All Episodes
Nov. 18, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:11:51
Episode 2663 CWSA 11/18/24

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, Justin Trudeau, Canada Immigration, Brendan Carr, FCC DEI, Mitch McConnell, Recess Appointments, Elon Musk, President Trump, Honorable People Friction, Corey Lewandowski, Pennsylvania Wisconsin Vote Counting, Milwaukee Mail-In Ballots, MSNBC Jen Psaki, Adults-In-Room Definition, Joe Scarborough, RFK Jr., Vaccinations, MSNBC Survival Strategy, Adam Schiff, Democrat Leadership Vacuum, Matt Gaetz Nomination, Nicole Shanahan, Corporate Farmland, Government Spending Disparity, National Emergency Immigration Strategy, NewsNation, Chris Cuomo, CDC Ex-Director Robert Redfield, Pro-Science RFK Jr,, Berkley, Ukraine Long-Range Weapons, Putin vs NATO, Election Machines Purpose, 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
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.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains...
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chelsea stand, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now.
Good morning, Paul.
Thank you.
Looks like all of our systems are working today.
Well, would you like to hear some potentially good science news?
Yes, you would.
I can see your heads are nodding at home.
Well, there's a new biodiesel that's 45 times more efficient and it's cleaner.
How about that?
Coming from Washington University McKelvey School of Engineering.
Now, the two researchers, the colleagues, Joshua Juan and Susie Day.
Juan and Day.
So, diesel fuel will be more efficient.
Juan Day.
That's right.
Dad joke applied to science.
Yeah, so apparently they have some gigantic breakthrough.
It's going to take a while, of course, to turn it into something useful.
But it's electro-biodiesel, 45 times more efficient and cleaner than alternatives for our big trucks.
Exciting.
Exciting.
Now, did your climate models have any kind of variable for improving their efficiency by 45%?
No.
Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau announces that Canada is going to limit the number of immigrants over the next three years.
Turns out, they just figured out they had too many immigrants to be able to absorb them all.
Now, question.
Was that going to happen on its own?
Or is that entirely because Trump made it safe?
Because as long as Trudeau doesn't look as mean as bad old Trump, He's got room to operate, right?
He just couldn't be the toughest guy on immigration in our area of the world.
So I think this is Trump.
Am I wrong?
Was this coincidentally going to happen right now, that he was going to limit immigration?
So I don't know much about Canada, but it seems to me that Trump made this possible.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Meanwhile, Brendan Carr, who's been nominated for FCC chairman, he's on the FCC. But he's one of the people that should be in the pirate ship, or the founders.
If you're not watching Brendan Carr's work, especially on social media, but mostly behind the scenes doing the real work, he's one of the good guys.
Like one of the really good guys.
So he's working hard to get rid of the censorship regime.
And he said this.
He said the FCC's most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency's second highest strategic goal.
Can you even register that in your head?
That the FCC's second highest strategic goal, and they put it in writing, was DEI. Their second highest goal was to be racist.
And we allowed that to just sort of exist.
And now Brendan Carr is going to come in and dismantle that right away.
And I have two words to say to Brendan Carr.
Thank you.
I sat there for a while thinking how to respond to that.
It was a post on X. I thought, how do you respond to that?
I've been racially discriminated against in employment.
Since the mid-80s, you all know my story, right?
I got my career ended in the bank because they said I'm a white guy.
They can't promote me.
They said that directly.
You know, I'm not making it up.
I'm not reading between the lines.
They said, we can't promote you.
You're a white guy.
And it doesn't look like that's going to change.
So I changed jobs to Pacific Bell.
And I got on the management track, but one day my boss called me in and said, hmm, word came down we can't promote you because you're white and male.
And I said, how long does that take?
And they said, uh, indefinite.
And so I quit and I became a cartoonist and started competing against other cartoonists who were sometimes in the DEI category and they were doing great, but Dilbert also succeeded.
However, the entire Dilbert career was thrown in the trash because of one comment I made that wouldn't have really bothered anybody if they understood it in context.
But if we live in the DEI world, then when you complain about racism, but you're white, And male.
The world says he is a racist.
And I say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Did you even hear what I said?
I was complaining about racists.
I was complaining about racists.
I'm looking for the anti-racist world.
But in the DEI world, I get canceled because I can't even talk.
Don't even have free speech.
But Brendan Carr wants me to have free speech on all the platforms.
He wants me to have free speech, and he wants to get rid of DEI, which is pure racism.
And I can't even begin to tell you how happy that makes me.
To me, this is like...
Watching the Trump administration come in and have people who are going to be dismantling DEI, this is the end of a very long road for me.
A very long road.
Now, I'm not going to compare my situation to slavery in the United States or Jim Crow.
I mean, it's not those things.
I understand those are a different level.
But it has been the bane of my existence since I entered the workplace.
And now, after it doesn't matter to me, because I'm well beyond that point where it matters, but at least it'll get fixed for somebody else.
At least it'll get fixed.
America, self-correcting.
There is a story that I believe is fake news that said that Mitch McConnell was not in favor of recess appointments.
And that there wouldn't be any.
I think that was withdrawn as fake news, because there's no confirmation of it this morning, and whoever, the person who first brought it up has removed it.
So I think you can put that on your mind.
I don't think that's real, but maybe something will change.
According to Axios, who's making up some fake news, this is real news that's fake news.
So it's both real and fake.
What makes it real is that, of course it's real.
I'm going to tell you something that's so obvious that you wouldn't need any news entity to tell you.
You would just say, well, of course that's real.
But the part that's fake is that it's news.
So it's real, but why is this news?
Here's their news.
That Elon Musk has quickly become an influential figure in Trump's inner circle.
We knew that.
But there are signs of tension between Musk and longtime Trump advisors over cabinet appointments and stuff.
People, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Wouldn't you be a lot more worried if there were no tensions about who gets appointed?
Are you serious?
Those of you who have spent a second in the real world, it's the tension you need.
You don't need the agreement.
It's a pirate ship.
It's not a pirate ship full of agreeers.
It's not the founders who all have the same idea about the Constitution.
Have you heard about the founders?
They had some disagreements.
It was a lot of friction.
It was the friction that made the country great.
It wasn't the agreement.
It was the friction among honorable people.
That's the key.
Friction is good among honorable people who have good intentions.
Trump has assembled honorable people who have good intentions.
Do I want to see a little friction out of it?
Yes, I do.
I want to see a little bit of disagreeing.
I want to see some honest back and forth.
I want to see the smartest people in the world debate it.
But here's what's funny.
And this is going to sound like I'm insulting somebody, but I'm not.
So I'll tell you in advance that this is not an insult to the person I'm going to mention.
I'm just randomly picking a name, actually.
Imagine you're in an inner circle meeting trying to decide on a nomination.
You're with Trump.
And one of you is Elon Musk, and he's saying, I think we should nominate this person.
And the other one is Corey Lewandowski.
Now, the reason it's funny is not because Corey Lewandowski is not good at his job.
Apparently, he's so good at his job that he's back on the job.
So even Corey Lewandowski, who you would consider especially good at his job, because he's back, right?
He wouldn't be back if he weren't good at it.
But when you're in the room and the other person who disagrees with you is generally considered the smartest person on the planet, you know, maybe not in pure IQ, but certainly in understanding how things work and how to make something work and how to engineer a good solution.
So how does that conversation go?
Is Trump sitting there and saying, okay, all right, anybody have an opinion?
Corey?
Corey?
I think we should nominate this person.
All right, good.
Good reasons you had there.
Anybody else?
Elon.
Elon.
And then what happens after that?
Do the other people in the room say, you know, I got to disagree with Elon on this one.
How exactly does that conversation go?
If you put me in a room with Elon Musk and he went first and he said his idea and my idea was the opposite of that, do you know what I'd do?
I'd shut the fuck up because I'm pretty sure I don't have better ideas than he does.
Like, I might say, well, you know, maybe you should consider this variable, but I sure as hell wouldn't put myself out there in direct disagreement with one of the smartest people on the planet.
That's just me.
But maybe Corey can.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what the nature of the friction is.
We want it.
Give me a little bit of friction.
These are powerful people with strong opinions.
If you put them in one place and they all agreed with each other, I'd be frightened to death.
Frightened to death.
You don't want agreement.
You need strong people with different opinions, but honorable people who can figure out how to make it work.
Well, Just the News, that's a news site called Just the News, was talking about the two states that are still desperately trying to figure out how the election went, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Now, I saw some people on social media say, can we agree that if it takes two weeks to count your votes, your state is rigged?
I agree with that.
If we needed to set a standard for when you have to just throw out the whole result, two weeks.
I'd say if you don't have a result in two weeks, you have to stop counting, and the result is wherever it is when you stop.
Or you have to throw out the state.
You just have to toss it out.
Say, your state didn't make it this year.
I would be perfectly happy, I think, unless it means that Trump wouldn't win, if both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were denied any count.
Just say you don't count.
Now, the current rules don't allow that, but if you can imagine hypothetically in a perfect world, I think two weeks of counting votes is so absurdly out of line, and I can't think of any reason to do it other than to throw the election.
No reason at all.
I say those states shouldn't count.
Maybe take them out of the mix entirely.
Of course, that's unconstitutional and you can't do anything like that.
So I'm being a little hyperbolic.
But my point is, I do not trust whatever they come up with.
I'll like it if it favors my side.
I'll like it, but I'm not going to trust it.
Those are two states that have lost my trust in their system completely.
Completely.
So here's what's going on.
Again, this is from just the news reporting.
So in Pennsylvania, we've already got a senator who has been named the winner.
It's McCormick.
He's even attended the new senator briefings in Washington and everything.
But they're still counting.
And apparently they've decided to count ballots that are invalid.
So the ones that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled, even before the election, they ruled that these kinds of ballots cannot be counted.
So those would be the ones that are mail-in that don't have proper dates or signatures.
And so the ruling is clear, and it comes from the right ruling body, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
It was before the election, and it was unambiguous.
These will not count.
So do you know what Pennsylvania is doing?
They're counting the ones that don't count, because doing so seems to be able to give them an advantage.
So where is that going to end up?
Is it possible that they're going to count so many votes that they found that it's going to change the election?
Well, that looks all sketchy to me, but what about Wisconsin?
We've got a little problem in Wisconsin.
So the AP called it for the incumbent, Senator Tammy Baldwin, the day after the election.
And Baldwin has about 29,000 more votes than the Republican.
However...
It's being reported that on Tuesday, that must have been election night, somebody named Havdi posted a video on X about some overnight ballot dumps after election day.
Oh, after election day.
It must have been a week later.
I was shocked what unfolded on election night, Havdi said.
At 1 a.m., I was receiving calls of congratulations based on the models.
It appeared I would win the Senate race.
Then at 4 a.m., Milwaukee reported approximately 108,000 absentee ballots, with Senator Baldwin receiving nearly 90% of those ballots.
Now, believe it or not, that wasn't far off from reality, because the same day voting, he only received 22% of the votes, but the mail-ins were only 10%.
Now, I agree that it seems highly unlikely that That the same-day voting would be that different from the mail-in voting.
It looks like the mail-in voting was rigged.
It has every tell for being rigged.
Was it?
Well, I don't know.
If I made that claim for sure, I wouldn't have proof.
But based on the reporting, if it's true that...
So if these facts are true that at 4 a.m.
after the election, They got 108,000 mail-in ballots and 22% of them, instead of what you expected, 10% went one way.
That looks like cheating to me.
I don't know what you do about it.
What do you do about it?
I don't know.
I guess we'll find out.
Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, Kristen Welker, she goes, this is under the category of Democrats desperately trying to figure out what they did wrong.
Now, what's funny is that they did everything wrong.
Everything.
So when they're looking to see what they did wrong, they're blinded by the fact it's like a blizzard of wrongness.
Everything they did was wrong, from the candidate they picked, the messages they used, the techniques they used for campaigning.
I don't think anything they did was as good as what Trump did.
Probably nothing.
But They keep trying to figure it out.
And Kristen Walker, who hosts Meet the Press on NBC, she called out one of the hosts, a Democrat, looked like a Democrat pundit, Eugene Daniels, for saying something about we need the adults in the room.
Now, the adults, as he referred to it, meant the Democrats, the adults.
And Kristen Walker pointed out And Kristen turned to Jen because Jen was the next person she wanted to talk to.
So she wasn't disagreeing with Jen.
She was disagreeing with Eugene Daniels.
But she was taking that disagreement to Jen for her comment.
So Kristen Welker says, Jen, that tonal issue being the, quote, adults in the room, I've heard some Democrats privately say that came off as condescending.
That's part of what needs to be addressed as well.
So you think to yourself, oh, they're getting it.
They're getting it.
So one of them says the adults in the room, but Kristen Welker, now she's figured out that that's the kind of tone that's bad.
So she calls it out and she asks Jen Psaki to agree with her that that's exactly the kind of tone that they want to avoid.
Do you know what Jen Psaki said?
Quote, adults in the room has many meanings.
And we've learned nothing.
No.
Adults in the room has one meaning.
The person who said it is an asshole.
It has one meaning.
Because nobody takes it seriously that there are no adults in the room.
It only has one meaning no matter what the speaker says.
What the speaker says is not even related to anything.
It has one meaning.
The person saying it is a fucking asshole.
So, Jen, it may mean that it has many meanings that you intend, but there's only one meaning we receive.
The only one we get is, man, you're an asshole.
How about treating everybody like adults?
How about that?
How about talking about the policy instead of the people?
You see the pattern?
They talk about the people being defective, not their policies.
And if they can't figure that out, that the problem is they need better policies and stop insulting the people, they can't figure it out.
Why?
I think it might be that dark triad thing that Jordan Peterson always talks about.
I think there might be some narcissistic, gaslighting, psychopath kind of thing going on that may have taken control.
The people who are making the decisions Probably are in deep therapy about their...
Well, maybe they're the ones who don't go to therapy.
I don't know.
Meanwhile, here's a fun story.
Two fun stories that fit together well.
Did you know that many years ago, Joe Scarborough did an interview with a younger RFK junior, and the two of them were in great agreement on their personal beliefs that childhood vaccinations cause autism.
And the reason that Joe Scarborough believes that's true is that his son was born in 1991, two years after the massive amount of vaccinations started being common.
And he says his son is on the spectrum as a form of Asperger's.
So not only is Joe Scarborough Open to the idea that vaccinations cause harm.
At least at one point, he was pretty sure it harmed his own son.
So, did you know that?
Did you know that?
I mean, wasn't that also the same time he was...
Was he a Republican then?
He changed from Republican to Democrat, didn't he?
Do I remember that correctly?
Anyway, so it was kind of amazing to see him agree with that.
Now, I don't have an opinion on that yet.
My opinion agrees with, I think, RFK Juniors that we don't have a good enough science.
So am I concerned that both of these gentlemen were fairly confident that there's a direct connection between these things?
You have my attention.
And I'm going to say that I was one of the people that for 20 years, whenever I heard somebody was a vaccine denier, I had a negative opinion.
I had a negative opinion.
Do you know why?
I thought science was real.
I lived in a world where I could observe that every other domain was completely corrupt, because I was in those other domains, so I could see how bad they were.
But I wasn't really in any kind of a science domain.
So I figured, oh, science must be right, but everything else is broken.
But there's a reason for that.
Scientists are smarter, and they have the scientific method, which catches mistakes.
So, yeah, obviously the scientists are getting it right, but everyone else, everyone else is corrupt and stupid and lying.
But the scientists, they got it right.
Later, when I was the adult in the room, and no longer operating like a child, I realized, wait a minute, everything looks the same.
Every domain has people trying to get away with things, and if they can get away with it, they do.
So now I understand it differently.
All right, also talking about Morning Joe, apparently Morning Joe and Mika kind of quietly asked if they could go visit Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and he said yes.
Now, what do you think that's all about?
So then they came back, and apparently they had not spoken to Trump in seven years.
I didn't know that.
And they said it was, you know, important to speak with him, and, you know, they wanted to, quote, restart communications, according to Mika.
They made sure that you knew, just so you know, they don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues with Mr.
Trump.
But they did think it was important to restart communications, and Trump took the meeting.
And they came back and now they've opened up a channel.
So how do you interpret that?
Here's how I interpret it.
You've heard the rumors that MSNBC is up for sale or they'd like to sell it.
Now, I don't know if that's true.
But if I owned that property and I saw what it was doing, I'd certainly want to sell it if you could find somebody dumb enough to buy it.
But who's going to buy a pure propaganda network?
It's not even news.
It's not even in the domain of news.
It's pure propaganda.
What would make them less pure propaganda?
Well, for one thing, maybe they would sometimes talk to some credible Republicans, which probably would not even be willing to go on their show.
But if you can convince Trump that talking to MSNBC is worth your time, then the senators might say, well, if Trump does it, I can do it, etc.
So it could be that what they're trying to do is, you know, paint the turd in case they can sell it.
So if somebody says, hey, you're all propaganda, who wants to buy a propaganda network?
That makes no sense.
They can say, oh, well, I think we used to be kind of biased, but now, look, we have a relationship with Trump, and we had a bunch of Republicans on, and so we're showing all sides now.
So we're more like news and news opinion now.
I think it's something they had to do to sell it.
Just my guess.
Or at the very least, it's something they have to do to stay on the air.
Because if they haven't talked to the president in seven years and their show is mostly about the president, well, it makes them a little bit irrelevant if they don't have any relationship whatsoever with him.
So was Trump smart to take the meeting?
And I assume he was professional and friendly.
Yes.
Trump is trying to send a message that he's not against any Republicans, even his enemies.
He's just trying to fix stuff.
So, exactly the right...
Moved by really all of them.
So all of them made the right move.
But watching MSNBC trying to figure out what's going to work is tough.
If they give any time to Republicans, they're going to lose the rest of their left-leaning audience.
Because their left-leaning audience is not turning on MSNBC to see both sides.
They've been filtered down to people who only want to see one side.
Otherwise, they'd be watching something else.
So they should lose all of their remaining audience if they try to find the middle, like CNN sometimes does.
And then they're just going to lose to CNN, basically.
So I don't see how they survive, actually.
Speaking of CNN, Jake Tapper had Adam Schiff on.
And...
Brought up the fact that Schiff had been basically lying about the whole Russia collusion thing.
Now, Jake was professional about it.
He didn't say it the way I said it.
You know, you fucking liar.
You lied and destroyed the country with your Russia collusion thing.
And what does Schiff say?
He says, the fact that we didn't find proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean there wasn't evidence of conspiracy.
And he gave us his top example that one of Trump's people gave some internal polling to a Russian oligarch.
Because that's what we were worried about, right?
Oh my God, my God.
I hope, I just hope that no Russian oligarch ever sees the internal polling data, which is basically obsolete in one week.
And that one time that they saw it.
And the guy who did that went to jail.
And nobody said that had anything to do with Trump.
So Schiff is maybe the biggest famous liar in the country.
Anyway, it makes you wonder how that segment got booked.
Do you think the CNN management was sitting around in a meeting and they're saying that You know, hey, our ratings are way down because no one trusts our news to be real.
What should we do?
Nobody trusts our news to be real news.
What can we do?
And then Jake Tapper says, you know, I'm just imagining this.
He didn't really say this.
I've got an idea.
Let's invite Adam Schiff to lie about Russia collusion because that always works.
Like, how exactly is the reasoning going over there?
It must be a tough row.
Meanwhile, speaking of Jen Psaki, Fox News is reporting that she said somewhere that Democrats are lost in the wilderness without a clear leader after Trump's victory.
Well, I would agree with that.
It is not obvious to me that they have a clear leader.
They always have Adam Schiff.
I think Adam Schiff should be their leader Everybody okay with that?
So when you look at their bench, you know, Biden is toast and Kamala Harris was destroyed in the process.
Tim Walsh was never taken seriously.
And Psaki is thinking maybe some of the governors.
When was the last time a governor controlled a national party?
Has that ever happened?
There's certainly been governors who ran, and while they were running, they were in control of the party.
But if you're not running for president, like really actively running, can you be a governor of a state and be seen as the leader of the national party?
I say no.
I say no.
I mean, somebody like You know, Hochul or Governor Newsom can make news, and they can do interviews, and the interviews will be quoted, and it may be something that other Democrats agree with, but you're never really going to see a governor as a national leader, are you?
I feel like it's in the name that they're not, because you can't be both the national and the state person.
There are too many conflicts there.
So, here's what I realized.
I could run for president as a Democrat, because I'm a registered Democrat, if you didn't know.
And I think I could win.
Here's how.
Now, don't worry about it, because I'm not going to run.
But here's what I'd do if I were running for office.
I would say, you know what?
Republicans are awesome.
I'd start there.
Republicans are awesome.
Independents, too.
Awesome people.
We should do more things with them.
I recommend talking to your neighbors more.
You'll be smarter.
All right, so there's my start.
Then what about the topics?
They'd say to me, Scott, you're running for president, now you have to weigh in on abortion.
I know you don't like talking about it because you're a man, and you say men should stay out of it, or at least move to the back row.
To which I'd say, well, now that I'm president, I do have an opinion.
It should be up to the states.
No, I know, but what's your opinion?
It should be up to the states.
But what do you think?
I'm done.
It's a state matter.
All right.
What else you got?
Well, I've got name recognition.
So I have name recognition.
Now you're going to say to me, but Scott, you were famously cancelled for saying some things that not a single Democrat's going to like.
To which I say, have you noticed the last eight years?
Who's your president?
The person who said the most provocative things.
Do you think that an energy monster can't take that and turn it into a national platform?
Because I can.
I'm not going to run.
Don't worry.
But is it possible?
Yes, absolutely.
Every time I got interviewed, I would be asked that question.
And then I would get to say what I want to say.
But they wouldn't not be able to interview me.
Because I'm already too provocative, right?
If I were just the cartoonist running for office, Mildly interesting.
If I were the cartoonist who was cancelled during the darkest years of the American Republic, in my opinion, I guess you'd count, maybe you'd count slavery as the darkest opinion and, you know, maybe a few down from that.
Maybe the fourth darkest time in American history, something like that.
But I think that I could take that story and say, which I would, You realize that I was railing against discrimination.
I said, if it's true that black Americans have this bad opinion of white Americans, which is what a survey said, if the survey is true, this would suggest that we shouldn't have more separation because it looks like it'd be a real problem.
And by the way, I would advise black people, if they're thinking of moving into a new town, And one of the towns is known for having a heavy emphasis of Ku Klux Klan membership, and the other one is not.
I would say every time you should pick the one not.
Because although I'm not saying anything bad about any one person in that town, I'm saying that as a collective risk, if you get that many people in the town who are racist against you, well, you should avoid that town.
Likewise, Anybody else who has some big community of people of which 25% or a third of them think that you're not worth life, you should avoid them really hard.
You should avoid them as hard as you can.
But again, it has nothing to do with any individual.
I say, as I say often, discriminating against an individual Doesn't help you.
It just lowers your choices in life.
Fewer people to hire, fewer people to have romance with, fewer friends, fewer customers, fewer bosses.
So discrimination doesn't make sense for the person doing it.
And it certainly doesn't make sense for the person who's receiving it.
So I completely disagree with any one-on-one individual discrimination because who benefits?
It's a lose-lose scenario.
There's no argument for it.
But staying away from communities which have said out loud on a survey, or in the case of the KKK, put on outfits and marched around with burning crosses, if that's happening, stay away.
Now, I think I could turn the controversy about me into a platform where people will listen to whatever the hell I say.
That's what Trump did.
And could I turn that into a win?
Probably.
When it came to immigration, could I say something that Democrats and Republicans would agree with?
I can.
I would say we should get a team of bipartisan economists and the bipartisan economists every year should look at our current situation And decide who can come in, in general, and what kind of skills we should be filtering for.
And then every year you adjust that.
And every year it's not political, it's economic.
What did the economists say this time?
Well, we need about a million people to pick And our population is a little low, so it'd be nice if we had just a couple million good people who want to, you know, want to become Americans and they've got all the right stuff.
So I could pretty much, and then I could fix schools, of course, and I would want no wars and I'd want lower taxes on the middle class.
I could run as almost a Republican and That Democrats would say, oh yeah, that does make sense.
Yeah, that makes sense.
No, I'm not going to run, but they do have a big hole there, and it wouldn't be hard to fill it, if they had any quality candidates, which I'm wondering about.
Instead, the Democrat's strategy seems to be to turn into Triumph the Insult Dog.
Do you remember Triumph the Insult Dog was a hand puppet on Conan O'Brien, and he was a recurring character.
And all you would do is just insult people.
Your immigration policy, I poop on it.
So maybe that wasn't their best strategy for winning the national race.
Insult dog triumph.
Which is interesting because you can't spell Trump without triumph.
Or you can't spell triumph without Trump.
According to Trump, You know, some people said, does he really think he can get Matt Gaetz approved as Attorney General?
Because that's a pretty provocative choice.
Trump is certainly sending every signal that he's not only serious about it, but very serious about it.
As in, he's going to make this happen.
Can he?
I don't know.
I don't know.
He would have to beat the crap out of some Republicans to vote for Gates, because Gates is not the most important, he's not the most popular person, even among Republicans.
But what fights do the Republicans want to have?
So even Republicans know that they will have their moments of disagreement with the White House.
Is this the fight they want?
Because even the people who think that Matt Gaetz has whatever character problems they want to talk about from his younger single life, and maybe they're all true.
Well, at least the ones that are legal.
Let's say the things that are legal, let's say he did all of them.
Does it matter?
How many of you want to speak?
How many of you want to answer for your younger 20s?
Did you do anything in your 20s you don't want to talk about now?
Anybody?
If you're judging people from what they did when they were single in their 20s, you're just going to lose all your good people.
I don't think we've ever had a really powerful Good national leader who wasn't a piece of shit in their 20s.
Probably, right?
I mean, everybody was a little worse in those days, myself included, of course.
So I think that Trump may, in fact, be able to get Republicans to understand that Gates is a person with the right risk-reward loyalty combination.
So you don't want somebody who's timid who only goes for the easy wins because we need a very, very difficult win.
We need the people who are not good for the system to be removed.
And to do that, you're going to need the biggest bastard in the world.
You're going to need a bastard.
You're going to need somebody who can remove McCarthy.
And I don't even have an opinion about that.
I don't have an opinion about the McCarthy thing because I never really followed the details of it.
So I don't know.
Should he have been removed?
I don't know.
I don't have an opinion.
But I know it happened.
And if you can do that with your own colleague, the most important colleague in your entire body, and you can do that, then I'm not too worried that you can fire some assholes in the Department of Justice.
I think maybe that would be well within your capabilities.
So I want somebody who's got a legal background, check.
I want somebody who has absolute loyalty to Trump because the Attorney General is his biggest risk.
His biggest risk is bad people in our government coming after him before or after he's president.
So yes, I want maximum loyalty.
And by the way, I wouldn't say that in a normal situation.
In a normal situation, I'd say I want a good independent person in this job, but not this time.
The lawfare is so bad That now the old rules of just get a good independent attorney general?
Nope.
I'm sorry, that's not good enough.
I want somebody who is biased as hell, like super, super biased in favor of free speech, in favor of no lawfare, in favor of keeping Trump in power as long as he's not broken any laws.
So can Trump make that sale?
I'm going to say yes.
And I believe he just needs to get all of his own people to say yes, right?
That's the situation.
Or is it going to be a...
Oh, I guess it's going to be maybe a recess appointment so nobody gets to vote.
But you want people to not complain about it, too.
So apparently Mike Johnson's on board.
Mike Johnson's on board with Gates.
And if you can get the Speaker of the House on board, you can get the President on board.
Maybe at least two-thirds of the Republicans are probably on board automatically.
I think the other third have to maybe decide this isn't where they're going to plant their flag.
There'll be plenty of other times they can maybe plant a flag on an issue.
This isn't the time.
I would let this one go if I were you guys.
So, Republicans, I know you want to say, blah, blah, character, blah, blah, don't like what he did here or there, but this is one of those times I think you need to be on the same side.
Maybe more important than just about anything else that happens, because if you don't get this part right, the Attorney General, I don't know that you can get three other parts right.
I feel like this is the minimum requirement for any chance of success in making big changes.
Nicole Shanahan continues to be a national asset.
Here she is talking about farmland.
Now, what I like about this is that we often have issues that we should be treating as our biggest issues, but it's not sexy, so you don't.
So you need somebody who's willing to remind you that some of this non-sexy stuff is important.
And she points out the US ranks near the bottom in total farmland, yet we've become disconnected from our food supply.
The decision-making about what's healthy We're unhealthy is in agencies, captured by corporations focused on profits.
So basically she's pointing out that the system of how we manage our food is a poor system and it guarantees that you'll eat poison, basically.
Because the corporation wants profits and as long as they can get away with it, they're going to get profits over health.
So, yes, thank you, Nicole Shannon, for bringing that up.
And that, you know, I'd like to see this a big part of what the government focuses on.
Healthy food.
According to Unusual Wales, there's an article, I guess, the Financial Times, that there's never been this bad income disparity.
So the bottom 40% of income, Now account for 20% of all spending, while the richest 20% account for 40% of all the spending.
And it's the widest gap on record and likely to widen further.
So that's good or bad?
Is it bad that the richest 20% are doing 40% of the spending?
Well, here's what I know.
The richest people eat roughly the same amount of food as the poorest people.
And their cell phone costs very similar.
Their car insurance, well, they probably have better cars, but not that far off.
So where are the 20% spending all this money?
They're spending it on things that are made by the lowest 20%.
If they buy a yacht, they kept a whole bunch of people employed and not only just running it, but making it and buying it, etc.
If they invest in a company, again, people get jobs.
So comparing the rich people expenses to poor people expenses is dumb.
Let me explain to you what a normal rich person's life looks like.
There's money you spend on yourself, and then there's always a fairly large circle of people who aren't making it, but they're close to you.
Do you watch them die?
No, you don't.
You end up supporting people who are near you, family, people who are close to you.
And so if you looked at the circle of people, That every top 20% is supporting.
It's not just their immediate family.
And the richer they are, the more they're supporting a vast number of other people who couldn't quite make it.
So it's not apples to apples.
And you wouldn't want the richest people to stop spending money.
You want the richest to spend the most money.
Because that's where the money is.
If the richest stopped spending this much money, then all the poor people would have no place to work.
Because there wouldn't be no need for yachts and more expensive cars and stuff.
So this is a sort of economic comparison that is so absurd and so misplaced that if you manage to it, it would be a mistake.
So if you said to yourself, huh, we're going to have to close this gap.
No, you don't.
You don't at all.
It's not an indication of a problem.
It's simply an indication that some people have money and some don't.
That's it.
And if it got worse, Does that make it worse for the poor people?
Suppose Elon Musk quadrupled his net worth tomorrow, but everybody else stayed the same.
Are they worse off?
Or does he now start a new industry that employs another 10,000 people?
Who do you want to have the money?
I mean, at some level, you want the smartest people to have the most money because they're putting it into smart places.
So terrible, terrible comparison.
I guess Trump has confirmed plans to declare a national emergency and use military assets to ship back them illegal migrants and deport people.
Now, I think people are confusing national emergency with martial law.
It's not martial law.
And I don't even know what it means for a president to declare a national emergency.
Is that like an executive order or something?
But as far as I know, the military assets would be used for transportation and maybe guarding people temporarily.
I don't believe the military is going to be knocking on doors.
Can you confirm that?
Does anybody disagree with that take?
The military would be sort of the background support, but it would still be ICE and the border people who are knocking on the door and handcuffing people and arresting them.
But then they might put them in a military truck to get shipped back.
That's my understanding.
So I'm not too worried about that.
That doesn't sound too bad.
Meanwhile, over on News Nation, on the show Cuomo...
And let me give a shout out to News Nation.
So News Nation has been trying to be the news that's not super biased one way or the other.
And I don't know that I get it on my cable.
I'm not sure if it's on my cable, but I only see the clips from it usually.
However, I would say that they seem to be succeeding.
So if you haven't checked out News Nation and Cuomo in particular, if you're expecting it to just be Cuomo from CNN, the one that talked to Don Lemon at the end of his show, It's not.
Cuomo is doing a very good job of finding the sensible common sense middle.
And so I give him my complete endorsement as someone who's doing the right thing at the right time with the right set of skills.
So give it a look.
Give it a chance.
Anyway, so Cuomo had on Dr.
Robert Redfield, and he was the ex-CDC director, and he's talking about RFK Jr.'s questions about vaccines, and you'd expect the guy who was the past director of the CDC to say, oh, that RFK Jr.
is a vaccine nut, conspiracy theorist, right?
Because he was out of the CDC. That should be what he says, right?
But he didn't.
So Redfield said this.
He said that Kennedy's questioning of vaccines and current health models makes him, quote, more science-oriented than a lot of his critics.
There you go.
There you go.
Thank you, Dr.
Redfield.
That is exactly correct.
That's a reframe, but it's coming from somebody with enough credibility that you say, oh, why is he saying that?
So now you'll pay attention.
Yes.
Kennedy's thrust is 100% more science, not less.
100%.
With no...
And by the way, that's not even...
It's not as subtle...
It's not ambiguous.
He is 100% focused on doing more, better, complete, real science.
And his criticism is that poor science is what we've been doing so far.
And I don't think anybody can beat him on that.
I don't think there's anybody that can say, oh, oh, oh, but we did use good science.
I don't think so.
Here's what they can say.
I'm pretty sure that we saved X number of lives because of a specific vaccination.
Might be true.
Would Kennedy say you should get rid of that vaccination if the science was good and it showed that it saved lives?
There's no indication he would because he's pro-science.
He's not making it up.
He's not going into this role so he can make up stuff.
He wants the country to be Blended with a better version of science than the one we're with.
So, thank you, Dr.
Redfield.
Another pirate for the pirate ship.
Well, over in my neck of the woods at Berkeley, A college which I used to be proud to have a degree, a business degree from.
And I'm no longer proud of Berkeley.
I'm disgusted by them.
And honestly, I just disavow any association with them at this point.
But apparently they had a class, according to the Jerusalem Post, they had a class that was listed on their website.
They praised Hamas as a, quote, revolutionary resistance force.
And it said that the Palestinians are the indigenous ones and the Israelis are a, quote, occupying force.
The course was titled Leninism and Anarchism, a theoretical approach to literature and film.
It states it will explore the, quote, genocide of the indigenous Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces.
Okay.
Well, the update on that is that Berkeley apparently removed that from their listings and they're going to have a conversation with whoever put it there.
So, here's the good news.
Even Berkeley wouldn't put up with that.
Do you get that?
Everything is going in the right direction now.
Everything.
Dr.
Redfield, heading in the right direction.
Mika and Morning Joe, Heading in the right direction, right?
And here, Berkeley, the craziest of the woke crazy, has this crazy thing on it, but as soon as it's pointed out and made public, a little bit of light shines on it.
Oh, we didn't mean it.
Moving in the right direction.
I being dismantled, moving in the right direction.
Well, let's talk about World War III. So Biden authorized Ukraine to use these long-range missiles and weapons to strike inside of Russia.
Now, you might say to yourself, doesn't that cross a red line where Putin says if they attack inside Russia, especially if they're using weapons that they don't know how to use, such as these new advanced weapons, It indicates that the only persons pushing the buttons are NATO people.
Why?
Because the Ukrainians don't know how to push those buttons.
And maybe we don't want to show them.
So Putin's take, which seems to match the facts, is that he's now fighting NATO. And that if he's fighting NATO, that changes the calculation.
And some would say that would make him more likely to go nuclear.
Here's why you don't have to worry about this.
I promise you.
He's not crazy.
So Putin just did a massive, massive strike inside Ukraine, like just one of the biggest ones.
Ukraine is going to respond with some strikes inside Russia.
Russia knows, Putin knows, that Trump is going to be in power in a few weeks, and he's going to end this.
They all know it.
What would be the benefit of Putin to start a nuclear war a few weeks before the war is going to stop for sure, no matter what?
None.
None.
But would it make sense for the Ukrainians to make a big enough, scary enough strike inside Russia that when they come to the negotiating table, Russia is saying, you know what, this is bad for us, this war, instead of thinking, okay, we're losing a lot of people, but we keep winning.
Ukraine has to make Russia think that they don't have an easy cakewalk all the way to Kiev.
There's no point in negotiating if Russia thinks they can win outright.
So by doing a little bit of crazy shit, and this is crazy shit, let me be clear, Biden authorizing strikes deep into Russia now is crazy shit.
It's crazy shit, but it's the right time to do it.
So apparently, I don't think Biden's the mastermind of this.
I think NATO was in favor of it.
And I don't think it's because they want more war.
I think because it's the right way to set yourself up for negotiations.
You have to look at least like you're a little bit at parity, or you don't get any negotiations.
So they needed to pump it up to at least Russia's level of aggression, and they did.
So, it's closer to the ideal situation than it is to nuclear war.
The ideal situation is that both of them say, I can't do this anymore, and it doesn't look like I can easily win.
So, what do you got for me?
That's where we're at.
That's where we're at.
Again, this looks like bad news?
Probably not.
It's probably exactly what we needed.
So we'll see.
Alex Soros posted this about the long-range weapons that are going to be used against Russia.
I think already, at least some of them have been sent.
He posts, Biden authorizes long-range weapons to strike inside Russia.
So he was reposting somebody that said that.
He said, quote, this is great news.
Really?
Really?
Does the money person for the Democrats have to weigh in on a tactical military decision?
What does Alex Soros know about tactical military decisions?
I feel like he's just in favor of war.
So it sounds like he might be the bank account for the military industrial complex and the Atlantic Council and the real owners and shakers of the universe.
And when he sees more war, he just says, oh, everybody that I work with and invites me to meetings and pats me on the back, they're going to love this.
So I love it too.
Now, as you know, I don't believe that Alex Soros has the, let's see, capability to To do the job that we think he's doing.
In other words, I think that he's under somebody's control.
For one reason or another.
I don't know what it is.
But he doesn't seem like he's in charge of the...
He just doesn't seem in charge.
He seems very much like he's working with somebody that he's taking their word for it.
Somebody's influencing him.
It just doesn't feel like he's in charge.
All right.
Does anybody disagree with that?
I think Alex, or I think his father, you know, might have been closer to in charge or at least a partner with the people he's working with.
But I think Alex is just, he's just a bank that somebody's pumping money out of at this point.
That's my opinion based on what I see.
All right.
Also about Ukraine.
Apparently, every time that the Ukrainians try to make a move, the Russian drones stop it totally.
So, apparently, it's a drone war now.
So, let's see.
So, most of the work is being done, at least by the drones, spotting the thing they need to destroy.
So, nobody can kind of make a secret anything, because the drones are watching.
And the drones can kill.
So here's some numbers.
Ukraine and Russia are on track to make around 1.5 million drones this year.
Mostly the small ones.
They only cost a few hundred dollars a piece.
So sure enough, the Ukraine war was the thing that turned warfare into drone warfare forever, I think.
Because drone warfare could do as much damage as a nuclear bomb.
You just need lots of drones.
And you don't have the nuclear fallout problem.
So part of the problem is you can escalate without the risk of nuclear war as much.
So that's bad.
The good news is land war might be dead.
It could be that land war just doesn't work anymore.
As long as the other side, the one you're trying to attack, if they have access to a million and a half drones, You could have a real trouble attacking that country.
And if you can make drones that are deadly for only a few hundred dollars, then that price will go down to under $100 pretty fast.
For under $100, you're going to be able to build a drone that can spot things a mile away and drop a hand grenade on it.
It'll be less than $100.
So the good news is that tanks and ground forces Probably don't have much purpose as long as one of the entities has an industrial base or can buy drones.
So that's new.
And that was predicted in my book, The Religion War, which is now part of the new book, God's Debris, The Complete Works.
So that includes God's Debris, But also the sequel called The Religion War that predicted massive drone warfare as the primary kind of war.
Anyway, according to Rasmussen, a majority of voters support measures to ensure that elections are honest and the results are reported quickly.
Now, that's no surprise.
Don't you think everybody wants honest elections that are reported quickly?
Of course they do.
And they think that both the integrity and the timing are something that need to be worked on.
But here's the real note.
Even a majority of Democrats support those measures.
So Republicans and Democrats, by majority, agree that the elections need better integrity and And maybe paper ballots.
So here one of them says 65% believe that disputes over election results should be investigated fully, including the use of forensic ballot audits.
While 59% say federal election laws should require the use of paper ballots.
59%, and I think that includes a majority of Democrats, think that we should use paper ballots alone.
So let's see if we can complete the dots.
So the majority of Americans say that they would trust paper more than machines.
We also note that the elections did not work on time and we've got some credibility problems in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Now that's our current situation.
Here's my question.
Why do we have machines?
The public doesn't want it.
We can observe it's not faster.
It doesn't appear to be cheaper.
It doesn't give us more credibility.
We don't trust them over paper.
So can you give me the reason that we have them?
And I like to point this out at least once a month.
Then not once have you seen a story, an article, or an expert explain why they exist.
It's one of the biggest problems in the country.
We have to actively buy them in order to have them.
We have to actively make it happen.
Yes, machines, give me more machines, give me the software update.
We have to work at it.
And yet a majority of the country doesn't want it, doesn't trust it, And it creates massive problems that we're in right now, which is we don't even know where Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are going to fall out.
So why do we have them?
I can only see one reason.
I can only see one reason.
I believe they were introduced so that we could control elections in other countries.
Speculating.
And that at some point somebody said, you know, might be handy if we could do it in this country too.
Why else?
Now, if you can find even one person to go on TV and say, that cartoonist guy, he's all trouble with his misinformation.
Here are the five good reasons that machines are better than paper.
And then you show it to me and I go, oh, okay.
I wish I'd heard that sooner.
Do you think that's going to happen?
If even one of you had ever heard the argument or read a book about it or seen an article that argued in favor of machines, you would be saying it in the comments right now, wouldn't you?
The comments would be, Scott, you don't understand.
The advantage is this.
But you're not.
How could it be that, what, we have several thousand people who are watching live, several thousand voters, not one of you, Has any idea why we have voting machines?
None of you.
I don't.
I don't even have a good guess unless it's for cheating.
I don't even know why you'd have them.
Anyway, that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the completion of my prepared remarks.
Is there anything big that I missed?
There was so much news, it seems like today, that I was just barely trying to keep up with it before I went live here.
Yeah.
Now, I hear the argument that if you have a machine, in most cases, you also have the paper ballot so you can do the audit.
But that doesn't answer the question, why do you have the machine?
I mean, it still begs the question, if you have the paper on it, why not just use the paper?
Now, I heard somebody say, oh, so people who have disabilities, they can use the machine better than they can write on a piece of paper.
But I'm pretty sure we could work that out.
Pretty sure we can solve that.
All right.
And did I see that the new nominee for, is it the Department of Energy?
Doesn't think climate change is a crisis?
It was somebody I wasn't familiar with, but do I have that right?
Give me a fact check.
Is the nomination for Department of Energy said out loud just recently he doesn't think climate change is a crisis, which means he's open to it being a change in temperature.
If you don't know Zelenskyy is WEF or you don't know that Putin is WEF, why are you ignoring it?
The WEF is completely debunked.
Anybody who's still on the WEF train, you need to up your game a little bit.
There was a time when it felt like it made a little bit of sense, but no, it doesn't make any sense.
The WEF thing is complete nonsense.
Most people have just given up on that.
It used to be that every time I did any topic, the comments were full of, it's the WEF, it's they, they in the WEF are trying to take over the world.
And as soon as Klaus, what's his name, retired, and it just stopped being in the news, and it's so obvious that so many people are not in it, there's no way that Putin is part of the WEF. I don't know about Zelensky, but it's dumb to think Putin is.
All right, I'm going to go talk to my prediction.
Are you asking what my prediction is?
Everything's going to be terrific.
By the way, did you hear there's a kind of mushroom that might cure cancer?
I didn't mention it.
Sergio, the religion war, yes.
So there's a...
What is it called?
The white button mushrooms or something?
That they think it can stop cancer in its tracks?
Okay.
Let's hope that's true.
All right.
And let's talk to the locals people privately.
Export Selection