am I going to listen to some report?
If I've got a legal system that says, nope, we'll take a pass on this, doesn't look like we can make him guilty, and yet there's some report that acts like he is guilty, I think I'm going to go with innocent until proven guilty.
I've said it a million times.
That's got to be the standard.
So if you can't prove it and you're not taking him to court, I don't want to hear it.
I'm not even a little bit interested.
If it's not illegal and something you did when he was single, I wouldn't even care if it was something you did when he was married because that's not my business.
But yeah, I don't care.
So you can't make me care.
You cannot make me care what you did as a single man.
Well, Ezra Klein writes for the New York Times, which would make him one of the famous left-leaning people around.
He's slamming the people who were saying that Fox News and the like are the reason that Trump won.
And I like how he put it, because he's not mincing any words.
He goes, this idea that like, oh no, the economy is actually good or crime is actually down, That this is all just Fox News.
He says, like, shut the F up with that.
Klein fumed.
He was on one of those podcasts.
And he said, if you just talked to people who lived in the cities, you would know that people were really, really unhappy.
And he said that if you'd spent any time basically talking to real people who lived in the cities, you would have totally known That Trump was going to do better than the media was telling you.
Because people were pissed.
And he said, he mentioned, he says, the thing that surprised me least about the election was the sharp red shift in these big cities.
Because if you talk to anybody who lives in them, they are furious.
Now, do you know why this is national news?
This is just one person with an opinion, and we all have opinions, and there are like thousands of famous people with opinions.
Why is this one famous, at least famous in politics, why is this one well-known person, his opinion, why is it national news?
Why is everybody talking about it?
Do you know why?
Because it's a Democrat telling the truth.
I'm not joking.
That's actually the reason.
There's a Democrat telling the truth.
So it's national news.
Right?
Because there's nothing about this opinion that's new, provocative, innovative.
He's not reframing anything.
He's saying what the majority of Americans already knew because they just voted in the new president.
So all he's doing is agreeing with the majority of Americans who are looking at the same stuff he's looking at.
And it's national fucking news because he told the truth.
Just hold that in your mind for a moment.
Hold in your mind that it's national news that a Democrat told the truth.
And like an obvious truth, like one that we all see as true, you don't have to do any research.
Well, I'm going to give him full credit.
So, you know, it would be easy to go negative on this and say, where were you before?
And why weren't you speaking out?
And why don't you vote for Trump if you believe this?
But how about we just say, thank you?
How about we just say thank you?
If there's any other Democrats who want to say something that's obviously true, I'm here for it.
And I'm happy to say bygones are bygones.
And if you were wrong before or you're playing for a team before, but now you see things a little differently, I'm here for you.
So unity is I think a little bit of, or at least being open to unity is absolutely worth doing.
You know, it's the beginning of the golden age.
So if I hear something I like from the team that was opposed to me up until now, I'm going to say, good for you.
Now, you heard the news that AOC removed her pronouns from her profile on X. I haven't heard why she did it.
But I assume it's for the obvious reason, that she doesn't think that's the focus or where it should be.
To which I say, good for you.
I can disagree with you on other stuff, but I'll just say good for you.
Find a little unity in that too.
So it's not that unity is going to break out and we're all going to be singing kumbaya, but just as a citizen of America that I want America to do well, I feel like anytime I see any movement toward just common sense and telling the truth, that I'm going to give it a shout out.
Good for Ezra Klein.
I think that you did something useful for Democrats.
Meanwhile, even at least one judge has decided that with Trump coming into power and the likelihood that he will He will pardon the J6ers.
At least one J6ers trial was postponed because there was no point in doing it.
So I guess the judge said it's just a waste of time.
He's going to get pardoned anyway.
To which I say, good work, judge.
That is the correct answer.
I like seeing the common sense also in the judiciary.
So I don't know if this judge is leaning left or right or who appointed this judge, but it's true that no matter who appointed the judge, this would be a waste of the public's money.
There's no point in putting this person further into the system because they're going to be freed in a few weeks.
So yes, this was the right direction, right decision.
Over in North Korea, Kim Jong-un apparently is going big on suicide drones, so they're going to do major manufacturing of suicide drones, to which I ask this following question.
Why isn't America making all kinds of suicide drones in America?
I keep hearing that we can't catch up to China.
China's manufacturing drones like crazy.
What is it that makes us unable to make a drone?
We obviously have the technology.
We could obviously use robots to do most of the manufacturing, so it can't be that much more expensive to make it in the United States.
And if North Korea can make swarms of drones, are you telling me that North Korea can spin up a drone factory and we can't?
Because why?
They get help from China or something?
Maybe China's helping.
Or is it Russia?
Because we now know that thousands of North Korean troops have been sent to help Russia in the Ukraine war.
So is it possible that Russia is the technical and maybe even investment help, and they're building a less bombable drone factory?
How about that?
If you make a drone factory and you put it in Russia, do you think you could trust Ukraine not to bomb the drone factory?
You could not.
No matter where you put it in Russia, Ukraine has already shown that they'll take out like a weapons depot.
So of course they would take out your drone factory.
But what if you put your drone factory in North Korea?
Do you think Ukraine is going to take out a drone factory in North Korea?
I don't think so.
So it might be a pretty clever place for the bad guys to hide a drone factory.
And I'm going to say that North Korea is not doing the hard lifting on their own.
They must be getting some help, either from Russia or China or both.
The Wall Street Journal says that Trump has vowed to remake education in the U.S., By getting rid of the woke stuff in the classroom, yay!
Funding private school tuition, we'll see how much of that happens, and abolishing the Department of Education.
But he also has this idea of accredited, a government accredited college that anybody could go to, everybody gets in I guess, and they could take what classes they want and get it accredited.
I think most of that would be online and AI. So we'll see where that goes.
But I don't think I'd want a college that you didn't have a physical experience with.
If your college is totally online and you don't at least meet with your classmates or meet for study periods with people taking the same classes, that would be a pretty empty and cold experience for three or four years.
So I think we need to work on the alternative education social part.
Because I don't think it's good for kids to have no social contact.
I know the homeschoolers do a good job of it.
The homeschoolers make sure they get together with other homeschoolers and stuff.
So they're already doing a good job of it.
But if the government weighs in more heavily, I hope that they make sure that the physical connections with people are maintained somehow.
Well, RFK Jr.
is picked as the Health and Human Services Secretary.
So that's the group that's ahead of all the smaller federal health agencies.
So that would give him power over everything health-related.
I can't even tell you how much I love this.
I just absolutely love it.
Are we getting...
What is this?
I'm seeing some anti-Semitism that needs to stop right now.
Is there something going on in the comments over there?
Yeah, well, I just saw something go by that you need to stop that right away.
None of that is okay.
That is not okay.
All right.
So I forgot that Rachel Levine was the Health and Human Services Secretary before.
So I don't have a comment on that.
I'll just note that going from Rachel Levine to RFK Jr.
is a pretty big change in priorities.
Pretty big change.
And I'm all in.
I'm all in on this.
Now, I do think...
If the way pharma works and even the way food works is radically changed, we are guaranteed to have two things happen.
We're going to have some pretty deadly disruptions probably in our pharma business.
In the long run, I think we'll be way better.
In the short run, it might deny us some medicines that work better than they don't work.
And in the long run, though, I think it's a giant potential improvement.
Same with food.
In the short run, we might learn that some of the foods that we routinely eat are so dangerous, they should be immediately taken off the market, which will cause other food prices to go up, which will cause us to have fewer choices.
So, my guess is that you can't do any major reforms for the pharma approvals or for the food approvals without major disruptions.
Now, it's the fear of major disruption that makes anybody not change anything, because you don't want the negative to be greater than the benefit you're trying to get.
When you reach a point where your food and your medicine is killing you and you don't trust either one, then the risk of a disruption becomes manageable.
So here's the thing I want to tell you.
If you think that RFK Jr.
can do what he wants without major disruptions, pretty major, to the way you live, and maybe even people you know will have some health outcomes, that's all going to happen.
You're going to get some problems, right?
So just know for sure that you can't make a change this big without breaking a few eggs to make your omelet.
Some eggs are going to get broken.
But we have to get past this.
We have institutions that are just broken.
And we've got to fix it.
And the only way to do it is a bunch of people are going to leave and they're going to take with them some institutional knowledge.
We'll have to build it back.
We can build it back better, to borrow a phrase, but not until there's a lot of problems in between.
Now, the fact that RFK Jr.
is apparently fearless, he apparently has no fear of anything physical, social, or political.
Yeah, physical, social.
He doesn't appear to have any fear.
Or he operates as if he doesn't, which is even more awesome.
But talk about the right guy for the right job at the right time.
It's just...
The thing that's blowing my mind is the timing.
You know, a number of people have made the analogy that Some of us call it a pirate ship, you know, Trump's collection of extraordinary people.
Others are liking it to the founders, and it's like a re-founding, like we're being founded for a second time.
But what are the odds that RFK Jr.
would be available at the same time that Vivek And Elon Musk and Tulsi Gabbard are all available.
And they're not really available.
They're just willing to do it.
Elon Musk is the busiest person in the world, but made himself available.
I've never seen anything like that.
I've never seen anything close to it.
Do you remember when...
You used to hear that Lincoln had the...
What do you call it?
The advisors that were...
What was that phrase for the advisors that were on the other side?
He had a team of adversaries.
What was that called?
It was a famous phrase for it.
You'll see it in the comments.
But Trump actually did that.
Trump has the Republican administration...
Team of rivals.
Team of rivals.
Thank you.
But he's got a...
I'll call them a team of rivals, except that when it comes to this, they're all on the same side.
So he actually got the best version of a team of rivals you could ever get, which is a team of rivals who changed sides because the other side wasn't doing it.
That's the best you can do.
You don't want a team of rivals that still thinks their side is right.
That's just trouble.
I mean, I could see why there's some advantage to it as well, because you get a hardy debate.
But if you can get your team of rivals...
To be people who publicly repudiated the team they're leaving and said they just can't get this stuff done and this is gonna kill us all.
And then they go to the team that might be able to get it done and save us all.
You can't get better than that.
So I am so happy to be alive.
At this great coincidence that those particular characters are all up for the fight.
And I'm not even naming all of them, right?
I mean, you could throw in Bill Ackman.
You could throw in half a dozen other people.
J.D. Vance.
There's a lot of people you could throw in who are all in on the fight.
I know I am.
I'm definitely all in.
But Elizabeth Warren is not so happy.
She just said on MSNBC that Tulsi Gabbard, quote, has clearly been in Putin's pocket.
Really?
Really?
Tulsi Gabbard has clearly been in Putin's pocket?
And what evidence do we have of that?
None.
But here's my advice.
If you watch the Elizabeth Warren clip, which is on X and probably going around today, turn off the sound and then just look at her crazy face.
She can't hide the crazy.
I mean, her face...
It looks like this distorted, like, demon face.
If you hear the words, it doesn't sound so bad because the words actually come out in sounding like regular sentences and stuff.
But if you look at the face...
The face is just contorted with some kind of weird mental illness or lying or something.
It just doesn't look right.
And I'm not saying this is every Democrat as a weird liar face, but there are so many of them that do that it's weird.
You don't see that on the Republicans at all.
Like, who has an Adam Schiff face?
Schiff face?
Who has an Adam Schiff face who's a Republican?
Or Elizabeth Warren?
Distorted, mentally ill face.
Now, you notice there are plenty of Democrats I don't say that about.
I've seen Al Franken, for example, on TV. He doesn't seem to have a weird, distorted face.
He's just someone who might disagree with me politically.
Doesn't appear to be crazy at all.
Not even a little bit.
I just disagree with him.
But they have so many people, the MSNBC platforms, that you turn off the sound and you just go, oh, I wouldn't hire you to work at McDonald's or the FBI. So, that's happening.
Anyway, today is Friday, I'm told, so this is the day that the weekend starts.
That is an hour of the finest entertainment you've ever had.
But I want to see in the comments, how many of you watch the morning show because it makes you feel less lonely?
Like some of you are watching for the content, I hope.
But how many of you just feel like, because it's sort of interactive and it's live, it just feels like there's somebody in your house right now, me, and that there are a bunch of other people who are observers?
Yeah, in the comments, there are more people on Locals who are there to be less lonely.
So let me make this pitch to those of you who are feeling lonely who are not on Locals.
So Locals is a subscription service, seven bucks a month, but you can get a discount if you do a year in advance.
And it's got the Dilbert comic and the Dilbert Calendar comic and the Robots Read Nudes comic, which is naughty.
And then a bunch of political stuff and memes that you might find too much for you.
So there's low censorship on locals.
So for some of you, that won't work.
You'll be seeing stuff you don't want to see.
I'll be honest about that.
But if you don't care about that, or you find it fun, I find the memes, the more inappropriate they are, the funnier they are to me.
So on Locals, we embrace the inappropriate as inappropriate.
So I don't have to judge it.
I just laugh at it.
It's like, oh, that's so inappropriate.
But that doesn't mean you need to get canceled for saying it.
If it's funny, it's funny.
If you didn't want to see things like that, you would not be on Locals and so you wouldn't have to be exposed to it.
So I'm going to put out this offer to you.
If you're not on Locals and you're having a problem with loneliness, I did not plan it this way, but you know how products evolve on their own.
Apparently, the biggest benefit people get is that they're meeting the other people online.
They have relationships.
In the morning when I do the pre-show, before I do the regular show, I just do a handheld phone situation as I'm getting ready for the show, petting my dog and doing some fun stuff.
Mostly they just don't even pay attention to me.
It's just all the people checking in with their favorite people that they see every morning.
Same ones every morning.
So there are about 500 people checking in in the morning who all got to know each other.
And I think they would all say that it makes them feel less lonely.
You should.
It should.
So, loneliness is a gigantic problem.
I can't solve it completely, but if you want a digital friend, and you want 500 extra digital friends, or over 11,000 people on local subscription for just my community, So there's plenty of people there.
They're not all there for the same reason.
Some of them there just want to see the comics, see the memes.
But a whole bunch of them are just there because they live alone.
And often they're a certain age.
And we make that okay.
So I do an evening program almost every night.
Around dinner time, California time.
And that one is the one where the lonely are most served because it's more intimate and we don't worry about the news.
We just hang out.
And I love it.
So for me, it's the same as the same benefit.
So I'm never lonely because I spend time with hundreds of people two hours every day and it helps.
Alright, the Dilbert Calendar is available too for 2025.
You can only get it at the link at Dilbert.com.
It's not on Amazon.
It's not in the stores.
It will only be at that link that you can find at Dilbert.com.
And That's all I got for now.
I'm going to talk to the locals, people, privately.
And the rest of you, I will see you tomorrow.
Same time, same place.
Thanks on X and YouTube and Rumble.
It's been great to see you.
Export Selection