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:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
The dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
and it happens now.
Oh, so good.
Okay.
I mean, really, sometimes it's so good I can't even stand it.
Well, you'll be surprised to hear that there's a new study that identified the huge positive health effects of coffee.
That's right.
Apparently, it's really good for your gut bacteria.
Gives you fiber.
Oh, my goodness.
Coffee can make you levitate off the ground.
It will make you immortal and possibly being able to fly long distances by flapping your arms.
Okay, none of that last stuff is true, but every day there's new information about coffee, and I wouldn't rule it out.
It could be a fuel of the future.
Meanwhile, in the publication Pulse, somebody wrote an article about all the mental health benefits of laughter.
Huh.
So it turns out that laughter, which is a subset of being happy, is good for your health.
Well, they could have saved some money by asking me, but some of the things they found is that laughter reduces your stress and anxiety.
Don't you feel better already?
It improves your mood and it combats depression.
It enhances your sleep quality.
It improves your cognitive function.
It builds your social connections.
That's a lot of good stuff.
Yeah.
So if you find yourself laughing at any time during this podcast, you'll probably feel yourself just getting healthier every moment.
All right.
There's a Pennsylvania school, according to Ars Technica, had to shut down because one clever student Figured out how to make deepfake nudes of the female classmates.
And rather than making just one, he made 50 different deepfakes of his female classmates.
50 different ones.
Now, here's my question.
Was there really only one kid who knew how to do it, and so he did 50 of them?
Or is that a point where they can all do it?
Because I wouldn't know how to do it.
Every AI that I know how to use wouldn't do that if he asked it to.
So there must be some kind of secret dark web deep fake AI that if you knew what it was, you could use it.
Now, here's the problem.
Sure, they can shut down that one school.
Sure.
You could punish that one person.
Yep.
Probably never do it again.
But I was once 14.
Is anybody here who was also a 14-year-old boy at any time in your life?
Have you ever been a 14-year-old boy?
If I were a 14-year-old boy and you handed me a tool that was free and could turn anybody I wanted into a A porn?
You couldn't pry that into my 14-year-old hands.
How in the world are you going to stop this?
This is going to be to infinity.
This is unstoppable, and kids are going to do it.
So I don't know what you're going to do about that.
I think the weird, horrible future is that every young woman will have to just get used to being in a porn that she wasn't in, that her deep fake was in.
I don't know.
Honestly, I think there's literally zero way to stop it.
If there was an AI that could have done it in the first place, and that's apparently out there and somebody has access to it, it doesn't look good.
But anyway, a robot dog.
You've seen all the robot dogs.
One of them just finished in South Korea, finished a marathon on one charge.
So with one battery charge, a robot dog ran a marathon.
So calculating distance, I would feel safe living distance.
Near a robot dog.
10 miles?
Nope.
15 miles.
Too close.
26 miles?
Not enough.
You're getting farther than 26 miles away from your robot dog if it's, you know, got a weapon.
I, for one, do not trust robot dogs.
Pit bulls are looking good.
I might get a pit bull to fight the robot dogs.
You've seen that more athletes are doing the Trump dance.
You know the Trump dance.
It's the danciest dance ever.
I love the fact that everybody can do it.
If I see a little viral video on TikTok or something, and I'll see the young people doing these dances where it looks like they're floating over the floor and they're moonwalking like crazy and they're You know, they got all kinds of things going on.
I look at that and I say, hey, I could do that if I spent the next year of my life doing nothing but practicing that one 15-second dance.
But you show me the Trump dance, and I look at that and I go, hold on, people.
Hold on.
There's a dance I could learn pretty quickly.
So let me see if I got it.
Is that it?
Do I have it yet?
I think I'm close.
Probably another week or two of practice.
I could nail that.
Yeah, so U.S. soccer legend Christian Pusilic.
You all know, I mean, obviously you're all huge fans of American soccer, so you would know the names of our best American soccer players, obviously.
So Christian Pusilic.
Very well known in America.
He did the Trump dance after scoring.
So I saw a compilation clip a few times of the various football players and other athletes doing the Trump dance.
And even one of the winners at the UFC. But do you think it's really widespread?
Because when you see it on the news and there's five instances of it, you think, well, this is everywhere.
But there might be five.
So I'm not quite ready to say that it's safe to wear your MAGA hat, and if you do the MAGA dance in front of your school on talent night, you'll be perfectly fine, because I don't think you will.
I still think that hiding might be your better play.
For now.
Unless you're a famous athlete, and then you can do what you want.
According to Geeky Gadgets, OpenAI and Microsoft are making this gigantic new improvement in their AI, ChatGPT.
And this is a big one because they're going to give it near infinite memory capacity.
So if you're training your AI, you can upload much larger documents, but it will remember it all.
Which it doesn't do now.
And if you have a lot of interactions with it, it will remember you basically forever.
So you can build a little agent.
For me, this is the first time it looks like it could be a real product.
The AI that we've seen so far are just for demonstrations and, you know, maybe laugh here or there, a deepfake here or there, maybe make a deepfake of your classmates, but really not much of a product.
However, if you could build an agent that would remember everything it ever learned and you could just train it by talking to it and it would remember everything you said, Apparently, it can also build its own skills.
So you could train it to go out and acquire new skills, and it can sort of grow on its own.
Now, put it all together, and what do you have?
That's right.
We're getting closer and closer to the Scott Bot, where I take my consciousness and my personality, and I move it to a digital forum to live forever.
And no, I'm not joking about this at all.
I don't know if it'll be the ChatGPT model.
But if ChatGPT can do it, I'm sure that others can.
What I don't know if it can do yet is imitate a person.
So I don't think ChatGPT yet can do a deepfake.
Because I need it to do all these things it can do, but also talk like me and look like me.
I don't think it can do that yet.
So maybe it'd have to be two AIs working together or something like that.
But close.
Well, in other news, apparently there's a weather event heading my way.
Let's see, what's it called?
Is it rain?
No.
Let's see, a storm?
No.
It's called a bomb cyclone.
That's right, a bomb cyclone is heading for me.
Northern California, but I'm at one border of what it's going to hit.
Now, I don't have to tell you that I'm not too happy about a bomb cyclone heading my way sometime today.
But if I... I'll tell you, if I walk the dog, I'm not going to let go of the leash because I've got a feeling my dog's going to be like a kite.
I'm just going to be walking around.
Dog will be floating ahead of me.
All right.
So today's the day that Judge Marchand rules something about Trump.
I get all the law affairs confused.
Which one is Marchand?
Is he the...
He's doing which trial?
Tell me which one he is.
I don't care.
So the question I was asked is, do you think Judge Marchand will delay whatever he's doing or drop the case, whatever he's doing?
I forget which one he's on.
And I think my answer is he'll do whatever's bad for Trump.
That's my answer.
If he has any path that's bad for Trump, but also somewhat realistically within the bounds of things he should be doing, You'll do that.
I think that you'll just see something that's whatever is the most negative thing you can do under the circumstances.
So I don't know what that would be, but look for it.
Here's what I don't expect.
Oh, okay, you're president now.
This just needs to go away.
I don't expect that.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Or maybe he'll be postponed until after he's president or something.
But I can't imagine they would take the risk away from him completely.
Because I think they just hate him.
So they would want him to twist as much as he can.
So I looked into a little bit the Trump's pick for energy secretary.
His name is Wright.
And I like it.
According to The Verge, did a little write upon him.
So apparently the energy secretary is an entrepreneur who has made a ton of money and his company does like 10% of the fracking or 10% of the oil, I guess, in the U.S. So he knows everything about fracking, which is good.
But here's the best part.
He also seems to be way up on geothermal because his company also invests in geothermal.
And nuclear.
So he's got investments in a nuclear power plant that Sam Altman's involved with as well.
And then he also says that climate change is not a crisis.
He doesn't say...
Humans are not warming the earth.
He just says it's not a crisis.
Now, that's kind of perfect.
I don't know if I could be happier, honestly, because the thing you worry about in energy, and by the way, let me say this clearly.
There are some jobs where I think you absolutely need experience in the domain.
This is one of them.
I think the energy secretary should know something about fracking, something about geothermal, and something about nuclear, and ideally solar too, although I think that's a little easier to understand.
So, not bad.
I'd be pretty happy with somebody who has that much knowledge.
I don't think that's as important in even jobs like defense.
I think they're a general or generic, very smart person who's got the right intentions, could do fine.
There's lots of examples of that.
I saw this, maybe you saw this on Joe Rogan's show.
He was talking to Special Forces veteran FN Hafer.
Hafer or Hafer?
Hafer or Hafer?
Anyway, he's one of the founders of Black Rifle Coffee, I think.
And he was talking about, with his own experience as a Special Forces guy, he says, if we declare war on the cartel, which is something Trump said he'd do, These dudes are not going to understand what the F is going on.
They're in for a world of ultra-violence that they've never actually felt before.
They have effing no clue if we organize these Tier 1 units against them.
What I would be doing if I were down there, I'd be getting ready to retire right now.
Because if Delta Force is hunting me, bro, I would be so terrified.
Now, is that hyperbole?
Because it seems to me the cartels are quite aware of what violence looks like, but mostly they're doling it out.
So if some came to them from something other than a competing cartel, which of course they have some violence from, I don't know.
How many of you think that the cartel would try to bring the pain to mainland America to see if they could get Delta Force or something off their backs?
Here's what I would suggest, if I could give some advice to the cartels.
If we come after you with the military, it's going to be devastating to you.
If you attack the United States citizens, let's say do some terrorist attack because you're trying to take the pressure off, it's going to be way worse.
Because if you think we're pissed off now, Just do a terrorist attack on mainland United States and then we take it to the ground.
We'll do whatever it takes.
Just one.
Have you seen the United States?
We only need one attack against us and we'll just go crazy.
Have you heard of 9-11?
We spent a trillion dollars after 9-11.
Yeah.
So, if anybody from the cartel is listening, If the special forces come after you, you need to immediately try to make a deal.
Either leave the country or try to make a deal.
But don't attack American citizens because that's not going to work out for you at all.
Not even a little bit will that work out.
So I can promise you that.
So I don't know if this is going to happen.
I do worry that Trump will get the talk, you know, where the special forces boss comes in and says, you know, We kind of have an arrangement with the cartels.
I think that's what's going to happen.
So if I had to predict, I would predict that we will not use special forces against the cartels.
I hate to say it, but that's my prediction.
Thomas Massey and a lot of other people warning about the new aggression that Ukraine is showing toward Russia.
And Biden has authorized these long-range strikes of these long-range missiles that we provided to Ukraine and authorized the use of them within Russia itself, which Russia says, the Kremlin says, that means the United States or, well, NATO, that means that NATO is at war with Russia and they will act accordingly.
Uh-oh.
Now, you're worried about nuclear war, and you're worried about this getting out of hand.
Some have suggested that the reason that Biden authorized this so soon before, you know, or so close to the switchover of power is That his real intention is to handcuff Trump and make sure Trump can't come in and solve a war on day one that Biden couldn't solve.
So, do you believe that?
Do you believe that any part of Biden's intention is to make Trump fail at making peace?
I don't think so.
Because I think this works in Trump's favor.
The closer you get to complete destruction of both countries, or all countries involved, the closer you are to peace.
Unfortunately, that's just the way it works.
If you don't have the threat of, you know, you're definitely going to be dead if you keep on this path.
Like, not any question about it, 100%, you're going to be dead.
That's when people get flexible.
If they think they're not going to be dead, they might Act that way.
But yeah, we need to be at the point where serious people are afraid of nuclear war.
That's how you get peace.
But would you like me to make sure that there's no nuclear war?
Is there anybody who would like to ask me to guarantee that there's no nuclear war between Russia and NATO in the US? I'm willing to do it.
I can do it right now if you like.
All we really need is a blanket.
Some of you will understand this.
Some of you will not.
Those who understand will have to explain it to those who don't.
But here's how we avoid nuclear war.
Russia You know you don't want nuclear war with the United States.
It's literally the last thing you want.
Ukraine?
You know you don't want nuclear war.
It's the last thing you want.
NATO? US? You don't want nuclear war.
It's the last thing you want.
Do you know what all of you do want?
You want the big dog to get off the porch.
You want January 20th to come.
And you want to look as fierce and dangerous as you can be so that when you walk into those negotiations, you have maximum leverage.
And then the big dog's going to make a piece.
And you're going to accept it.
You're going to complain like crazy, but you're going to accept it.
So, Russia and NATO, your two choices are this.
Nuclear destruction of all of civilization, or wait a few weeks and everything will be fine.
Which of those two choices sounds better to you?
Complete nuclear destruction of civilization, Before we even get to Mars?
Or how about we just work it out on around January 20th, 21st?
Something like that.
Now, given that every smart person in the world believes that a negotiated peace is now not only possible but guaranteed, and we know that Putin, as tough and mean as he can be, some say evil, But I'll tell you what nobody accuses Vladimir Putin of.
Being irrational.
Nope.
Not once.
He's not an irrational guy.
Do you know what Trump is not?
Irrational.
You can hate his policies.
You can hate anything he says, his posts, blah, blah.
He's not irrational.
He's very, very transactional.
And so is Putin.
So you've got the two most transactional leaders, the strongest ones, the ones who can get what they want because they have enough clout in their own land to do it.
They both want peace.
They want it a lot.
And, of course, it's going to happen.
So here's what you need to know if you're worried.
We have the lowest chance...
Of nuclear war with Russia right now, between now and, you know, January, mid-January, it's the lowest risk of nuclear war.
It'll never be lower than this.
It's close to zero.
And the reason is that 100% of the people involved can see that simply waiting is almost guaranteed to work, whereas using a nuke is basically death.
We've never seen choices this clear.
So could something accidental happen?
Well, I suppose.
But in terms of intentional nuclear war, it's the lowest risk in your lifetime.
Because it would be the only time that there's no argument for a nuclear war.
The next few weeks.
None.
A few missiles go into Russia.
Sorry, that's not even close.
That's not even close to a nuclear war.
It would be maybe if it were closer to the beginning of the war, or it looked like Russia couldn't win.
Maybe if things were different, it would be dangerous.
But in our current exact situation, you have the lowest risk of nuclear war you've ever experienced in your life, because nobody wants it.
And I think that both sides are probably, one assumes, or at least one hopes, probably...
Both sides are giving a little extra attention to making sure there's nothing accidental that happens.
Because an accidental, any kind of accidental alert that would make one side spooked would be the worst thing you could do.
So they probably have also the most attention they've ever given to making sure there's no accidental thing.
I would imagine that they're testing the red phone every five minutes.
Is that still a thing?
Is there still like literally a phone you can pick up in the White House and Putin's going to be pretty close to picking it up?
Yeah.
They're going to make sure that we have a direct line of communication, that there's no delay, and if somebody gets a false signal one way or the other, you want to be able to call and say, did you just send a new car away?
And we need to say no, or whatever, vice versa.
So we'll be fine.
It's actually the last thing I'd worry about today.
It's not even on my list of things to think about.
You will be fine.
But the only reason you'll be fine is that all the reasonable people Are up in arms, right?
If you just sort of ignored it, that would be the wrong thing.
But being super alert to how big a deal this is, is good.
That's where you want to be.
That's where we are.
All right.
The Gateway Pundit says that people in the DOJ and FBI, at least the officials, are hiring their own criminal defense lawyers ahead of Trump's return.
Now, how often have you hired a criminal defense lawyer when nobody has even accused you of a crime?
Have you ever done that?
Well, nobody's accused me of a crime, and as far as I know, I haven't committed any.
But you know, I think I'd better get myself a criminal defense lawyer.
Well, some of them might be genuinely innocent of all crimes and maybe just worried.
But it sure looks guilty.
Doesn't it?
Now, they're all innocent until proven guilty, so that the standard is innocent.
But if it's really true that they're lawyering up, I feel that on some level they think that there's a real risk.
On some level, I think a lot of people know they were part of a conspiracy.
And I don't know if they know if that conspiracy was legal or not.
Because let's say there was enough evidence for a RICO prosecution.
And it could be in several domains.
Because the Democrats and everything from the military to the mainstream press and the intelligence people, they seem to coordinate on a lot of stuff.
So at what point does the coordination...
If the outcome is something illegal, hypothetically, at what point does the coordination toward that one outcome that's illegal become RICO? So you can see a situation where somebody just took a meeting or took a phone call, and they were sort of in on the plot, but maybe not super actively.
You know, they were just sort of part of the conversation and maybe didn't do something to stop it.
Are they part of the RICO? Can you go to jail for being part of the conversation?
Because the whole RICO is that it's a coordinated group planned activity.
If you're part of the people who are plotting, even if you didn't do the action, but the people who did the action met with you and got some advice and you said, well, I'm not going to stop you.
Are you guilty?
I have no idea.
So, I want to say again, I'll say this many times, because I think the more I say it, the better.
I'm completely opposed to any Trump lawfare.
If I see even the scent of it, I'm going to go nuts.
Because we didn't go through all this work just to put a bunch of assholes in charge.
Right?
We didn't fight this hard to get rid of lawfare just to do our own lawfare.
That's no go.
You better have really, really good evidence of a crime.
You know, the way it should be.
You should have really good evidence of a crime.
And I wouldn't go looking for it if there's not anything that's, you know, somewhat on the surface.
So no, I am absolutely not okay with lawfare as any kind of revenge.
And believe me, I feel like I've been a victim of coordinated activities.
My cancellation, I don't think, happened just all in a vacuum.
I'm pretty sure that was part of the larger Democrat political strategy to cancel everybody they can.
But even then, I don't want anybody who didn't break a law to go to jail.
I want zero of that.
All right, so they got their lawyers.
As Mike Cernovich says on the post, he said, what Democrats did in Pennsylvania gives credence to 2020 stolen election claims.
Future claims will be informed by what we all just saw.
Stolen election deniers.
Oh, we'll call them stolen election deniers, not election deniers.
As we shall call them, now carry the burden of proof.
So what he's talking about is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court told the election board to stop counting illegal votes.
An illegal vote would be one that has, let's say, a non-matching signature or there's something irregular about it that makes it uncountable.
But the election board We decided to just ignore the core order and just keep counting them.
Now, somebody said that it wouldn't be possible to easily back out the ones that are miscounted because maybe they're not separately keeping track of the ones that are illegal in case there's a motion to remove exactly those illegal ones but nothing else.
If they can't tell which ones are illegal and which ones are legal when they're done counting, What's your recourse then?
An audit?
And then you just still don't have an answer about who's the senator?
And it goes on for months?
I don't know.
But to me, I'm going to agree with Cernovich on his take that watching the Supreme Court tell them to stop counting illegal votes and then watching the election board try to do it anyway certainly suggests that rigging is normal.
Meaning that this doesn't look like something that somebody came up with that they never thought of before.
It just has that feeling like You kind of did that a little naturally.
They just kept counting, and they kept finding all these votes.
Well, I personally have no proof that Pennsylvania is going to end up doing something illegal.
But we do know they're violating the order of the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania.
So do you go as far as I do and say that Cernovich is right, that just watching this tells you that 2020 was probably crooked?
Anyway, there are now six Democrat leaders, at least, to say they will not comply with Trump's new government immigration enforcement.
So you've got the Arizona governor, Illinois governor, Colorado governor, Massachusetts governor, and also the mayors of Chicago and Boston, which are obviously in two of those states.
So you've got four states They have some leaders saying that they're going to resist immigration enforcement.
And my question is this, how much can they interfere before they go to jail?
What exactly does it look like when they interfere?
They interfere on what level?
Now, it'd be one thing if they tell their local police, you know, don't talk to the feds.
That wouldn't be surprising.
And maybe that's legal.
Maybe that's okay.
I mean, not okay, but maybe it's not technically illegal.
But what else would they do?
Suppose they tried to hide them.
Suppose the government got involved in hiding illegal immigrants of the kind that we'd want to deport.
Don't you go to jail for that?
Like, at what point is this just jailable offense that you're not going to let the government do the thing that the government is tasked with doing, defending the country?
I guess we'll find out.
Meanwhile, the stock of Alphabet, you know, the owner of Google and more, is down pre-market anyway, because people think that the Trump DOJ will push for Google to sell off its Chrome browser to break its monopoly.
What do you think?
Do you think that Google is going to get broken up by Trump officials?
I don't know.
Are Republicans typically the monopoly busters?
What's the history of monopoly busting?
Has that been more on the left or more on the right?
It's been on the left, hasn't it?
But in this case, Google looks like an enemy to democracy.
So I think the Republicans might look at this as less of a monopoly problem and more of a disinformation problem.
Meaning that if Google can control what you see, they can control the election.
Now, do you remember the...
Do you remember, was it Dr.
Epstein, I think, who said that Google could change an election by quite a few points?
What would happen if Google had not been influencing the election, and mainstream media had not been trying to influence the election, and the fake polls had not been trying to influence the election?
How much could Trump have won by if you took those biasing factors out?
I don't know.
Maybe more.
I'll tell you the thing that is surprising me the most is that Democrats are confessing failure.
And I'm wondering if that's because they don't have current leadership.
If they had leadership, wouldn't they be selling a narrative instead?
So if there was somebody who could say, hey, Democrats, I am your leader.
You should give this messaging.
And they'd say something like, well, the election was actually kind of close if you look at, you know, the 70-some million versus 70-some million.
It is kind of close.
But you're not seeing that so much.
You're actually seeing Democrats saying, we got our asses kicked.
We lost as bad as you can lose.
We better look at what we're doing to see if it's wrong.
I've never seen this.
I've never seen anything like that before.
Now, why do you think it is that they're accepting?
I think it's the lack of leadership, isn't it?
Because if they had a leader, the leader would be telling them to hang tight, stay strong, don't admit any mistakes, kind of immediately regroup.
But there's nothing like that happening.
They are just floundering and flapping around.
And every day that I think that I will be done, enjoying how much they don't understand why they lost, I'm surprised, because once again, another full day of being entertained by Democrats who try to explain to themselves and to others why they didn't win, and they're not even close.
They just don't seem to understand Really anything.
It's like they haven't been around for the last eight years or something.
Like they just landed on the planet.
It's kind of weird.
Now, the reason, of course, is that their information silo was completely fake.
And has been fake for probably a decade at least, if not forever.
So they had no idea what reality looked like.
Can you imagine the size of the mindfuck if you thought that the Trump supporters were a minority of the country?
And like a really serious minority.
And then you found out that they literally outnumbered you.
And all the Hitler-blaming and the fascist stuff and the deplorable stuff didn't make any difference.
Like, imagine waking up to that and your whole reality is upside down now.
Because you don't know if you're one of the bad guys.
And I have some bad news for you, Democrats.
I don't mean this as just like a throwaway comment, insult.
You have been the bad guys.
I don't think it's all intentionally on purpose.
I believe that the media information landscape was so distorted by a few bad actors that you honestly thought the world was a different place than what it is, and then you acted accordingly.
Now, I think that Democrats, in the information bubble that they were in, were acting for the greatest good.
That's what it looks like to me.
It looks like their intentions were entirely based on the greater good.
And if you listen to them talk, that's the way they talked.
You know, this is good for this group, it's good for that group.
Now, of course, it wasn't for the greater good.
It was destroying America.
But they didn't know.
They thought things were going swimmingly because the news that they watched said this Joe Biden thing's got everything under control, his brain is working perfectly, and if anything ever went wrong, God, we're lucky we've got Kamala Harris, the highly qualified vice president, to take over immediately if ever needed.
None of that was ever true.
I don't think anything, probably almost nothing, That was an official claim of the news or the media was true.
Almost nothing.
Now, there's fake news on both sides, obviously.
It's not limited to one side.
But the extent of it, I think, was unparalleled.
I think the Democrats broke some new kind of record for fooling themselves.
What else we got here?
So now Axios, and you're seeing a little grumbling from Democrats saying that if there are millions of deported, undocumented immigrants, if Trump goes ahead with it, it will create gigantic negative effects in the economy.
Meaning that the people who need to pick the crops and do the work, they're not going to have enough workers, and it will be a 6.8% drop in the national GDP. All right.
Do you believe that?
Here's what I think.
I never have any respect for the critics who start with, okay, assume you do everything the stupid way.
And then I want to say, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Stop talking.
No, no, we need to discuss what's going to happen.
Okay, but your assumption was that I was going to do a thing that could easily be done the smart way.
But you're saying, let's start with the assumption that you do it the stupidest possible way.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's do that.
So let's talk about tariffs.
And we're going to put 100% tariffs on everything.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
No, tariffs are a negotiating tool.
So I'm not going to accept your assumption that we would use them in the stupidest possible way, which is put it on everything without thinking about it.
We might do it strategically.
We might try to protect an industry.
We might say we're going to do comprehensive tariffs just as a negotiating tool.
But don't assume that we're going to do a smart thing that could easily be done the smart way, and people have done it the smart way forever, that Trump will be the only one who will do it the dumb way.
So here's how you do immigration the dumb way.
The dumb way would be on day one, go get all the farm workers.
I mean, seriously?
Do you think that the Border Patrol and ICE and those people, do you think they have enough resources to start with the farm workers and that they would and that that would make any sense at all to anybody?
Who would agree with that?
There isn't a person in the world who would do that.
Now, could you imagine that Trump starts with the criminals and maybe people who came in in the last few months?
Yes, easily.
Of course I can imagine that.
So why would you make the assumption that he would do the dumbest thing you could possibly do, which is get rid of the undocumented migrants who are already adding to the GDP? Now, over time, you can imagine that the undocumented migrants picking crops, honestly, we're not going to get Americans to do that.
You can imagine that they slowly get replaced with documented people or their own status gets upgraded so that, hey, you're a good seasonal worker.
There's no reason not to let you in because you show that as soon as the crops are picked, you go back home, you share your money.
We have no problem with that.
So you can imagine that the undocumented farm workers, which are necessary, would over time get transformed into a legal group of people that may or may not come from other countries.
But we're not going to starve the country by rounding up the crop pickers.
Don't assume that we just start stupid and stay that way.
I'm not going to have that conversation.
But that's what the...
The Democrats are trying to make you think past the sale.
The sale is that Trump is going to do the dumbest possible deportation.
No, I do not accept that he would do the dumbest possible deportation.
I will only accept that he would get rid of the criminals and maybe the most recent arrivals first.
And if we could ever get to the end of that pile, which I don't think we can, well, then maybe you look at some other stuff.
But we would do it smartly.
Anyway, according to one report, the US government loses between $200 billion and $500 billion to fraud every year.
To fraud.
Up to half a trillion dollars to fraud every year.
Are you kidding me?
To fraud?
Every year?
What kind of fraud are we talking about?
Anyway, Elon Musk made a comment that maybe Doge can do something about fixing that.
There has to be some kind of transparency change that can happen.
Now, I've been saying forever that the United States is doomed unless we fix this one part of our system.
You cannot have local city officials deciding who gets what contracts.
As soon as you do that, they all turn into criminals, because it's just too easy to give it to your friend and take a bribe.
So I think the law needs to be changed somehow, that there needs to be some either transparency or oversight or something.
But otherwise, all local cities just attract criminals.
It's kind of like I say about shoe salesmen.
If you see somebody who's a shoe salesman who's been working in the ladies' shoes sales department, probably has a foot fetish.
Just saying.
Follow the money.
Follow the fetish.
Well, do you remember Dr.
Deborah Birx from the pandemic days?
Of course you do.
She was sort of a right-hand person to Fauci.
And she says she backs RFK Jr.
for Health and Human Services.
How about that?
And she hopes for transparency.
Well, here's my take.
I don't need and nobody needs your nomination, your backing, Dr.
Birx.
Dr.
Birx is a backer of the drinking bleach hoax.
She was on the stage and listened to Trump very specifically talk about light as the disinfectant and can the light be brought into the body to be disinfectant, which was being trialed at that time.
It was literally being tested or being set up to test at that time.
And she allowed the media to say that he said, how about drinking bleach?
And she never fucking corrected that.
Fucking bitch.
She's one of the people I just hate with a passion.
I just fucking hate this lady.
Because this was a big, big fuck-up.
Not just what you did maybe for COVID. That could be somebody else's problem to do that.
But she stood there and watched one of the biggest hoaxes in America being formed around her and still has never figured out that Trump bookended it with light and He mentioned light, then he talked about the light, and then he made sure that you knew he was talking about the light at the end, while the other ones were talking about something else.
I can't forgive that.
Berks, you need to do something about the drinking bleach hoax, and it's not good enough if you say he didn't use the word bleach.
Because if you turn it into, well, he didn't mean bleach, he meant some kind of liquid household disinfectant.
No, he didn't.
Nobody would say that.
He didn't say that.
He was very specific about what he was talking about.
Light.
Which, by the way, was tested on inserting it down the trachea and it didn't work out.
So the trial was not a success, but it was a perfectly smart question to ask.
Can you do this inside a body?
So Trump had the smart question, the experts were wrong, and the experts went away and told you that the smartest guy there, the one who knew about light being tested inside bodies, was really suggesting drinking fucking bleach.
God, I'm so mad at that.
Dr.
Birx, you need to fix that, and then you can get back on the right side.
Well, we're getting more trickles of information about Matt Gaetz and the ethics charges against him.
So here's what's coming out.
This doesn't mean it's true.
So these are allegations.
And Gaetz being an American citizen is what?
Innocent.
Until proven guilty.
So I'm going to treat him as innocent.
And I want him to be the Attorney General.
If all of these things are true, I don't really care.
Let me be as clear about that as I possibly can.
If every allegation that I tell you is true, I don't care.
It doesn't make any difference to me at all.
And you can't make me care.
You can't guilt me into it.
Now, he may have some legal complications, and it may affect his nomination unless it's a recess appointment, I guess.
But you can't make me care.
All right?
So here's the story.
Two women have testified in front of the House Ethics Committee that Gates paid them for sex.
And that's according to the attorney who represents them.
They were in that very young range, but they were above 18.
There is, however, one seeming...
There was one reported exception.
So there's one young woman who was 18...
Who said that she observed at some party, she turned a corner and allegedly saw Maggie's having sex with her friend, who she had known for a long time, so she would know the friend's age.
So the 18-year-old had a 17-year-old friend.
Most of the people there probably were legal age, but apparently there was one that wasn't.
And the reporting is that there's no reporting that Gates would have known the woman's age.
So nobody says he knew how old she was.
I believe that nobody's making that claim.
So the possibility that he just assumed she was legal age, or maybe should have asked and didn't, but we don't have testimony that he knew.
We do have testimony that when he was told, he immediately discontinued, meaning not just that night, but somebody had been seen more than once.
So we know that as soon as he knew there was an age issue, he stopped.
When she turned 18, Reportedly, it recontinued.
So that would show that he was sensitive to the age, and when it was clear that he knew it, he discontinued.
Now, is that an excuse?
If it sounds like I'm excusing any of his behavior, that's not what's happening.
I'm just describing it.
Just a description.
I'm not making a judgment call.
I'm just describing it.
And apparently there's some Venmo and maybe PayPal records that show that payments were given to some young women and that they say that those payments were for sex.
So, let me add some reality to the world.
How many people who have as much money as Gates, Gates comes from, I think, a wealthy family, so he's got some resources.
How many rich people do you think have paid for sex?
Except in sort of a girlfriend-y situation, not an actual, necessarily a prostitute.
But somebody that they said, you know, if somebody like Dan Bilzerian, you know, he's a famous social media guy, has lots of girlfriends, if he were to pay one of his girlfriends to come and stay for the weekend, and I'm not saying he does, but let's just say he did, would she assume he was paying for sex?
Or would she assume that he was paying for a company and sex was assumed, but it wasn't what he was paying for?
Because there's a little bit of a mind-reading element to it because he may be paying because they don't have money to travel.
So let's say you're a rich guy with a yacht and And you know that if you offer somebody a few thousand dollars, they will have the money to travel to you.
They'll be able to take some time off from their job because you paid them.
And you're both kind of thinking, probably there's going to be some sex.
But then let's say that the young lady says, no, I'm not interested.
And then the rich guy in the yard says, oh, oh, well, I really thought we were on the same page on this, but okay.
I mean, I'm not a rapist, so of course, if you don't want to, you don't want to.
And then maybe they don't get together again.
But here's the surprise.
Maybe they do.
Maybe she says no to sex, and maybe he says, you know what?
I really enjoyed hanging out with you, so I'm going to pay you again.
Same amount, just as if there had been sex.
But this time we'll just hang out.
And if you ever change your mind, then maybe something mutually beneficial will happen.
But, you know, you don't have to.
Here's some money.
The thing that's hard to understand at the non-rich person level is the degree to which rich people live.
Rich man, transfer money to women that's just part of the travel and it's more about the situation.
And whether or not their sex is actually a separate conversation.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, they both know it's for sex.
Yes and no.
They both know that that's an intention.
But it doesn't mean that if the young lady said no, that Matt Gaetz was going to force it, or that he wouldn't pay what he said he was going to pay.
So, in my opinion, these are always consensual, and it's not always about the money, even if money was paid, with sort of an overlying umbrella assumption that, you know, we're both kind of thinking in this direction.
Because it's a separate decision.
The decision of whether you would accept money To be in the company of this person for a weekend is one decision.
And then once you're there, you're still a human being who can make a separate decision about what you want to do with your body, right?
Matt Gaetz does not control anybody's body.
If they say no, it's just no.
That's it.
So is that a case of paying for sex?
How do you rate that?
If you know the money has that sort of intention behind it, but it's not a decision.
There's an intention, which is not illegal, I don't think.
I don't think it's wrong to have an intention.
But the decision can still be completely separate, because I'm sure that they weren't punished or sent home immediately if they said, you know what, I'm not feeling good tonight, or this doesn't work for me.
Now, every now and then I have to stop and say, I'm not excusing anything he did.
I'm also not condemning it, unless, you know, there was an underage part that has to be dealt with.
But you need to understand it.
In the world of the yacht jet setter people, things are not like I bought a prostitute to have sex and she left in an hour.
It's more like, can you spend a week with me in the Bahamas?
And you're both just sort of thinking in the same direction.
I don't know.
So I guess I don't know.
Even if the young ladies testified that the money was for sex, was it?
Because that could be an intention, but not necessarily a decision.
You could separate them.
I don't know.
Legally, it looks like it's pretty perilous.
So I'm not going to try to defend them.
I'm just going to say that these are never as clean as you think.
Like these situations, they always have all this gray area.
So who knows?
But if it's true that he didn't know the age of the young one, and if it's true that he just had a racy situation and money was part of it, I don't care.
I really don't care at all.
Do you?
Because even the 17-year-old, I hate to say this because I'll get in trouble for this, but I don't believe she complained.
Because remember, their relationship continued after she was 18.
So I think she had no complaints.
So if there's no victim in the classic sense, except that somebody was technically under 18, how much should I care?
Can I agree that some of this looks illegal and still not care?
I think I can.
Because if you looked at the number of 17-year-old young women who had a sexual relationship with somebody over 18, it's going to be a really large slice of America, and we're not chasing all of them to ground.
And the reason is that we all have the same impression, which is, I wish you hadn't done that But let's not talk about it.
I mean, that's how people feel about 17.
Most people.
Anyway, celebrity endorsements don't work.
Just the News is talking about this.
So that high-profile celebrities like Oprah and Beyonce and all that doesn't seem to have changed the vote according to, I think, the Center Square did some kind of survey.
They found that 12% said celebrity endorsements made them less likely to vote for a candidate.
And 9% said more likely.
Now, I think people are mostly lying in a poll like this.
I think that people say, no, those celebrities did not affect me because they don't want to look like an idiot whose vote was determined by Beyonce.
So even if your vote was entirely determined by Beyonce, if somebody asks you, hey, are you an idiot?
Well, I'm going to say no.
Because if you admitted that your vote had been changed by, you know, the boss or Oprah, you don't really sound like the smart one in the room.
So I wouldn't trust any answers that people gave to, did those celebrity endorsements influence me?
But clearly it did not win the day.
So I suspect I'm on the page with The Democrats have no idea what Americans are thinking or feeling.
I mean, sensationally so.
If they thought that in 2024, celebrities are what people were looking for for their political fixes, where did they get that?
Like, who in the world thought that?
Now, I do think it's good for both sides to have their share of celebrity endorsements.
So Trump had some, too.
But I think the way you should look at it is, if they couldn't get any, that might mean something.
But if you can get 10, it's not going to be that much different than if you had 20 or 100, right?
It would be something if you couldn't get any.
But if you can get some, that's fine.
They both got some.
Apparently that Venezuelan gang, Trenda Aragua, according to authorities, have already set up operations in 16 states, according to Homeland Security.
They have to go first.
That has to be really...
I would be happy if 100% of our border enforcement was concentrated on this, like all of it.
And I don't know how long it's going to take, but I wouldn't concentrate on anything else, not anything, until you've got all of these, and that's going to take a while.
According to Autism Capital, which is an account on X, The difference in ideology between men and women is just huge now.
The political difference.
And it's in a number of countries.
So it's not just an American phenomenon.
It's the same in Germany and some other countries.
So it used to be that male and female opinion sort of tracked together.
And now it just went...
And just went in opposite directions.
Now, I saw a few different hypotheses on why this was.
Melissa Chen said on X that it's because of feminism and birth control pills.
Now, do birth control pills make you decide and act differently?
I believe so.
So that might be some of it.
I don't know.
Feminism.
Does feminism make women do dumb things?
Well, it's a mixed bag.
Some feminism is good, some bad.
Then Naval Ravikant had a separate idea.
He said the state can substitute for what women want from men, but it can't substitute for what men want from women.
And that captures some of it.
Does it capture all of it?
I don't know.
So it could be that these are both in it, that there's something to both of those theories.
I'm going to add my own.
What we see as this is the hypnotist frame.
So the difference between male and female in politics is fear.
Fear.
Because I've told you that the biggest persuasive variable is fear.
You think that hunger is your biggest driver?
Well, not if a lion is running at you.
You've got to get away from the lion even if you're really hungry, right?
So fear beats everything.
If you can make somebody scared to death, you can get them to do just about anything to get away from the fear.
So now imagine you've got the Democrat Party telling everybody that Hitler's coming and you've got no bodily autonomy, they're going to steal your democracy.
What do men hear when they hear that?
He's Hitler.
He's a fascist.
He's going to steal your bodily autonomy.
What do men say?
Probably not.
Some might say yes, but it wouldn't feel like a direct risk to them so much.
But women would say, oh, my God.
You know, I'm going to lose birth control.
That's not going to happen.
I'm going to lose my bodily autonomy.
That's not going to happen, but you could be afraid of it.
And they may be a little less...
Here's a generalization.
I think this is a fair generalization.
There are probably more men who pay attention to military stuff.
And can maybe interpret what's happening a little bit better because we just pay attention to it.
It's sort of a male thing.
So in the same way that I told you that the safest you've ever been from nuclear war is right now.
That's a male perspective.
Because I really look at these things all the time.
And it doesn't make me a genius, but I pay attention.
Whoever pays attention the most to any domain is going to have a little advantage.
I pay attention to the military domain.
So when I say that this is the safest you've ever been, I believe a lot of men probably say something like, oh, I get it.
Well, let me check.
How many men heard me say that this is literally the safest we could ever be because you just have to wait a few weeks and it goes away and everybody knows that?
How many of you said, oh, that's a good point?
And did anybody agree with that, by the way?
It'd be good if some of you agreed with it.
But if you did not follow politics and you did not follow Military stuff.
And the only thing you heard was that there was a talking head on MSNBC who says that something happened that moved us closer to nuclear war.
Because I'm seeing social media people saying, it's now 1159, you know, the last minute of human race because of this.
If that's all you heard, you'd be scared to death.
If somebody just told you, yeah, we're attacking Russia and they threatened with nuclear war, and that's all you knew.
How afraid would you be?
Quite afraid.
So my hypothesis is that men are harder to scare.
We're just harder to scare.
But on top of that, we also don't get abortions, and we're not the ones having the babies, so there's just some things we're not worried about.
So I think that it makes sense that since what we think is true about politics is usually a bunch of lies, When men hear the lies that are supposed to scare them, it doesn't scare them as much.
So they can stay on course.
When women hear, we're going to take your bodily autonomy and there's going to be a nuclear war.
If they're not really paying attention to the news, that's the scariest shit you've ever heard in your life.
I mean, that's some really, really scary shit.
So they're going to vote against it.
It makes perfect sense.
So I will add to the Naval...
Which I think is valid, that women are looking to the state for things that men used to provide, you know, the husband used to provide.
That's valid.
And I think that feminism and birth control certainly are changing the way thoughts are being formed.
So that's in the mix somewhere.
But I just think, generally speaking, men are less easy to scare.
I think that's the big difference.
All right.
I hate to even bring this up, but I guess I have to.
So according to the Vigilant Fox, there's a bombshell autopsy study.
Now, before I tell you what it says, let me give you my opinion that there's no data That comes out about the pandemic or the COVID that's credible.
Some of it will be true.
Some of it will not.
But I won't know which is credible and which isn't, or which is true and which isn't.
So therefore it's not credible.
Credible is different from true.
So I'm going to tell you what the story is, but I'm also going to tell you personally, might be true, might not be.
So I'm not sold.
But I could be.
I could be later sold.
I'm not sold yet.
But the report is that autopsies show that COVID vaccines are the larger cause of death than even the virus itself.
So it's a study that's been twice peer-reviewed.
So that means a lot, right?
It's a study that was twice peer-reviewed.
Okay, let me explain.
Peer-review just gives you no confidence whatsoever.
It does mean it's not so obviously stupid that it shouldn't be in the conversation.
It doesn't mean it's real.
Peer-review just looks at surface-y kind of things.
So if on the surface there was nothing amazingly bad about it, they'd say, well, it's peer-reviewed.
You'd have to duplicate it and make sure you knew your data was good before you could have confidence.
But here is the claim.
74% of the deaths were linked to the vaccination instead of the COVID. Do I believe that?
No.
No, I don't.
Is it possible that it's true?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, it is.
So this is the credibility thing.
I just don't believe any of the pandemic data or conclusions, any of it.
It's just so filled with misinformation, I wouldn't know what's real and what's not.
And peer review doesn't help me at all.
I'm sorry, peer review gives me no confidence at all.
Of the COVID vaccine-related deaths, a sudden cardiac arrest, died suddenly, was the leading cause of deaths, 35% of cases.
Do I believe that?
Nope.
But it's also possible.
I just don't believe it on the surface.
COVID vaccine-related deaths occurred rapidly, averaging within two weeks, basically.
And the majority happened within a week.
Now, that I believe...
That sounds, well, I would say that's within the realm of possible, because my understanding is, when the vaccination first came out, the expert said, if you're looking for how dangerous it is, look for what happens in the first few weeks.
Because overwhelmingly, It's predictable that if it's going to kill people, it's going to be kind of fast.
There might still be longer-term problems, but most of the risk is that first two-week period.
So, that's why, although I did get the first two vaccinations, that's why I waited.
So I waited six months, I think six months after I was eligible.
And the reason I waited was, first two weeks, I want to see who dies.
I'm not going to be first in line.
Month goes by.
I'm not sure I trust the data.
Two months, three months, six months.
And it wasn't until I just really wanted to travel internationally that I decided it was time to take the risk.
But it makes sense that if there were injuries, they would happen in the first two weeks more often than after.
All right.
But there's other research.
Again, I have no idea how believable this is.
But there's some study by, let's see, independent investigator John Bedoin, Sr., highlighting findings by Kevin McKernan, a researcher from blah, blah, blah.
And they say the vaccines were causing turbo cancer, basically.
And the turbo cancers would grow more aggressively than typical ones, and they would affect your lymph nodes.
In bone cancer, specifically mentioned lymph nodes and bone cancer.
What do you think of that one?
Well, it doesn't seem to come with data.
So, I think I'd have to see the data.
Because cancer is the number one or number two killer.
So, And I think I saw a number that half of all people get cancer.
Have you ever heard that?
That half of adults will get cancer.
Now, a lot of it is treatable, so they're not necessarily dying from it, but half of them would get cancer.
So if half of people normally get cancer, I don't know how well we could sort out You know, what's caused by what.
So, but again, do I think this is credible?
No.
Do I think it's false?
No idea.
But I don't believe anything that comes out of the pandemic or anything about the vaccination.
Am I concerned that it could be true?
Yes, I am.
I may have more to tell you about that in the coming months.
But yeah, I'm worried about it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, those are my prepared remarks.
And I hope I didn't miss anything.
But don't worry about nuclear war.
I got this.
I took care of it for you.
I do worry about how we handle all of our healthcare decisions in the future.
Oh, by the way, if you want to hear the greatest irony, at the same time that the vaccinations are being alleged, and again, I don't believe the allegations, I don't discount them, But I don't have any way to know.
At the same time that the vaccinations are being blamed for causing turbo cancer, what would be the most ironic matching news?
What news would go with that that would be so 2024, like this simulation?
Here it is.
There are increasing anecdotal, these are still anecdotal, stories of people who have completely tamed their turbo cancer with ivermectin.
Is that just perfect or what?
Now, do I know that ivermectin works against cancer?
No, I do not know that.
So I'm not making that claim.
I'm not your doctor.
Don't take my word for anything.
It is true that there are an increasing number of anecdotal claims of somebody who was in stage four or stage five, had tried all the regular things, none of them worked.
Went on ivermectin, or there's another one like it, some other name that's similar to ivermectin.
And there are anecdotal cases of people who are still around who shouldn't be around.
So, wouldn't that be the weirdest, most perfect simulation?
That ivermectin, of all the things in the world, of all the things, How could it be possible that that might be the solution to the extra or even any cancers?
That would be weird.
But since you live in some kind of a weird simulation, obviously, maybe, you know, one of the things that makes me think I live in a simulation is I see people who appear to be living a purchased experience.
If you look at Trump's life, Doesn't he look like the life that somebody signed up and they paid a lot of money to experience what it would be like to be Trump for 80 years, however long he lives?
And Elon Musk?
Doesn't Elon Musk's life look like literally an adventure he signed up for?
Alright, here's your adventure.
You're going to be the richest man on Earth.
You're going to build electric cars, batteries.
You're going to be helping the president.
Yeah, you'll be hanging out with the president pretty much every day.
He'll be listening to you, of course.
You'll be building a rocket ship to Mars to make us interplanetary.
Now, how in the world does that happen naturally?
It sounds exactly like a pre-written path that somebody signed up for, and now he's just enjoying the path he went on.
Take me, for example.
I have not had a problem-free life, but what are the odds that at six years old I knew I would be a famous cartoonist?
How did I know that?
How did I also know that I would spend lots of time talking to large audiences, but not about cartooning necessarily?
And then here we are.
How did I know that was going to happen when I was a child?
Did I make it happen because it was in my head?
You know, how did Tiger Woods know he was going to be a golfer at like two?
It feels like he signed up for that adventure.
And, you know, when I became a famous cartoonist, it didn't seem real.
It just seemed like some adventure I'd signed up for, and suddenly everything just came to me in ways that I couldn't have predicted.
So, if most of the world are NPCs, but some of us are game players, then I may have at least one more mission.
Because I was thinking, if I had signed up for this life...
And it was sort of mapped out.
I said, all right, at this age, you're going to do this.
At this age, you're going to solve this problem for some people.
At this age, you'll help people lose weight or something.
Weird things that I would never have predicted would be in my resume.
And then when you get to a certain age, what?
The adventure just ends.
I feel like I've got at least one good adventure left in me.
And it's just sort of like tapping me on the shoulder.
Now, I know what it is, but you don't know yet.
But, man, am I getting tapped on the shoulder hard.
So, we'll find out.
I feel like I'm going to find out for sure if this is a simulation.
Because I'm on a path to trying something.
That if it works, it's going to blow your fucking mind.
If it doesn't work, well, maybe I wasn't in a simulation after all.
But we'll see.
More on that later.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go talk to the people on Locals privately because they're so awesome.
The rest of you I'll see tomorrow.
Those of you on X and Rumble and YouTube, thanks for joining.
