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, Happiness, Cognitive Decline, Non-GMO Diet, Bean Popularity, Peer Review Betting, WaPo Financial Losses, WaPo Purpose, President Trump Popularity Poll, Charles Barkley Democrats Stupid, Joy Reid, Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz AG Value, Scott Jennings, Al Sharpton, Dr. Oz, Voting App, Linda McMahon, Pentagon UAP Director Testimony, Ashton Forbes, Matt Gaetz Ethics Report, FBI Director Nominees, Mike Rogers, Mike Benz, Kash Patel, Oregon Vote Change Legality, SPLC Doxxing, Not The Bee Website, CISA, 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
I can't start this show when I've got a little itch on my back where I can't reach it.
Hold on.
Oh, God.
Oh!
And that's why you have a telescoping backscratcher at your desk.
Get one.
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to a level that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine is the thing that makes everything better.
It's called what?
Simultaneous sip.
That's right.
Go.
Ah, sip-tastic.
All right, well, you know what I usually do.
I usually start the live stream with some science updates and then I say something like, well, you could have just asked me because it was obvious what the result of that scientific study was going to be.
But now, instead of showing off all of my scientific knowledge, I'm going to ask you, dear viewers, to see if you can get these ones right.
I'll tell you what the study was, and then you tell me what the result of the study was.
You ready?
Okay.
Study, according to PSYPOST, There was a study to find out if people tend to mate, or at least become girlfriend, boyfriend, or get married, are they more likely to be attracted to people of similar physical attractiveness?
Now, I'm not saying that you wouldn't be more attractive to somebody who's more attractive than you, but when you actually get together, When you actually pair off, are you more likely to pair off with somebody who's in your relatively same range of attractiveness?
And the answer is, of course you are.
Did you really need to do a study for that?
You know, unless one of you is super rich or something, no.
People pair off with people that are roughly in their neighborhood.
Why would you do otherwise?
If you pair off with somebody who's just way out of your range, they're going to cheat on you.
Because sooner or later, they're going to be, wait a minute, how did you trick me into marrying you?
I'm so much better.
Yeah, no, people find people who are similar.
Here's another one, also from SciPost.
They were studying to find out if people are attracted to altruistic behavior.
So if you were in a situation where you were single and you saw somebody of your preferred gender, the one you like, and they were being kind and altruistic, doing something that's like a favor for somebody else, would that attract you?
What do you think?
Did they need to do this study?
No, they didn't need to do the study.
Of course it attracts you.
Of course.
People being nice to other people?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay, we didn't need to waste any money on that one.
All right, here's another one.
They're going to get tougher.
All right, those were easy.
Here's a tough one now.
Somebody studied vitamin D supplementation, vitamin D. Do you think it was helpful to have more vitamin D? Was your health better if you had more vitamin D? Yes, it was.
Have you ever seen a vitamin D study where they said, you know, we studied the hell out of it.
We couldn't find any difference in your health.
It's like it didn't matter if you took it or not.
No, every single study shows it's good for your health.
But specifically, it's good for your acute respiratory tract infection.
Huh, an acute respiratory tract infection.
Sounds like COVID, which we already know vitamin D is very important for protection.
All right, you're three for three.
No science was needed.
You all knew the answer to that before you even saw it.
Here's one.
All right, there was a study on erectile dysfunction meds.
So meds to get your stuff stiff.
And was it associated with more deaths?
And cardiovascular disease and dementia, or fewer deaths.
All right?
This one's a tough one.
So erectile dysfunction meds, like Viagra, and the likes.
There's two kinds to death.
Tadalafil and Sildenafil.
So, were those associated with making you healthier in general, or did they have a negative effect?
What do you think?
I'm seeing more deaths, fewer deaths.
More, fewer.
The answer is that both of these drugs are super effective at keeping you alive.
Apparently, listen to these numbers.
This is from UTMB Health Study, according to the Montgomery County Police Reporter.
So mortality overall was reduced 34% with Tadalafil and 24% with Tadalafil.
Did you see that?
Let me just say that again.
Taking these erection dysfunction medications for men, it reduced their mortality by 34%.
And the worst one was 24%.
Are you kidding?
Heart attacks were down 27% with one, 17% with the other.
The one that gives you the best benefit is the one that lasts longer.
So I guess Tadalafil lasts longer.
So the more you do, the better are the benefits.
So the one that lasts longer gives you substantially more general health benefits.
Strokes are down 34%.
Or 22% with the other one.
Venus thrombombolism is down 21%, which is very important because I felt a little Venus thrombombolism coming on.
I feel it.
I feel some thrombombolism right now.
And how about dementia?
32% reduction in dementia because you've got ED meds.
Now, I'm going to tell you something that I'm at that place in life where I can be useful.
Have I ever told you that I just try to be useful?
It's one of the best hacks for happiness.
If you can be useful, To other people, ideally your family, the people you're close to, but if you can be useful to anybody, it's going to make you feel good.
I'm going to tell you something that the doctors don't tell you, because they're not hypnotists.
They're doctors.
And even the scientists won't tell you this, because they're scientists.
But number one, are you ready for this?
So this is in the category of the things you can't say if you're worried about being embarrassed.
But I'm not.
I'm past all of that.
Number one, if you're in your late 50s or 60s and you're not taking one of these meds, you're crazy.
You're crazy.
Because I get it that everybody's different, so some of you will be exactly like you're 25 years old when you're 70.
But not most of you.
Not most of you.
So here's the first thing.
If you think it's embarrassing or it's like, you know, somehow your ego is lessened, don't think about any of that.
It's like one of the best drugs of all time.
Trust me.
Number two.
Number two.
The scientists will tell you And by the way, I don't know anybody my age who doesn't take it.
I think pretty much everybody my age, if they have any kind of anything going on, pretty much all of them.
So that's the first thing.
You need somebody who's not embarrassed to tell you that at a certain age, it might be different for you, but at some age, oh, you should absolutely definitely be taking these drugs.
Now, you know how I always tell you I don't give you medical advice?
This is not medical advice.
It's social.
It's relationship advice.
You still need to go through your doctor to get them.
You can't get them over the counter.
So your doctor will tell you if it's a good idea medically.
What I'm telling you is lifestyle and relationship, go do this.
Trust me, there are like several, let's say, Let's say 100,000 people listen to this live stream recorded as well as live.
And of 100,000, I probably just...
It's dramatically improved the lives of about 5,000 people.
Is that cool?
It's one of the things you get to do if you have a live stream.
It's just something that maybe you hadn't thought about that way, or maybe you had some hesitation, or you told yourself, oh, I don't need that.
I'm a man.
I don't need that little pill.
Oh, it's the best thing ever.
It's the best thing ever.
Here's the second thing they don't tell you.
You know how they always tell you?
But it's not going to change your arousal.
It'll only allow your body to react to being in the mood.
So it doesn't put you in the mood.
It only allows your body to respond if you're in the mood.
Is that what you all understand?
Everybody understand it that way?
It doesn't put you in the mood.
It simply allows you to be in the mood if you were going to be there anyway.
Totally false.
100% false.
Let me explain.
I don't know why science is so dumb on this.
Let me explain this.
There are two things that make me happy.
Being happy and then pretending I'm happy.
If you pretend you're happy, it makes you happy.
If your body feels good, it makes your brain feel good.
If your brain feels good, sometimes even that will make your body feel good.
Your brain and your body are the same device.
We only separate them...
Why?
I don't know.
Just because there are schools for brain surgery and a different school for setting bones that are broken, I guess.
So we have these human reasons for saying that the brain is separate from the body.
But in all practical ways, they're just one unit.
So here's what I'm going to tell you that every hypnotist will agree with.
By the way, usually there are a few hypnotists watching because they know I talk about this content.
Watch.
If there's anybody who's a psychologist or a hypnotist, you're going to agree with what I say right now.
If your body starts reacting in a sexual way, your brain will just follow it.
Yeah.
No, they're completely lying when they say it doesn't put you in the mood.
Because if taking one of those pills causes you to feel a reaction, which would be normal, you'd just be like, oh, I feel a little reaction there and there's almost nothing going on.
It immediately puts you in the mood.
You can't have an erection and not be in the mood.
It's just almost impossible.
So when they tell you it doesn't put you in the mood, it's true that it's not designed for that.
And it would be true that if you had just some horrible traumatic experience, it's not going to help you because the traumatic experience would be too big.
But if you're just having a normal day and your brain is not in the sexiest mood, the pill will put you in the mood.
Now, I'm not going to say it's 100% of the time, but it's close to 100%.
Look at the reactions.
So the people who are brave enough to say, oh yeah, I use it, it's great.
So here's what I'm doing for you.
I'm going to take the embarrassment part out.
It's tremendous.
Talk to your doctor about the health part of it.
I can't recommend that.
But lifestyle-wise...
Oh my God.
Yeah, you'd be crazy not to be honest.
After a certain age, you'd be crazy.
All right, here's the next one.
Science question.
According to the Marijuana Herald, damn it, I gave away the answer.
Shoot.
I shouldn't have told you who the source was.
The source totally gives it away, but here's the question.
Is cannabis use associated with more or less cognitive decline over your lifetime?
The people who smoke a lot of marijuana, do they have more cognitive decline than average or less cognitive decline since everybody has some decline?
What do you think?
That?
That?
I see both?
I see huh?
I see less?
I see more?
So here's how you should have known the answer.
The source was the Marijuana Herald.
Do you think the Marijuana Herald is going to report about a study that makes you die from marijuana?
Because I think the Marijuana Herald is kind of pro-marijuana.
Just guessing.
So the answer is that there's a pretty big difference.
The regular marijuana users maintain their cognitive abilities substantially better than non-users.
How many of you would have guessed that?
It's substantial.
Now, in both cases, you will lose some cognitive function over time, but the heavy weed smokers only lose a little bit.
The people who don't smoke it at all, a much bigger chunk.
I bet you didn't see that coming, did you?
Now, of course, I believe all science that agrees with whatever I want to, you know, whatever's good for me.
So, it may not be true, but I choose to believe it for recreational belief.
I will tell you that my experience of it is exactly that.
My experience of it is that it's keeping me more cognitively sharp.
Like, I can actually feel that.
But that's anecdotal.
All right, here's one.
There are reports, I was reading this on the X account, VigilantFox, which is a real good follow if you want to follow lots of good updates and stories and stuff.
VigilantFox, all one word.
Anyway, there's a story of a doctor who would routinely prescribe non-GMO diets, no matter what the patient came in for.
So it was a doctor who, if he came in for, you know, joint pain or digestive problems or fatigue or anything else, she would treat you in the normal way that you get treated.
But in addition, she would say you should eat non-GMO foods.
Now, I'm not so sure that non-GMO foods make a difference.
I am sure that highly processed foods are bad for you.
Pretty sure sugar is bad for you.
I don't know exactly what GMO I don't know why a GMO would be bad for you.
Maybe.
I'm not saying it isn't.
I just don't know one way or the other.
But the report is just enormous health benefits across a whole range of things by getting people to switch to non-GMO diets.
I'm not sure this is real.
It makes me wonder if what really happened is when they went to non-GMO, Maybe what they really did was they just cut down on junk food.
Maybe people were just more alert to what they were eating, which would make a big difference to all these categories.
So that part, I believe, if you just took a bunch of people and said, all right, stop eating junk food and only start eating these certain kinds of foods, I can see that that would work.
I'm just not convinced that the GMO part of it is the active ingredient.
It might be.
So, I would say this is science that should just make your eyebrow go up, but certainly not confirmation of anything.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal says that beans are getting...
A big boost.
Apparently, people are eating more beans and it's becoming more of a social media thing and people are talking about which beans they're eating.
And I guess beans are real good for you.
You know, beans and peas and lentils.
So that's good.
The nation is eating more beans.
All right, here's one.
Let's see if you can guess this.
This will be the last scientific guess one.
There was a study, according to The Guardian, to find out if it's true, what everybody assumed to be true, that most psychopaths are men, and that therefore there's a far greater number of psychopaths who are men than women.
Was that confirmed?
Or did they find out that there are just as many psychopaths who are women?
It's just that they use their powers differently.
Which is it?
The answer is, there's a suggestion that it might be closer to a tie.
Meaning that when we assess psychopaths, we tend to assess them on male criteria.
Violence, right?
When you think of a psychopath, you think about, oh, would you do some violent thing and then not feel bad about it?
That tends to be more of a male behavior in general, violence.
But if you change what you're looking for, such as, let's say, verbal violence, you know, somebody who would say something that would be terribly damaging to somebody, but you wouldn't care, suddenly it's closer to a tie, right?
Yeah.
So women, according to this study, would be, the psychopaths would be down for violence that's more like the social violence, and men might be more inclined to the physical violence, but still psychopaths.
So way more psychopaths than we thought, according to the Guardian.
Here's a cool thing.
The University of Innsbruck, they're experimenting to see if they could use a betting market to guess which studies in science could be duplicated.
So, you know, there's this gigantic problem of peer-reviewed studies that when somebody else tries to duplicate them, they don't work, which means that peer review is kind of broken.
Well, apparently, if you say to the science instead of, how about a peer review, if you just made the paper available and then you said, hey, let's bet on whether this is reproducible.
Turns out that the scientists do a pretty good job of betting which ones are reproducible.
Now, that would be, I think, a great addition to the whole stuff, the whole science.
I'd love to at least add that bit of information.
Wouldn't you love to know if there's a new study and, let's say, hypothetically, 75% of the experts who look at it think, eh, I don't think that one's going to get reproduced.
Wouldn't you like to know that?
That feels pretty useful.
I mean, as long as you know it's statistical and it's not a guarantee, it just means that this one's not likely to work out in the long run.
I think that'd be good to know.
Anyway, CNN is shocked to learn that X went from being when it was Twitter.
It had 65% of Twitter users were Democrats.
Did it feel like that to you?
In the Twitter days, did it feel like two-thirds of the users were Democrats?
Maybe it did.
Maybe it did.
But at the moment, it's a tie.
So Democrats 48%, Republicans 47%.
Does it feel like it's a tie now?
It does not.
So whatever the algorithm is doing, it's completely closing me off for many Democrats.
Rarely do I have any encounter with a Democrat on social media.
I've got 1.2 million followers.
Almost never run into a Democrat.
Now, I'm exaggerating a little bit, not much.
It's got to be 20 to 1, 100 to 1, something like that.
So that's interesting.
That's working out.
But meanwhile, there's a competitor to X. I think this is Jack who left Twitter.
And I think he started, but it's called Blue Sky and they got 20 million users.
But they're already running into so many bad posts that are getting reported that they're overwhelmed with bad material.
So they're struggling with that.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is set to lose $77 million just this year.
And that was before the boycott erupted, when Jeff Bezos, the owner, said that he wasn't going to endorse Kamala Harris.
And after he said that, they lost a quarter million subscribers.
Holy shit!
They lost a quarter million subscribers because Bezos said he wasn't going to pick favorites and just sort of give you the news.
And that's a lot of people who weren't watching it for the news.
They were watching it because it agreed with them.
So let me say this about that.
If this were a business, the Washington Post, and Jeff Bezos was saying to himself, hmm, I'd sure like to make sure this business is successful and makes me some money, do you think he'd still be in this business?
The answer is no.
It's very obvious to anybody who's got the tiniest bit of business experience that this is not a business you could probably fix.
I'm sure it's pretty unrecoverable.
It's purely a drain on the assets of whoever owns it.
Fortunately, Bezos can afford it.
But I think we can stop pretending that it's a real business.
Can't we?
I think if you're going to lose $77 million every year, and there's no real realistic way that that's going to go to a positive number.
I mean, really, there's no way that's going to happen.
But it's still in business.
What's that tell you?
Well, it tells you for sure the purpose of it is not to make money, so it's not running as a business.
And I'm not entirely sure that the purpose of it is to give you better information.
I've got a feeling the purpose of it is pure propaganda and brainwashing.
Because it's the only thing that would be worth that much money to somebody, right?
If you had that much money, it might be worth it.
Because you can change, you know, the whole nature of the government by changing people's minds through the media.
But even Jeff Bezos, I don't think he'd pay $77 million a year just to have this kind of influence, when he could probably do it in a hundred different ways.
So I just feel like he's under duress.
I mean, everything about this screams the government is making him do it.
You know, some element of the government is saying, you have to do this or else forget about your government contracts.
It just feels like he's underdressed because it doesn't make sense otherwise.
There's no argument for it otherwise.
Anyway, according to a Harvard-Harris poll, Post-millennial is reporting that Trump's approval rating, he had 54% with registered voters.
Does that sound real?
Do you believe that Trump is at 54%?
I've never heard of anybody at 54%.
Has there ever been a president at 54%?
Maybe Reagan for 10 minutes?
Maybe the first Bush for 10 minutes when he went into Iraq?
54%.
Do you know how crazy that is?
I mean, normal would be 35.
To go from 35 to 54, I've never even seen that.
I don't think I've ever seen it.
You can see it when a war starts, because it's just everybody getting behind the leader, but you don't see it before somebody takes office.
That's crazy.
I wonder if that's going to be repeatable.
I wouldn't be surprised.
I would say that if it turns out that's a real number and you see it more, I wouldn't be surprised.
But I'm a little skeptical.
Charles Barkley has some kind of a podcast, or he was on one.
I saw a clip where he was mad at Democrats.
He doesn't call himself a Democrat.
He's an independent.
But he voted Democrat.
And he talked about how the Democrats had no policies, and they were just trying to use celebrities to get votes, but their messaging and their policies were bad.
And he finally just summarized it all by saying, quote, you lost because you're all stupid.
Now, he voted for stupid.
I feel like you should get him a shirt that says, I voted with stupid.
Now here's what I need to add to this.
You've heard me say it before, that Trump is unusually well tuned to his base, at least the base, you know, the country in general, but the base for sure.
And when the base changes its opinion, he immediately is alerted to it.
He immediately takes it into his consideration.
And often we've seen him, you know, pivot because the base said, ah, that's more than we can handle.
And then he pivots.
So Trump, I would say, is the opposite of a strongman dictator type.
He presents that way to the rest of the world, and that's what we pay him to do.
So of course we want him to look like a strong leader to the rest of the world.
But internally, and by the way, no Democrat would know this, that this is something that all Republicans seem to have had experience with.
We can almost feel that The opinion of his base influencing Trump in real time and then vice versa.
I mean, it's just so connected.
The connection between the voters and the candidate is uncanny, really.
I've never seen anything like it.
And so when I see Charles Barkley say that the Democrats were stupid, now I get that he's not one of them because he's an independent, but he did vote that way.
And here's what I would say.
If the Democrats were not giving you the right candidate, and they were not giving you policies, and they were doing dumb things like putting celebrities on instead of whatever you thought they should be doing, like more podcasts for example, that's a little bit on you, the voters, isn't it?
If Trump had made a whole bunch of nominations that I hated, And he had so much time and we're all watching and paying attention and it's in the news.
I would say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not just Trump.
The base has to explain why they're okay with it.
Because if the base was completely not okay with something, it probably won't happen, nomination-wise.
So to Charles Barkley, I would say, I think you're halfway there.
I love Charles Barkley as just a public figure.
He's just one of the most entertaining, genuine people of all time.
I'll watch Charles Barkley on anything.
It doesn't matter what it is.
If he's on, I'll be like, okay, I'm watching.
So...
But I would like him to be open to the idea that the base needs to support the candidate as much as the candidate needs to support the base.
Now, I never would have said that 10 years ago because I didn't know it could work any other way than the way it always works, which is there's a candidate and we watch him.
But in the Trump world, the public and the candidate are just so connected that when one moves, the other moves, and then they're guardrails to each other.
Anyway, so I won't go so far as Charles Barkley did to say that Democrats are stupid.
Because, you know, now that they lost the election, we would expect, obviously, duh, they're going to make smart corrections.
So if they were stupid, they would just do the same damn thing again.
All right?
I mean, it's sort of the definition of crazy.
So we can count on them doing something, changing it up.
So Breitbart is reporting that there's a new poll that Showing who the Democrats want for 2028.
Well, here it is.
Okay, so here's the correction.
So their top choice by far for a 2028 candidate was Kamala Harris.
Okay, she's got 41%, and the next best has 8%.
Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, 7%.
Buttigieg, 6%.
Tim Wall, 6%.
Okay, I take back everything I said.
Apparently, Charles Barkley is just correct.
They're just stupid.
And they seem to be intent on running Harris again.
How much do you love that?
If you're a Republican, you're probably thinking, we should start running a prank now to say how afraid we are that Kamala would be the next candidate.
Oh, God.
God, no.
No, not Kamala Harris.
She's so experienced.
She'll win this time.
Meanwhile, Joy Reid says Tulsi Gabbard is in a religious cult.
Nice.
Nice, Joy Reid.
Now, I asked my digital device what religion Tulsi Gabbard is, and I don't know what it is.
So some of it seems to have a Hindu element to it, and some of it has some Christian element to it.
I don't know.
But As Joy Reid correctly said, people's religion is none of your business.
So I agree with Joy Reid on that.
You can have any religion you want in the United States as long as you're not hurting other people.
However, why did you have to bring it up?
What's the cult?
Why do you get to say your religion's a religion and my religion's a cult?
Who gets to determine who the cult is and who isn't?
If you have more people, you're not a cult.
If suddenly, if Tulsi Gabbard's form of religion, whatever it is, if that became the dominant one in the world and two billion people were practicing it next year, would that make it a religion?
Or is it still a cult?
When you see somebody call somebody else's religion a cult, that's such a red flag.
For craziness or something.
Anyway, so the Democrats and the pundits who have been wrong about literally everything for 10 years have a new thing to be wrong about.
And their new thing is that the reason that Trump has picked Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, when he's so provocative and he's so controversial, They say that the reason is to, and the intention, and it's very well thought out, this is not accidental, but the intention from Trump is to humiliate and break the will of any Republicans who still might oppose him.
That's some of the best thinking on the Democrat side.
That the reason he wants Matt Gaetz is so he can break the will of the other Republicans.
That might be one of the worst opinions I've ever seen.
Let me explain it to you if there's even one Democrat watching this, which I doubt.
Why would Trump want Matt Gaetz?
He's been law-fared for what?
Six years?
How many years in a row has Trump been law-fared?
A lot.
The number one thing you want is to put a pit bull in that job who is loyal to you And that's it.
You need a pit bull.
So if somebody picks a pit bull and says, I want my pit bull, the one who's going to be loyal to me, but might bite you in that job, I would say that's the perfect choice.
Now, it's not like he doesn't have a law degree, he's practiced law, he's been in Congress for a long time, knows politics inside out.
Yeah, he's the right person.
If I were Trump, I'd be picking him.
And the last thing I'd think about The last thing I'd think about, it wouldn't even be on my list of variables, is what the other Republicans thought about it.
I mean, the Republicans that were not already on his side.
Because sure enough, all the ones who agree with him anyway said, okay, I understand why you're doing that.
Makes perfect sense.
And by the way, if these were normal times and Trump had not been targeted by these very entities, I don't think that Matt Gaetz would be the right choice.
I want him because he's the wrong choice, if you know what I mean.
If all you wanted was somebody to go in there and just keep the lights on, just keep things going in a normal way, probably you'd look for somebody with more direct experience.
But if you need somebody to rip the shit out of this completely rotted, corrupt garbage, then I'll take Matt Gaetz all day long.
I need somebody who's, you know, if you want to get rid of some pests in your house, you want somebody who can crawl under your house.
You don't want somebody who's going to walk around and say, I don't know, seems like kind of scary under the house, so good luck.
No, I want somebody who's going to get in there and do some damage.
Damage meaning productive damage.
I'm not, you know, I'm not for chaos.
Well, I'm enjoying, and I probably say this too often, watching Scott Jennings, often the lone Republican voice on CNN. He is enjoying himself way too much.
So part of the show is that he's unusually good at communicating his side of things.
But what makes it extra good?
Is that he's so darn likable and he can't get the smile off his face, especially when he's right.
And he's like, really, really right?
Which happens often.
So here he was mocking the CNN panel.
He said, quote, I'm amazed.
First Biden, now Mika and Joe.
Everyone wants to meet literally Hitler.
All the pre-election fascism and Nazi talk from Democrats was just BS. If I were a Democrat voter, I'd ask, did you just lie to me for six weeks?
No.
Come on, Scott.
The Democrats didn't just lie to you for six weeks.
No, it's been six years, Scott.
Six years.
And yes.
The Democrats have been lied to by their leaders, really lied to, like super, super lied to, for years.
And maybe they just figured it out.
So I love the fact that there's no comeback to this, really.
I haven't seen anybody successfully answer the question, if you thought he was Hitler yesterday...
Why are you playing nice with him today?
There is no answer to that, except we lied to you the whole time.
There is no answer to that.
If anybody had one, they would have offered it by now.
There would have been something clever like, well, you know, we got to do the best we can to keep him in line.
But nothing.
They just act like, oh, did that happen?
Was I part of that?
I don't know.
Anyway, Scott Jennings, keep enjoying yourself.
I can't even imagine how much fun that job would be.
Can you imagine how much fun he has going to work, knowing that the arguments are just completely on his side?
If you went in and the arguments were sort of a tie, you're like, I'm going to have to have my best argument today, otherwise I'm going to get buried.
But you go in there like you just own the place, because you practically do.
That's got to be fun.
Well, Alice Sharpton is criticizing Trump for not having enough black cabinet appointees.
Let's see.
Why would there not be enough black appointees?
Whose fault would that be?
Trump's fault?
Well, it seems to me that if I were a public figure who had been spending years saying that if you were black and you had anything to do with Donald Trump, that there was just something wrong with you, Doesn't that decrease the number of people who could potentially work for Trump?
I think, Reverend Sharpton, if you'd like more black nominees, which by the way, I would too.
I would also like to see, because there are a lot of nominees, right?
To get, you know, no black nominees seems a little, just looks weird, because that's not what the country looks like.
However, if you're saying who to blame, I blame Al Sharpton.
Because if Al Sharpton had been saying for 20 years, you know, hey, all you young, smart black guys, you should become Republicans because Republicans like merit.
So all you have to do to succeed is do a good job.
You already know that they want to have some diversity, but you can get it organically.
How?
By complaining?
No, no.
You just have to be good at what you do.
But also complaining, right?
No, no, you don't have to do that if you're a Republican.
If you're a Republican, you just have to do a good job.
But also complaining.
No, no, I swear to God, you don't have to do the complaining.
If you're a Republican, you simply have to do the work.
And then you're up for a promotion, just like everybody else.
So I think that blaming Trump for the lack of people who are, let's say, willing to be associated with Trump and also has the right experience for these jobs, unfortunately, there's not enough supply to fit the demand.
Let's see what Rob Reiner is saying today.
Oh, now Rob Reiner says all the abuse and hate from Twitter is now spewed over to the Blue Sky Network.
So there seems to be no point of it.
Oh, I guess he went to the other network and he found out that bad people can find you no matter where you are.
Trolls.
Good luck with that, Rob Reiner.
Meanwhile, Trump has picked Dr.
Oz to be the Medicare and Medicaid service administration guy.
Even John Fetterman, who ran against him and won, said that he would actually vote to confirm him.
He's just concerned that he wants to make sure that Oz doesn't want to cut the Medicare and Medicaid I don't know if he does, but, you know, I'm not going to stop saying good things about Fetterman if Fetterman keeps doing good things.
If he keeps doing good things, I'm going to keep saying good things about him.
I don't know.
I think Fetterman is one of the most amazing American stories, because when he had his mental issues, I certainly thought he should not be running for office.
And by the way, I don't know that I was wrong about that, because we didn't know how it would turn out.
If you don't know how it's going to turn out, it's a pretty big risk to put on the public.
But the truth is, maybe they did know.
Maybe they knew more than I knew.
And he seems all the way back to me.
I don't see him missing 1%.
Not only that, but he's in the very, very, very, very small category of Democrats who impress me with their honesty.
Name another one.
Name the other Democrat who impresses you with their honesty.
I can't think of one.
So if he's thinking about running for higher office someday, he might surprise you.
I would not be surprised to see Fetterman as the candidate for the next, for 2028.
What do you think?
Do you think Democrats are smart enough to do that?
Because I think they're going to look at him and say, damn it, you're not agreeing with 100% of what we say.
You're not woke enough.
You don't wear nice clothes.
How are we going to ever put you on a podium against some well-dressed Republican?
I don't know.
That guy has a lot of game.
If he were the candidate in 2028, without even knowing who he runs against...
You should probably be worried.
Because I've got a feeling that the more the public sees of him, the more they like him.
That's been my experience.
But I don't think most people are paying attention.
He's a sleeper.
He's a sleeper.
I'd watch out for him.
Of course, the problem is that he's not DEI enough for the Democrats, but maybe they'll figure it out.
Anyway, the Democrats keep writing articles about how Trump's going to get his revenge on all the people who are bad to him.
Trump doesn't say that, of course.
He says his revenge is doing a good job, and that is the good revenge.
But Democrats keep saying that there would be no guardrails.
That Trump now has the, let's see, the Supreme Court is saying he has all these powers while he's in office, and he's got both the House and the Senate, and then he's got something he's calling a mandate, but Hakeem Jeffries says it's not.
So the question is, does Trump have guardrails?
And again, I think this is a blind spot.
I think this is just a classic blind spot.
It's a complete misunderstanding of what a Republican is.
The Republicans are the guardrail.
All of them.
I just told you that Trump is very tuned into the public.
If 70% of his base just said, nope, like all at once, whatever it was, doesn't even matter what the topic is.
Nope.
No.
70%.
Nope.
That's not going to happen.
And if you think that the Supreme Court, who were chosen because they're these originalists who are not going to vary from the Constitution, if you think that the Supreme Court, because they have a majority conservative, would allow Trump to do whatever the hell he wanted, no.
No, that's the opposite.
They would be exactly the people to stop him if he got outside the Constitution.
That's their main function.
If you're a Democrat and you don't think the Republicans would stop Trump from departing from, you know, the constitutional norms, then you don't have any understanding what the whole Supreme Court, Constitution, Republicans are all about.
Yeah.
The Supreme Court is designed by Republicans.
Mostly.
To stop any abuse, no matter where it comes from.
And it's not going to be limited to just one side.
So I think that the Republican base and the Supreme Court and just the normal rules and stuff that could be used in the Senate, and probably Trump has two years before he loses the House, I would guess.
So I think there are plenty of restrictions on him.
And the only thing I would ever worry about with an American leader As if somehow he started organizing a bunch of killers that were loyal only to him.
So if you heard tomorrow that Trump said, I'm going to start a new, I'm going to call it my revolutionary, let's see, I'll call it my MAGA security force, and there'll be 100,000 of them, and there'll be trained killers, but don't worry, it's just good for the country, then I'd be out.
It's like, no, no, no.
No, you cannot have A bunch of trained killers who are loyal only to the leader.
That's how you get Saddam Hussein.
That's exactly how you get Saddam Hussein.
Now, as long as there's no organized military group that would die for the leader, and we're nowhere near that, you're fine.
You're fine.
The rest will work its way.
It will work out.
Apparently, the Doge people...
We're talking about maybe having an app for your phone where you can pay your taxes.
Now, that would only apply to people who had, you know, basic tax situation, a few paychecks and a house maybe.
But it should be pointed out that you could already do it on a browser.
So you don't need an app.
You can still do it on your phone.
You just have to use your browser.
Although maybe an app's better.
But I'd like to add this to the conversation.
My understanding is that Estonia has had a voting app for a long time.
And what we should do is ask the Estonians if that's been meeting their needs and do they feel like it's fair and everything.
So I feel like you could solve voting integrity With an app in a way that almost nothing else could.
Because one of the things the app could do is make you take a picture of your face when you're voting.
Suppose the app said, all right, now you've completed your voting.
Before it's submitted, turn your selfie camera on and take a picture of your face, but don't wear a hat or sunglasses.
Because our facial recognition now is so good that if it was not a current picture, it would have to know that it's a current picture, I guess.
I don't think a deepfake could fake that yet if it were a selfie picture and it went directly into the app.
I think you could avoid most of the problems.
All right, what am I looking at here?
I'm seeing a meme go by.
I want to look at it.
Interesting.
All right, so let's see what Estonia has on voting apps.
Trump has announced a school choice supporting Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon.
Don't know much about her, but I saw Corey DeAngelis say that it's a good thing that we have somebody who's very much wanting to send education back to the States and also have some, I think she wants that, and also to have a school choice.
School choice is so underrated.
I mean, I think if you could fix one thing in the country, if you fix school choice, I feel like almost everything else would work out.
It would take 20 years, but if you could just educate people well, your crime would go down, your GDP would go up, your debt would go down, basically everything would work better.
Discrimination way down.
Well, I guess there's a director in the government, the Pentagon director of UAP phenomenon, the unidentified anomalous phenomenon.
And that person testified to Congress, and it was largely useless.
It was stuff like, well, there's this guy who saw a thing.
There's a number of things we looked into that weren't real, but We don't have an answer to that guy that saw that thing.
And then there are a couple other people who saw a thing.
How does this guy have a job?
Would this be the best or the worst job to have?
To be the director of looking into UAPs?
On one hand, it would be fascinating.
On the other hand, I think every one of them are fake.
So you're either going to find out they're fake and go, oh, darn it.
Or you're not going to be able to find out one way or another, so you failed.
So you're either going to fail or find out they're all fake.
It's sort of disappointing both ways.
Anyway, so nothing came out of that.
I saw an opinion by Adam Dopamine on the X platform.
And Adam was saying that the lame duck three months between the transitions of power doesn't make sense in the modern world.
And I thought about it and I said to myself, wait a minute.
Look at Ashton Forbes.
It's not fake.
Now, Ashton Forbes, I'm not sure that's your best source.
He's got a lot of claims on there that don't seem to be anywhere else.
Let's just say that.
I don't know that he's wrong.
I've seen a lot of his work, and he has more claims than I've seen anybody else make.
You know the claims about the little orbs that circled that plane, the Malaysian plane that went down?
Do those look like physical objects to you?
Because they don't to me.
To me, it looks like it's either a fake or an artifact of the camera or something.
None of it looks real to me.
But I can be wrong.
I would love to know that we've got real aliens.
Anyway, so Adam Doping was pointing out that we're kind of in a bad situation between the time we elect our new leader and the time that the old one leaves.
Because Biden's doing some old man stupid stuff.
He's basically getting us into World War III. And he shouldn't be doing that.
He should not have three months to get us into World War III before he leaves and dies.
I think Trump should, or whoever is the new person, should be taking the reins maybe a lot faster.
Now, you do need some time.
You probably need at least a month.
Maybe we shouldn't include the holiday in the middle of it.
You know, you're losing sort of a month to holidays, so maybe it's the wrong time of year as well.
But I do like the idea that we should at least look at compressing that three months of lame duck presidency to something that protects us a little bit better.
I like that idea.
I don't know how practical that would be.
All right, I've got an updated opinion on the Matt Gaetz's ethics report.
So, allegedly, there's an ethics report that's in a rough draft.
I don't think it's done yet.
That was going to say that Matt Gaetz did bad things with young women.
But here's the new thing I want to add to it.
Everything that is suggested that he did has been researched by the Justice Department.
So in other words, authorities have looked in, at great detail, every one of the claims.
And did you notice that he's not indicted for anything?
He's not indicted for anything related to that or anything else.
Now, why is this such a big story?
If the people who would be the most authority on whether a crime had been committed looked into it and found nothing to charge, shouldn't that be the end of it?
It would be one thing if nobody looked into it.
Then I'd have questions.
But apparently the correct authorities looked into it and came up with exactly zero things that they were willing to charge.
Now, reportedly, the witnesses are not reliable.
That's a real good reason not to charge.
But that also means that there's not any written documentation that would support the witnesses who are not themselves reliable.
So if you don't have a written documentation, and you don't have witnesses that are credible, and they didn't even try for indicting a ham sandwich, you know the old saying, you know, you can indict a ham sandwich.
You can almost always get an indictment.
It's just really easy.
Getting a conviction is harder.
But they didn't even get an indictment.
So I feel like that should be the standard that we're using for this.
Being accused matters until somebody looks into it.
But once somebody's looked into it, and it's the proper authorities, the very people who are experts at looking into this stuff, and they say there's nothing to charge, I think that's got to be the end of it.
And I think maybe that's the fastest way to describe it.
You know, when you're trying to describe this to your relatives over Thanksgiving, I think the strongest argument is that it was looked at thoroughly and authorities could not find anything credible to charge it with.
So we don't need to get into the details of, you know, somebody claimed this or somebody claimed that.
If you know the people who really know how to look into it couldn't find it, That should be the end of it.
Because remember, innocent until proven guilty.
So he was innocent, and then he was accused of heinous crimes.
It was looked into.
They decided not to charge him.
That's as innocent as you can get.
You can't get more innocent than people really looked into it and didn't find it.
That's as innocent as you can get.
Now, I'm not an idiot, so I'm not going to say he never did anything bad because they decided not to take him to court.
It doesn't mean that.
But our system says if the system looks into you and doesn't find you guilty, we call you innocent.
And I'm totally on board with that.
All right.
Yeah, it does seem like if there had been anything there, they would have found a judge to pursue it.
Anyway, there's reports that are big paper shredding trucks have appeared outside the Department of Justice.
I guess they're afraid of Matt Gaetz finding out what they've been doing for these many years.
I'll bet you that there's a lot of stuff in the Department of Justice that is damning to the Department of Justice.
All right, now here's the most surprising story of the day.
Mike Benz is all over this.
But apparently one of the people being considered, unless it's changed since we've been talking, is Mike Rogers for FBI director.
Now, he's not the only one being considered.
I think Kash Patel is being considered as of the moment.
And by the way, this is something that could have changed just since I started talking.
So, you know, things are happening fast.
But here's what Mike Ben says.
He said, you literally cannot get worse than this if you give a flying fig about free speech.
And I thought, what?
I don't know anything about Mike Rogers.
What's this all about?
And he said that Mike Rogers, he was a Russiagate pusher, to which I say, oh, really?
If he believed and promoted Russiagate, that has to be.
You know, you can't possibly put that person in charge of the FBI. But there's more.
If there were no more, I would already say that's a hard pass.
I mean, that's almost like an IQ test or a loyalty test or both.
If you push the fine people hoax, you tell me I'm going to be okay with that as the head of the FBI? Hard no.
That's a hard no.
But we're not done yet.
Apparently, he's on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council.
Now, that only means something to you if you've been following the, you know, the Mike Benz description of how the real world works and who's connected to whom and where power goes after a center of office.
The Atlantic Council would be the group that uses George Soros as their bank and as the ex-CIA people and the ex-generals.
And some would say the real power behind at least America's projection of power into the world.
And that this is the group you would least want to pick somebody from.
In other words, if you said to me, hey, I've got a good candidate, and before I even heard the person's name, and you said, it's somebody who's a board of director on the Atlantic Council, oh, nope, stop, stop.
Well, I haven't even told you the name yet.
You don't need to.
You don't even need to tell me who you're talking about.
If they're on the board of the Atlantic Council, They have a loyalty somewhere else that doesn't look exactly like what I'd want in charge of the FBI. And as Mike Benz points out, apparently he's associated with a number of other external organizations that are very clearly CIA-connected.
So, Russiagate seemed like it was a CIA op, and he was for it.
The Atlanta Council looks like it's basically an umbrella for CIA stuff, and he's a board of directors.
And then he's associated with at least a few other organizations that Mike Benton points out are famously CIA kind of cutouts or associated with.
Now, I'm not the expert on any of this, but Mike Benz has a lot of credibility.
If he says this is a hard no, then I say it's a hard no.
But my opinion is not based on Mike Rogers.
It's based on, if you can't get this past Mike Benz, This has got to stop.
You got to stop this one right away, right?
Because the person who's actually watching what's actually happening in the real world and how it fits together, if he says hard no, you're not going to get it past me.
So here's a good little test.
What does the Republican base think of Kash Patel?
They think a lot of him.
Because he's one of these truth to power, do what you need to do, loyal to the president, super smart, experienced in the government.
I like him a lot.
I only know from what I see on the news and interviews and stuff, but I like him a lot.
So if you've got a choice of somebody that you like a lot, and then you've got somebody who's so connected to the CIA who, let me just say it directly, I don't know if they're on our side.
At the very least, you would pick somebody that you knew was on your side, i.e.
Matt Gaetz.
So here's one to watch.
So this will be the test.
If Trump picks Mike Rogers, then I'm going to have a lot of questions about Trump.
Like, did he have to make some kind of accommodation with the CIA in order to do what he needs to do?
Because that might be a thing.
You know, we always speculate that when a president gets elected, there's a point where the CIA comes in and says, we need to talk.
Everything you knew about the world is wrong.
Here's what's real.
And you can't tell anybody.
Now, here's what's going to happen.
I always feel like that conversation must happen.
But maybe it didn't happen with Trump in his first term.
Because they didn't trust him so much and they were trying to get rid of him.
That rather than share with him the secrets that they all must hold, they may have kept those secrets and just tried to get rid of them.
So if there's anybody who's even tangentially related to the CIA, either through similar organizations or anything, I think that's disqualifying at the moment.
Only under a Trump administration.
If it were a different administration, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But Trump specifically, this doesn't look good to me.
So I just told you that Trump is very responsive to, first of all, smart people, Mike Benz, and second of all, the base.
So if he goes ahead and picks Mike Rogers, when I don't think the base is going to support it, but they would support Kash Patel, then I have to wonder if there's something we don't know about.
This would be a big problem to me.
I don't think I'd ever be okay with it.
You know what I mean?
Well, here's something to make you feel great about your system.
In Oregon, they have only vote by mail, but they also have a law that says that if you've put your vote in your envelope and you've sealed it, but you change your mind...
You can open up your envelope, change your vote, like scratch out the one you didn't want, scratch in the new one, seal it back up and tape it, and it will still be counted.
Now, if the reason for that is that sometimes people change their mind before they mail it, okay.
I mean, if that's the only reason for it.
But doesn't it make you think that that was designed just for cheating?
So basically, somebody could take a whole batch of ballots, and they can sit in the back room, they can open up every one of them, they can change the vote, they can seal it back up with a piece of tape, and then the person counting the votes will know that it's been tampered with, but could have been tampered with by the original sender, which would be completely legal.
So they'd count it.
And sure enough, they identified some of these tempered with ballots that they don't know yet, but they certainly look like they're fake.
In other words, it looks like somebody opened it, changed it, just to change the vote.
Now, I doubt that that would be...
I doubt that they could make this a big enough effect that it would change an election, because it feels like you'd notice this.
It'd be just too easy to spot.
But it does tell you you've got a lot of holes in the system.
This one's probably not the biggest hole, but it's a hole.
According to Pennsylvania State University and phys.org, they did a study and they found that social media users probably won't read beyond this headline.
There's more to the story, but I didn't read beyond the headline.
Do you know I didn't read beyond the headline about the story that says people don't read beyond the headline?
Because sometimes the headline is the whole story, and you can tell by the headline.
Do you think if I read this story about social media users probably won't read beyond the headline, Do you think that I would learn that social media users probably won't read beyond the headline?
And that there would be nothing else that I learned whatsoever?
That's what I think.
So I didn't read it, but...
Meanwhile, the SPLC is going after Not the Bee, the parody site.
Now, if you don't know who the SPLC is, they are a highly discredited, scandal-ridden smear factory.
That's according to Seth Dillon of the Not The Bee, and according to everybody else who knows anything about them.
So they're basically, I'll call them a fake organization.
Fake in the sense that what they're supposed to be doing is finding hate, you know, hate groups and calling them out.
What they really do is Is act as a Democrat proxy to say that Republicans are hate groups.
Now I'm exaggerating a little bit, but the problem is that they're likely to identify, you know, law-abiding American citizens as haters, which ruins your career and your life.
So they're a terrible, terrible organization.
They, you know, they're discredited, they're disgusting, they're horrible.
But now they've apparently used some kind of sleuthing techniques to figure out the names of some of the writers who would otherwise be anonymous, I guess, on Not the Bee.
And it looks like they're going to go after these writers individually.
And this caused Seth Dillon, head of the Not to Be, to go at the SPLC quite hard.
And he is certainly in the right on this.
So just so you've heard it, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a discredited organization.
In the pre-Trump world, you could be forgiven for thinking it was a serious organization.
But there are too many examples of them being not serious and being more of an attack dog for Republicans.
I would say discredited and scandal-ridden would be a fair statement.
Rand Paul wants to kneecap or get rid of CISA, according to Politico, CISA. So that's the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
So he might want to downsize it or eliminate it, and that is the correct take.
Because they are also a discredited organization, and they're part of that disinformation network, you know, part of this, you know, hundreds of entities that somehow are trying to protect us from disinformation, but really are probably just Democrat entities to make sure Republicans don't get fairly heard or get in trouble.
And then last story, Zero Hedges reporting that according to a Gallup poll, public support for gun bans has cratered.
What would cause that?
What would cause a sudden reduction in support for banning guns?
Did something happen I don't know about?
Because nothing really happened in that domain, right?
Is it just because Trump won?
That doesn't seem like enough.
I'm going to say that I don't necessarily think that poll is going to be reproducible, but we'll watch.
We'll find out.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for today's prepared reports.
Thanks for joining.
Looks like the golden age is off to a good start.
Strong start.
You think, Owen, you think it's just because there's more crime?
It could be.
Maybe just the fact that there are Venezuelan gangs in 16 states or more.
That would be probably one of the best reasons to own a gun.
But if a gang comes to your house, your one gun is probably not going to keep you alive.
Because it's a gang.
But anyway, I can see why people would have them.
All right, so I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately.
So I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and X. Thanks for joining.
And I will see you same time tomorrow because who takes time off?
