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, Daniel Penny Trial, Scott Bessent Nomination, Matt Gaetz Future Plans, CNN Eli Honig, Pam Bondi Nomination, Investigating Anti-Trump Lawfare, Special Counsel Jack Smith, Elon Musk, MSNBC Sale, Sunny Hostin Legal Notices, Judge Merchan Indefinite Postponement, CNN Abby Phillip Credibility, Alternative Voices Suppression, Elite News-Siloing, Imaginary Democrat Worries, Anti-Elon Musk Lawfare, NBC News, Democrat Party Reform Roadblocks, Self-Correcting Republican Party, Laura Loomer, Economist Guided Immigration, Liz Cheney Campaign Value, J6 DOD Suspicious Delay, J6 Committee, Gad Saad, Unfixable University Structure, Unlikely Republican Voters, Scott Presler, Putin's ICBM Target List, 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
For the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that gives you a little bit of oxytocin that you didn't even earn.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
and it happens now.
Oh, delicious.
religious.
Well, there's a new study that says that cold plunges are not actually helpful after all, and it's really just a way to make you torture yourself and take pictures that you can put on social media.
Now, I don't know if that's true, but NBC News says, according to the American Physiological Society, warm water is better for you.
So ice is good for injuries, and it's good for showing off how much cold you can make.
It's not that good for you.
However, I would add this caveat.
When science does not agree with personal experience, which one do you trust?
It's a tough one.
Based on personal experience, The anecdotal experience of me watching other people, because there's no way in hell I'm going to get in a big...
There's not the slightest chance in the world I would ever get in a bunch of ice water and sit there.
Literally nothing could make me do that.
But the people who do do it...
They report that the rest of their day is much more awesome.
So if you were to just look at the psychological, you know, mental aspects of it, I suspect you would have a different opinion.
So I'm guessing that the psychological part of it, you know, just really getting your body going is probably pretty amazing.
However, I think I will stick to my hot baths and hot water.
Here's a little, this sounds like a little thing that might be a big thing.
So there's, according to SciNews, researchers found a way to convert CO2 into methane in a really efficient way.
They've got this special nickel-based catalyst.
Now imagine that.
Imagine if you could get essentially energy just out of the air.
Because apparently this is a big enough breakthrough that it would really make it economical without a lot of equipment and expense to actually convert CO2, which is everywhere in the air, into methane, which you could then use as a power source.
Now, that's pretty cool.
Again, for the NPCs, A special note for the NPCs, if you're a player, you don't need to listen to this, but if the NPCs, oh no, the nickel catalyst is going to take all the CO2 out of the air and then our plants will die.
Don't they know our plants will die?
Doesn't anybody know that CO2 is plant food and all the plants are going to die?
All right, I just have to say that.
For any story about pulling CO2 out of the air.
They're not wrong.
Now also, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, they've got this new way to store energy, rather than having lithium batteries.
They've got some kind of bromide-based aqueous flow batteries.
Promising.
That's right, bromide-based.
So if you're a bro, No, that's probably not what bromide is about.
But the current way that they use this technology isn't really as efficient as it needs to be.
But it turns out they've made some developments in the non-lithium batteries that would make them not burst into fire.
Because lithium always has that risk.
And they would last a long time.
So it might be a way to store energy in the grid in a way that lithium maybe is not so good for.
So that's a big deal.
And how about this?
Scientists, according to NoRidge, they've created a durable coating to boost their perovskite solar cells.
So that's not the normal kind.
Normally the solar cells are silicon, but there's this other kind.
That they don't use much because it doesn't last very long.
It wears out or something.
But now they've got this special protective coating to make it last a long time, which could make the cost of solar come way down.
So these are all the things that are just sort of in laboratories and stuff.
Here's another one.
This one is the coolest one, I think.
Rice University, according to the Science Blog, quantum physics being used to convert industrial heat into electricity.
Did you know that there is a device that can turn heat into light And then when it's light, they can use solar devices to turn it into electricity.
So there's some big breakthrough here.
The breakthrough centers on improving the thermophotovoltaic systems, which transforms heat into electricity through light.
And they've got efficiency levels above 60%, and it's within the practical zone.
So that's pretty cool.
Imagine turning heat into light and then into electricity.
Pretty cool.
So I would say that at this point, we're on the cusp.
Where you could pull your water out of the air, so I literally have a device in my kitchen that I haven't taken out of the box yet, that will just take water out of the air.
So presumably it would be cleaner than the water I would get out of my swimming pool if there was a problem.
So then what if you could take your CO2 out of the air, And turn it into energy.
What if you can make these gigantic breakthroughs and batteries and solar and solar voltaic, photovoltaics?
You can get all your energy out of the air and all of your water out of the air.
The only thing you'd need to live off the grid then Would be some way to get rid of your waste and your sewage problems.
But I feel like that's coming.
Living off the grid.
It's almost here.
Did you know, according to International Business Times, and Mark Moore is writing about this, almost 10% of South Korea's workforce is a robot.
I don't know why they call it the workforce, but factory robots are about 10% of South Korea's workforce.
That's the most.
But apparently China's trying to catch up.
They got a bunch of robots, Germany and Japan.
But South Korea is leading with the most.
They've got a thousand robots per 10,000 employees.
Wow.
China's got 470 robots per 10,000 employees.
Now, here's the problem.
In the United States, if we replace employees with robots, then we can be competitive with China.
Actually, more than competitive, because they might be using robots too, and they cost the same.
There as here, but we don't have to do the shipping.
You wouldn't have to worry about any of the international problems.
You just do it locally.
So, robots are good for America, but wouldn't robots completely destroy China?
Because their economy depends on having a gazillion people working in factories, but if they replace them with robots, what exactly are the other people going to be doing?
In the United States, we've already replaced most of those workers, so we're in a whole different situation.
I mean, we have our own problems, obviously.
Well, according to the Marijuana Herald, which I'm guessing is some kind of publication, Marijuana and THC improve working memory in aging people.
Well, it's an animal study, actually.
So they're trying to generalize this to people, but I think that's a stretch.
So it helps the working memory.
Maybe.
I don't believe this one one bit.
I would say that probably not.
Probably not.
What model predicted all of this?
That's true.
My book, The Dilber Future.
According to Cypost, a single dose of psilocybin can boost optimism in animals.
So again, animals are lucky.
Can you imagine being a lab rat?
And you find out you're a lab rat.
You're like, why are we in this cage?
What's going on?
And the other rats say, we're lab rats.
They're going to experiment on us.
And then you say, is that bad?
Oh God, it's bad.
They're going to rip our bodies up and they're going to diagnose our brains and it's going to be horrible.
And then you find out that you're one of the psilocybin rats.
All right, rat.
We're going to give you this This mood-enhancing drug, and we want to see if you act a little more optimistically.
And the rats are like, well, you don't have to tell me twice.
You're going to give me excellent drugs if I just act optimistically?
I'm feeling optimistic already, because I'm looking at my cousin over there, and he's being torn apart by the other experiments.
But I'm just getting these good psilocybin drugs.
The luckiest rats in the world.
Well, the Daniel Penny defense arrested.
That's the case of the Daniel Penny, the guy who accidentally may have been involved in the death of, or maybe not, the death of somebody he restrained on a subway.
Penny did not testify in his own defense.
Probably the best play.
Because it sounds like the people who did defend him, sounds like they did the job.
Now, I'm going to say this again.
This Daniel Penny thing really matters to me.
Now, of course, you know, it's not just because he might be unfairly jailed, but because he sort of represents something way bigger than the details of his trial.
This is the question of, can we get justice in the United States when race is involved?
And I think the answer is no.
I don't think so.
Now you can say to me, but Scott, you know, for hundreds of years, it was opposite.
If you were black, you could not get justice in the justice system.
And maybe it's still a little bit true now.
Sure, I'm not doubting that.
But the Daniel Penney thing is also racially based, you know.
And so the question is, can we get justice when race is an important part of the question?
So far the answer seems to be no.
But we are entering the golden age.
It does seem like the entire civilization just decided to be different one day.
So I'm still optimistic, more optimistic than a lab rat on psilocybin, that he's going to be completely found innocent.
But I've got to say again, if he's not, I feel like it requires a public response.
Not violence, of course, obviously.
But I don't think we can let that stand.
Because it's just so obvious that he should not go to jail.
Just super, super obvious.
If it were not obvious, I'd say, well, you know, the jury heard more evidence than I did, but I'm sorry.
I heard plenty.
I don't really need any extra details on this one.
He needs to go free.
So, we'll see what happens.
I... I had the notion to ask the following question on X, and you've got to see the answers.
It's mind-blowing.
I asked people on X how many people had made money recently because of something they heard me say, you know, either on X or on a live stream.
It turns out there's a lot of people who made a lot of money by listening to me.
Now, in some cases, they said, They learned how to build their talent stack.
They got a big raise or a better job.
Some cases they use systems over goals and they got them big raises and started businesses of their own.
Sometimes, even though I told you, please do not take my financial advice for investment.
Many of you did anyway and bought Tesla stock a few months ago.
You're pretty happy about it.
So a number of people invested in nuclear entities and Tesla and in some cases Bitcoin.
And at the moment, we all look like geniuses if we have any of those.
Of course, I could change in a moment.
But you really need to look at the comments on that.
Because if you look at the comments, you're going to see that a huge number of people have just completely changed their lives because they earned something that worked for them.
Now, I'm not the only person in the world saying useful things, right?
There are plenty of people doing this.
But it seems to me that some of the best education today is just coming from podcasts.
You know, the number of people who are just trying to help you and know something you don't know, and they put it on a podcast and then you get smarter.
Really, the podcasts have almost become some kind of replacement college.
But a lot of people made money from something I said online.
Which made me ask this question.
I feel like this service needs to exist.
So we've got all these AI companies training on stuff that's on social media.
And the New York Times complains, hey, you took my proprietary information and built it into your AI. That's not fair.
I feel like there should be some kind of a agency or a clearinghouse where people like me could say, "Hey, does anybody who has an AI business want to take everything I've ever done and then license it for training?" does anybody who has an AI business want to take Now not exclusively, although that would be an option, you know, exclusively would be wildly expensive, but why wouldn't people want to make sure that they were legal?
Now, here's the reason that I suggest doing this with me.
I saw somebody in the comments who had some mental problems saying that I must be full of ego for asking if people made money for my advice, but also for suggesting that maybe AI would want to incorporate my material.
Well, these are related thoughts.
If it's true that listening to me makes you richer, then you can look at the comments yourself.
It's a lot of people who say I'm making them richer.
A number of people say I've helped them lose weight, quit drinking, get better jobs, better social lives, get married, cure diseases.
People have learned how to do creative stuff, learned how to write for me.
So given that I've spent the last, I don't know, 20 years of my life or so trying to figure out how to tell people to do things more effectively, if you were to train your AI on me and then say, hey, do you want some advice from this character?
Now, don't you think there should also be a Jordan Peterson AI and that he should be able to take all of his great advice and say, why don't I license this to you?
And then anytime somebody wants to turn on the Jordan Peterson vibe, it might even be his voice.
He could give you the advice that Jordan Peterson would probably give you.
I think that's a good idea.
But there's no market for it.
There needs to be some kind of agency or market for it.
I'm surprised that CAA isn't doing that.
It seems like the agencies that are promoting living stars should be also packaging up their entities and licensing them.
You know, shouldn't you be able to take all of the, I don't know, Tom Cruise movies and then train on it in case you want to make your own movie someday?
So there's a market that needs to be created.
We'll wait for that.
So Trump has a new Treasury Secretary, Treasury Secretary.
His name is Scott, right?
Besant?
And he's considered a safe sort of business-as-usual guy.
That's according to Elon Musk.
So I don't know.
I think Elon Musk wanted somebody else, but this one seems safe.
So if the market wants a safe pick, then it's also going to be pro-Trump.
Looks like they got one.
So I think that won't be too much of a problem.
Matt Gaetz is starting to talk.
About what his future would look like, but he's only leaving...
Yeah, he's a hedge fund billionaire investor guy, Besant is.
So he seems to have all the right skills.
Yeah.
Yeah, have you noticed there are a lot of people named Scott in the news this year?
Right?
Scott Jennings, Scott Besant.
There's just a lot of Scots lately.
Too many.
Anyway, Matt Gaetz says he's not going away, and we don't know what he's going to do yet, but he's definitely not going to go back into government right away.
So he's not going to...
People speculated, as I did, that he might cleverly say, aha, I only quit from my last term.
I didn't really resign from my upcoming term that I already won.
Scott Pressler, too, right?
Scott Galloway, right?
I'm not wrong that the name's Scott.
It's just all over the place this year.
I've never seen so many Scots kind of break through at the same time.
It's something weird about that.
Anyway, I think Matt Gaetz is signaling that he's going to do something in the private And my guess would be something in the media zone.
I think he's just so good with the verbal stuff, and he understands government, and he's been there, he's been behind the curtain, etc.
I'd be amazed if he doesn't come up with some show on Rumble or something like that.
So my guess is that he would be part of some Pretty professional platform that may exist or may be created for his benefit.
I did see...
Didn't Rumble recently have an announcement that there's going to be a major addition to their platform?
A major talent?
Could it be that the major talent coming to Rumble is Matt Gaetz?
Because that would make sense, right?
So we'll see.
Over on CNN... Legal analyst Eli Honig, he thinks that Pam Bondi is a qualified, very qualified, without a question, to be attorney general.
And points out she's been a prosecutor for 20 years in Florida, and eight of those she was attorney general.
And it's a big, complicated job, so she's on par or better than most of the people appointed to that job in the last 50 years.
Now, Here's what I appreciate about Eli Honig on CNN. This isn't the first time that he said what is true when he could have said what was propaganda.
Because, you know, if you watch CNN, sometimes people say what's true and obvious, and sometimes it's just wild propaganda.
But Honig Consistently.
So I'm giving him...
This is just a compliment to Honig.
I watch him quite often, and I don't see him doing propaganda.
He seems very consistent to actually just stick with what you see and what you observe and how to interpret that in a logical way.
So that's just a shout-out.
Every time I see somebody being honest on TV, I think it's worth a mention.
Right?
But one of the attacks on Pam Bondi is, apparently she said on video, she said publicly, that it might be time to investigate Trump's investigators.
So in other words, the attorneys who are going after Trump with all the lawfare, she thinks maybe they need to be investigated because they were not doing it for all the right legal reasons.
Maybe it was just pure lawfare.
Do you know what I say about that?
Yes.
Yes.
I think it would be highly unusual in almost any other situation, no matter whether the parties were reversed or not, I would be opposed to it.
On any normal situation, I would say, are you really kidding me?
You're going to investigate the lawyers who are just doing their lawyer job?
Somebody hired them to do a lawyer job, and now you can investigate them just for doing their job?
That's completely out of line.
Except, even as a private citizen, you can see that the law fairs out of control.
And I do think that they need to explain their reasoning.
Now, my first thought was, if you get rid of the bosses, you're fine.
If you get rid of Jack Smith, maybe that's the problem.
But then you've got all these other people who willingly decided that working for Jack Smith on this project was how they wanted to make money.
And I say to myself, if you were qualified enough to get that kind of a job, such a high-profile job, you're probably qualified to get a lot of different jobs in the private sector and the public sector as well.
Why would you pick that one?
That's a question I think has to be answered.
Because I don't think anybody who was working for Jack Smith believed they were doing what was good for the world.
I can't read minds, so maybe they did.
It's possible.
But it doesn't seem like it.
From the outside, it looks like they all knew exactly what they were doing, and it wasn't anything that they should have been doing.
So I don't know that anybody did anything illegal.
Yeah, let me clarify.
I'm seeing the comments.
I think you're asking for a clarification, and I want to make that.
If they didn't do anything illegal, then, of course, they should not be bothered or they shouldn't be charged with anything, of course.
I don't want them to go broke defending themselves if they just were doing their job.
But I don't know.
I'd take a look.
I would at least want to look at the maybe look at their correspondence and see if they were just doing their jobs because it didn't look like it to me.
And I think we need to have some trust in the DOJ. So I'm not opposed to looking into that a little more deeply.
All right.
You probably heard that Comcast is looking to spin off CNBC and MSNBC because they're apparently not working too well with the Comcast Entity and brand not making money.
MSNBC in particular just took a dump after the election.
And so there's stories about, you know, maybe they're going to sell it.
And Elon Musk asked on X in response to that, how much does it cost?
Now, what are the odds that the richest man in the world would also be the best troll?
It doesn't seem like those could both happen.
And I'm going to call it bullshit on Elon Musk being on the spectrum.
Because I've never known anybody on the spectrum who had a sense of humor and this much capability with memes and communication and posting things.
Is that a thing?
Can you be on the spectrum and be this funny?
Are there stand-up comedians who are on the spectrum?
There might be.
Probably are, actually.
Anyway, so I don't know.
His brain doesn't work like the rest of us.
That's obvious.
But it feels like an oversimplification to put him on the spectrum.
It feels like there's something going on that's extra.
But I don't know if it's that.
So anyway, Joe Rogan jumped in.
He said, also an ex, he said to Musk, if you buy MSNBC, I would like Rachel Maddow's job.
I will wear the same outfit and glasses and I will tell the same lies.
And of course, Elon said, yes.
Now, how serious is this?
What do you think it sells for?
Because there is some sale price At which it would be crazy not to buy it, right?
Imagine if Trump, I'm sorry, not Trump.
Imagine if, let's say the sale price is, I'll just pick a number, $50 million or $100 million.
Couldn't Elon Musk buy that and then just got it and put in, you know, real people that he wants to put there and And turn it into a money-making thing?
Because look how well MSNBC would combine with X. The answer is really, really well.
Imagine if you had the MSNBC content and studios, but you've changed that to host so that they're not all propagandists, and you make sure that you show both sides.
Hey, how about that?
How about making sure you showed both sides but without the propaganda?
Now, imagine how much content that creates all day long, and then imagine that being clipped and put on X all day long, so that every topic you wanted to know about, if it's in the news, there would be an MSNBC clip, except, unlike the propaganda brainwashing bullshit that it is now, You would guarantee that all your clips showed both sides.
Or even if it's one side, somebody would put the other side in the comments.
You'd always see it.
That's a really powerful combination.
So I think Musk also pointed out that the most entertaining outcome, he said, especially if ironic, is most likely.
You know, I'm having a real...
Mental breakdown over that, that I'm trying to solve and I can't tell if I'm crazy.
Can anybody remember if in the 2016 election cycle, did I say that the most entertaining outcome is the one most likely?
Because I feel like I was the first person to say it, and it was based on the fact that things seem to follow this three-act play all the time.
But when I search for it, it's on...
So a lot of you were saying yes.
And do you remember during the 2016 era, right?
Because if you do a search, you can see that Elon says it around 20, somewhere in the 2020s, 2021 or 20 or 22, something like that.
But I'd never heard it before I said it.
I'd never heard it from anybody.
Alright, so I'm seeing the people on Locals are the people who follow me the longest they're subscribers.
So there's a massive number of them who are saying yes for sure that I was the first person to say that.
Huh.
Alright, so I don't know if there's any connection.
I mean, so I don't know if I said it before Elon said it though.
That's the part I don't know.
And I said as soon after switching from blogging to video, Well, that would be around 2016. Yeah.
And I'm seeing that Greg Gottfeld also said it.
Hmm.
Oh.
Oh, my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
I wish I could tell you what I'm thinking right now, but one of you just solved a really big problem for me.
That's why I love the comments.
I had a problem that was unrelated to anything I'm talking about, and something went by that was just, oh, that solves like a gigantic problem of mine.
Thank you.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Meanwhile, on The View, Sunny Hostin, I don't know how you say it, she had to read yet another legal notice.
So it sounds like I'm telling you a story you've already heard, but it happened again.
So for the second time, They had to take a break from their normal show stuff, and she had to read a statement that basically said there's no charges against P. Hegseth and I think something else about one of the other nominees, Gates maybe?
So, apparently ABC is so concerned about the stuff they're saying that's just not true that they have to read legal notices so you know that they're liars.
You realize what this is doing to Sonny Hostin, right?
It's making her confess that she's a propagandist because otherwise she wouldn't need to read these notices.
Right?
Now, that's my interpretation of it, of course.
It's my opinion.
Anyway, it's almost as if ABC management is trying to humiliate her out of her job, which would be a good play, by the way, because she's not helping you, ABC. So, if I can give some advice, ABC. Yeah, she's not helping you at all.
She's so far over the line into mental illness and propaganda and brainwashing that it's not helping anybody.
There's nobody who's better off.
In fact, I would say it hurts Democrats.
Because imagine you're a Democrat, And you're turning on this program and you're watching MSNBC and you start thinking, everybody thinks like me.
Yay!
Let's keep doing these things because everybody thinks like me.
I keep seeing it when I turn on the TV. But then you find out, no, it's only the people who probably shouldn't even have a show who are agreeing with you on TV. What are we looking at here?
Um...
Okay, I don't know what that's about.
Just seeing some comments that look weird.
All right, we're seeing when Musk first said about the most entertaining outcome, somebody did a search on it.
It doesn't show the year, though.
You did a search without showing the year.
The year is the important part.
All right.
So let's see.
What else we got going on?
So, it looks like the New York judge, Mershon, is going to grant Trump the right to file a motion to dismiss charges.
Now, the judge indefinitely postponed the sentencing.
Now, that's because he's a sitting president, so the DOJ doesn't like to mess with sitting presidents.
But wouldn't it be better if they went away instead of just being postponed?
And so if Trump's people are allowed to file a motion to dismiss, what if they succeed?
I don't know that I would predict that they would succeed in getting it dismissed.
But what if they did?
Doesn't that make him not a felon?
And by the way, he's not a felon, because my understanding is until they do the paperwork, the jury found him guilty, but you're not actually a felon until the court does the paperwork, right?
So he's not a felon, and there's at least some chance he never will be.
And yet the biggest complaint about him during the election was, oh, 34 felonies, 34 felonies, which of course were all made up.
There was no victim in the crime.
I have confirmation from my smartest viewer.
All right.
The Gateway Pundit was writing about Abby Phillip, she's one of the hosts on CNN, that she's so close to finally getting it because she went to some event and she was speaking at an event and she said, quote, Abby Phillips said, I have observed that elites increasingly talk only to each other and come to believe that because there is consensus among them, that that consensus is shared broadly and there are not enough voices that are confident enough to disagree and to present alternatives.
And she went on to point out that people no longer are looking for nuance.
They just want to agree with their team, basically.
Now, the first thing you need to know is that Abby Phillip is one of the fine people hoaxers.
So to the best of my knowledge, she has pushed the fine people hoax and never corrected it.
So she's still on record for the fine people hoax being true.
So her credibility is zero until she fixes that.
If she fixes that, then I would say I would reassess.
But she has zero credibility as a news person because she's pushing the fine people hoax.
That's just a red line.
You can't be considered a serious news person if you believe the fine people hoax and you're pushing it.
But I would ask the following question.
If the elites are increasingly talking to each other and people are afraid to come forward with alternative voices, who do you think is causing that problem?
Well, I think Abby Phillip.
Is she completely unaware that she is right in the middle of the cause of this problem?
Because if CNN treated people differently who had different opinions, don't you think they would feel completely safe to say their opinions?
If she had not said that Trump people are following the fine people hoax guy, don't you think people would have a little more comfort going on the show?
Yeah.
I cannot stop being entertained by the depth to which the Democrats don't understand what happened.
Now, the Gateway Pundit and Mike Lachance points out that she's getting close.
I'll agree that she's getting closer.
In the sense that it is true that the elites are talking to each other and not being aware of what's happening.
But she's got to go the next step.
The reason the elites are so confused is...
Say it.
Say it.
The elites are talking to themselves and don't know what's happening in the real world because...
Because...
Because of the news.
There's only one reason, that the news is fucking fake.
If you're not willing to say that, Abby Phillip, you know, after years of fake news, the left doesn't even know what's true.
They don't even know what other people are hearing.
Then you found it.
But if you're only going to go as far as blaming the elites...
And still thinking that the news you're telling is somehow useful and true?
No, you're not close.
You're simply directing your fire in the other direction, you know?
Maybe it's not what we're putting on TV. Maybe it's the people watching it.
Yeah, that's it.
That's it.
It's not what we're presenting to you as brainwashing and propaganda.
The problem is you believed it.
And then you started talking to yourself and not knowing what was going on.
Oh my goodness.
All right, I like to keep a list, an ongoing list of imaginary Democrat worries.
So here's the newest batch.
David Axelrod's got a couple.
He says, Pam Bondi, the new AG nominee, will be responsive to Trump first, not duties of the Constitution.
Is that a real worry?
No, that's not real.
That's not real.
That's just made up.
Do you know what's real?
Your eggs cost too much.
Do you remember a week ago when all the Democrats suddenly understood that eggs cost too much?
Well, in one week, they all forgot the cost of eggs.
Okay?
This is not your problem.
Your problem will not be that Pam Bondi will be responsive to Trump first and ignore the Constitution.
You know why?
She's not going to ignore the Constitution.
I'll bet you not once.
There's no indication that after her many years of public service that she would suddenly stop doing the thing that she does, which is follow the Constitution.
This is not real.
It's not even a little bit real.
This is a ridiculous thing to worry about.
All right.
Then next, there's an OMB nominee, Russ Vought.
And I guess he used to be the OMB head before, so it's no big deal.
He should be easily confirmed.
But now they're worried because he also was one of the authors of Project 2025. Oh, great.
So now you're taking a perfectly ordinary thing, which we've experienced before because he was already in the job before, and he's an ordinary supporter of the president, but because they can tie it to this fake thing, Project 2025, which is not fake.
It exists.
The fake part is saying that it's Trump's ideas.
It wasn't.
It was definitely people who support Trump's ideas.
But it's not his ideas, except some coincidental overlap.
So that's being turned into that Project 2025 will be implemented because one of the people involved with it got his old job back.
No, that's not real.
No, Trump is still in charge.
Giving this one guy this one job he used to have does not make 2025 activated as you're, you know, replacing the Constitution or something.
This isn't real.
I saw a clip.
This might have been older.
It could have been older, but it was Mark Cuban on a podcast saying that he's got this hypothesis.
He's not sure, but he thinks Elon Musk may have taken over a bunch of abandoned X accounts and turned them into a personal army of bots that he controls.
Now, I don't think that's true.
Because Elon Musk has so many legitimate organic supporters, such as me, why would he need a bot army?
Wouldn't it be better to see that Joe Rogan is boosting him and Jordan Peterson and all the people that you like?
That's all he needs.
Why would he need a bot army?
That's not real, is it?
So you're worried about a bot army that's the least likely thing that anybody would ever do?
So here's why, I mean, who would do this?
Because it's not like he's programming X himself.
He would have had to have somebody like a confederate on the inside and then trust them never to talk about it ever.
Nobody would ever take that chance.
Because this would basically destroy the credibility of the entire platform.
And you wouldn't do that with people who are witnesses to it, who work there, who could just leave and sell their story.
I give this zero chance of being true.
Then there's the Hill that says that Trump has suffered a, quote, self-inflicted black eye with the withdrawal of Matt Gaetz.
As Attorney General.
Really?
Trump got a black eye?
So he picked somebody that his base kind of liked a lot.
Then he listened to the outcry from the public.
And then he improved his choice.
That's a black eye?
This is what I want to see all day long.
If it were a black eye, I'd say, well, that's something I don't want.
I don't want any black eyes.
But you know what I do want?
Your first draft looks pretty good.
Your second draft looks better.
That's what I want.
I want that all day long.
Matt Gaetz, first draft.
Didn't pass the requirements.
Second draft?
Oh, wow.
That looks pretty good.
Pam Bondi.
This is my exact government I want.
I don't care who it is.
I want them to take a strong first swing, see how it worked, fix it immediately.
I mean, before the news cycle was over, Trump already had an improved pick.
Black eye.
It's not a black eye.
This is a model of how to be.
This is perfect, perfect governance.
With a mistake, because you can't get rid of mistakes, but a perfect correction.
I want the correction.
I don't need perfect first try.
That's ridiculous.
Nobody does that.
And then the latest is that Musk is just in it for the money because his personal fortune is now up to $348 billion because Tesla stock went way up.
Now, is there any way for Elon Musk to make the business world way more effective and have fewer regulations and, you know, good appointees and stuff like that?
How in the world would that not help him?
Is he supposed to be working on some magical way to fix, you know, fix the regulations and the economy and the government and somehow magically it wouldn't affect his own company?
How is that going to work?
The entire point of it is that it helps everybody.
He just happens to have a big footprint in the everybody category.
So of course it did well.
And by the way, why was the stock suppressed in the first place?
The stock was suppressed because he was being law-fared.
So if you take the lawfare penalty away, which is what he was under, it just drifted up to what the public thought it was worth.
That's not a crime.
In fact, I'll go further.
If, let's say, Mark Cuban Wants to, just hypothetically, wanted to jump in and get rid of a bunch of regulations that affected, let's say, oh, I'll make this very specific.
So Mark Cuban has a company, is it Cost plus drugs?
I hope I don't have the wrong name of the company.
Where he's trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs, I'm pretty sure there are some government regulations that are holding him back.
Don't you think?
Like if you're trying to make drugs less expensive, probably there's some government thing in the way.
Suppose Mark Cuban said, you know what?
I've got some ideas for reducing regulations in the government.
It will help everybody, but I got to be honest, my company would do great if these regulations go away.
So let's say the regulations go away, and then Mark Cuban's company that he funds, and he's part or full owner, I don't know, doubles in value.
Are we going to be mad at Mark Cuban?
Because he can sell you even more drugs at low cost?
No.
If the billionaires get involved in making things better for everybody, and they happen to be the first people who benefit from it, That's okay.
That's okay.
You can benefit if you're making everybody else better off.
And by the way, a lot of people will own stocks in these companies.
So everybody who owned a little bit of Tesla stock, they're not complaining.
And I think Tesla is priced primarily because of robots, and you can't take that away from him, right?
You just can't take away from Elon that he's poised on a $10 trillion business opportunity, and maybe the strongest player.
Of course his stock is going up.
All right.
Here's NBC News on X. So this is the language that they chose.
Now you tell me if this is news, because it's NBC News, or is this propaganda?
Just look at the wording.
The president-elect has promised to roll out a number of policies targeting trans people on his first day in office, including a new federal definition of sex as binary and assigned at birth.
Targeted?
He's targeting trans people?
That's propaganda.
Because when we talk about changes to policy, do we say somebody got targeted?
Every policy change is good for somebody and bad for somebody else.
Just all of them.
But you don't use that word targeted, do you?
Here's another way they could have said it.
The president-elect has promised to roll out a number of policies protecting women sports and defining who can use public bathrooms.
Would that be accurate?
I think it would.
But as soon as you put this word targeted in there, it turns into propaganda.
How about it's an issue that people care about, and they're going to make some changes that make 98% of the public better off.
Definitely could be bad for some trans who want more rights than they would have.
But that's not exactly targeting the 2% as much as it is giving the majority what they wanted.
So, targeted is a little, that's a little propaganda-y.
All right, even Brian Williams, he used to be the NBC anchor.
He says the Democratic Party should be rebuilt and that they should change leadership and basically start from scratch.
Here's the problem.
They can't.
I don't believe the Democrats have the ability built into their system where they can get rid of Hakeem Jeffries, for example, or Nancy Pelosi, or anybody else.
So I think they built a system where you can't get rid of people, and the people in charge can just burrow in and stay there and trade stocks and make a fortune and Yeah, the Democrats have created a system that can't be corrected.
Now let's compare that to the Republicans.
Do the Republicans have a self-correcting system?
Yes.
You just watched it.
So the President puts forth Matt Gaetz, doesn't work, he corrects, boom, improved.
Yeah, Republicans are wonderfully self-correcting.
Wonderfully self-correcting.
You can't compete with that.
I mean, it looks like the distance between what the Republicans got and what the Democrats can offer, it looks like it's going to increase.
Normally, you would expect that if the Democrats get just demolished in an election...
The normal way that America acts is to prop them up the next time, because we do like things to be a little closer.
That's sort of an American standard.
We want a good race.
I think this might be different.
I think this next presidential race, the difference between what the Republicans are offering and what the Democrats could pull together with their broken system, Is going to be almost non-competitive.
Maybe for the first time in my lifetime.
So I don't know how they can recover from this.
Because their principles about what is most important are the very things that make it impossible to change.
Because they're not going to fire all their DEI hires, right?
And if you can't change people, you're not going to change much.
So good luck.
Painted themselves in a corner.
Mike Johnson got a little pushback because he's pro bringing in the right kind of workers to the United States.
He says, we need work visas.
We need to encourage legal immigration.
Then I saw Laura Loomer going hard at him on X. And he said, so basically she was saying, why are you bringing in non-Americans when we need Americans to have jobs, et cetera?
I appreciate a lot of the scoops and the work that Laura Loomer has done recently.
So I'm not going to be anti-Laura.
I kind of like her.
I just like it when she causes trouble.
So I tend to be...
I'm attracted to anybody who, not attracted sexually, but I'm drawn to anybody who's a flamethrower, you know, somebody who can really mix things up.
And, you know, maybe if she doesn't get every story 100% right, you know, we'll find out later.
But I like her in the public domain.
But I would give this one piece of advice, Laura, in case you're listening.
I think we should let economists decide who we let in and with what skills and how many.
And it should be bipartisan.
I hope we could do it.
Maybe there's no such thing as bipartisan economists these days, but I think you could do it.
I'd like to see, let's say, a group of 20 economists.
If you want to make it 10 who lean left and 10 who lean right, that might work.
Maybe the government in charge needs to have a majority.
Maybe that's the only way it works in America.
But if the economists say, Hey, we're too slow in making people who know enough about AI. So we'll hire as many Americans as we can, but we still won't have enough.
So wouldn't it be nice to get the best AI people from India, for example?
Yes, it would.
Yes, it would.
Because the best AI people from the high-tech countries are going to be really good.
They're going to build your next unicorns, etc.
And on the low end, I think we just have to realize there are a lot of jobs that Americans just won't do.
Now, I'm not proud of that, but if we can get people to come in and do the jobs that Americans literally won't do, then that's a good use of immigration.
So I don't think we should be yes on immigration or no on immigration.
We should be, does it help your economy or does it not?
And we should look at economists, not anybody else, because it's the economists who can tell you if we need more or less.
Steve Cortez was having some fun with the fact that there's some new polling that shows that Kamala Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney didn't work out.
This is the fun part, where the Democrats try to figure out what their mistake was, and then they realize it was everything.
Where did we go wrong?
It was everything.
Okay, but did we go wrong with our choice of candidate?
Yes, it was everything.
Okay, but maybe it was our messaging.
Yeah, it was messaging too.
It was just everything.
But what about our policies?
It was the policies.
It was everything.
Well, maybe it's the way we talked about Republicans.
Yeah.
Yeah, it was.
It was.
It was everything.
Maybe it's because our candidate decided to pair herself with the only person who's hated on both sides.
The only one.
Name another person who is reviled by both Republicans and Democrats, but is also part of the public conversation.
How in the world did they think that was going to work?
To take this reviled Republican figure and go campaign with her and make that look like it's an anti-Trump thing?
No.
Let me explain again, Democrats.
What you did wrong...
It was everything.
It was everything.
Now you're going to disagree with me and say, Scott, no, that's not true.
That is not true.
Because they outdid Trump on fundraising.
I mean, they just creamed him on fundraising.
No.
The raising the funds is not the important part.
It's the spending.
You don't get any credit for raising funds.
You gotta spend it right.
Apparently, the Trump campaign figured out how to spend their money better.
So, yes.
What did the Democrats do wrong?
Absolutely every fucking thing.
And I think that that's true, right?
It sounds like hyperbole.
It sounds like sort of a podcaster thing to say.
But you tell me.
You tell me what they did right.
Anything.
From candidate, to policies, to messaging, to ground game, to which states she went to.
Anything.
The debate.
Anything.
Picking her vice president.
Anything.
Policies.
Anything.
The reason it's so confusing is they want it to be one thing.
The Democrats desperately wanted to narrow it down to maybe two, but one or two things, and then once they have those things, like, oh, we can fix these two things.
But what if the problem is their leadership?
Can't fix it, because they're not going anywhere, and you can't make them.
So whoever came up with the terrible ideas for this last cycle, it's going to be the same people next cycle.
Same people.
And they will make every mistake.
Probably.
Well, according to The Federalist, and Tristan Justice is writing about this, other people too, but there's a good write-up in The Federalist, which I recommend.
Apparently, the evidence that...
Let me just read what Tristan says.
It's easier.
So apparently Representative Loudermilk is looking into this.
And they say that the Department of Defense and the IG knowingly concealed the extent of the delay in constructing a narrative that is favorable to the DOD and the Pentagon leadership.
All right.
So let me say this as clear as I can.
The evidence suggests that That the military had plenty of advance warning about January 6th getting out of hand to the point where people are suspicious.
Why did you know there was going to be trouble so far in advance?
Unless you were the ones who caused it.
Now, I'm not saying that that's demonstrated to be true.
I just think it is a good question.
The military was fully aware of the danger, so that part's been established for sure, because documents show that the military was completely aware that this was a danger zone and a danger day, and they understood it completely in advance, like well in advance, not just the same day, like a month in advance they were talking about it.
And then when the request came down to supply some troops, it was delayed.
And apparently the involvement of the decision makers for using the military or not seems to have been either lost or ignored by the January 6th committee, and it was the most important part.
Because if the military stood down, it would suggest that it was intentional.
So we're not maybe 100% there yet, but we're close enough that I'm willing to say that January 6th was an op.
It was not a naturally occurring event.
And that the January 6th committee needs to be investigated.
And possibly for very serious charges.
Because if they did this thing and knowingly destroyed evidence or hid evidence or did not show exculpatory evidence, I don't know if there's ever been a bigger crime in the United States.
Like, this looks like a serious crime.
I don't know what crimes, maybe lying to Congress or something, but yeah, this has to be dealt with.
So if Trump is bringing in people who will deal with this, which looks to be the most obvious public crime I've ever seen, except for maybe the Russia collusion hoax, which also should be investigated.
So we'll see how that goes.
Gad Saad, who you all know from X, he's of course been talking about how universities are totally broken with all the wokeness, but Let me just read what he posted, because I don't think people understand the extent of it.
And that's what he's reminding us of.
So Gad said, he says, I'm delighted that a growing number of people are waking up to the university insanity that has been allowed to fester for generations.
But here's the important part.
You truly cannot imagine how parasitized, like as in parasites, that ecosystem is unless you inhabit it.
It is unimaginably bad.
The bureaucracy, the inefficiency, the parasitic ideological...
Did you say rapture?
You said rapture, but I think you meant capture.
The socialist bent, the anti-Western bent, the anti-Jew bent.
It is pervasive in every nook and cranny.
There is no creature that is spineless or castrated as an academic.
Rather than being intellectual Navy SEALs, most academics are meek sheep afraid of their shadows.
Now, first of all, that is wonderful writing, rather than being intellectual Navy SEALs.
Nicely done.
But secondly, it suggests that you can't fix it.
You know what I mean?
Because who's going to fix it?
If it's already infected every nook and cranny, even if you've got somebody in charge, they wouldn't be able to get it done.
Everybody would slow walk it.
You couldn't fire anybody because DEI hires.
It's actually unfixable.
So I think the university system, very much like I said about the Democrats, have found the only way that they can put themselves on a business.
They can create a situation where even they have no chance of recovery.
I don't think that universities...
Can recover.
I think the solution will be the free market will create education alternatives, and those alternatives will increasingly look good on paper.
And there will be employers someday, very soon, someday there's going to be an employer looking at resumes and saying, Harvard.
Throw it away.
Oh, here's somebody who went through the Jordan Peterson Academy.
Oh, let's talk to them.
I think we're very close to that.
You know, maybe five years away, but that's pretty close.
Anyway, another nomination.
Trump has announced he wants to nominate Alex Wong as his Deputy National Security Advisor.
That's a pretty important position.
Now, apparently, Wong was one of the key people in the North Korean summit that Trump did in 2018, where he met Kim Jong-un.
But now some of you are going to say, I know what you're going to say, you're going to say that Wong is a DEI hire because he's, you know, Asian American.
And I want you to know that they've decided not to hire his brother because two Wongs would be a white and, ah, forget it, forget it.
There was a dad joke in there, but I can't make it work.
Can't make it work.
All right, but he sounds like he'll be great, actually.
He's got a real good resume.
Good to have him on board.
According to Just the News, polling expert John Rogers says that the big difference, or one of the big differences in the election that just happened, was that Republicans managed to get a million Republican voters who were not likely to vote to vote.
So it turns out that maybe the big insight that the Republicans had that made the difference was that they weren't going to convert any Democrats.
They probably got some independents, but they weren't going to get any Democrats.
But what they could get...
There's a million people who would vote for them if they voted, but they weren't likely to vote because they haven't voted before.
So apparently their ground game focusing on the people who hadn't voted, but maybe they should look into it, totally worked.
Now, if I were to talk about Trump's campaign, after I just said that what the Democrats did was literally everything wrong, What did Trump do?
Well, let's see.
His rallies were a giant success.
His communication and persuasion, a giant success.
His handling of Pennsylvania, a giant success.
Scott Pressler, thank you very much.
His strategy of going after the low-propensity voters, perfect.
His His policies, excellent.
His policies were always at the top of people's list.
What else is there?
The Trump campaign managed to do everything right.
Do you remember earlier this year, I started saying, is it my imagination that Or is whoever's running this campaign like just nailing it and somehow has gotten Trump to be compatible with, you know, just best practices?
And sure enough, it was exactly what it looked like.
If you have the best, I mean, just uncommonly good campaign people, it really made a difference.
And then you look at, you know, the Democrats and they had uncommonly bad Advice and campaign people, and you got exactly what you'd expect.
Yeah, even going on podcasts.
Basically, everything from the garbage truck to the barbershop.
I mean, it was just perfect from top to bottom.
Wasn't it?
I mean, you throw in the fight, fight, fight, and I mean, it was perfection.
It really was from top to bottom.
All right, Tom.
Mario Nafal is showing some of the waste the government has been involved in recently.
So we've got $6 trillion we spent, the government spent in 2023, and that's $47,000 per household.
Oh, my God.
But here are some of the things the government spent in 2023. $45 million for, quote, diversity and inclusion scholarships in Burma.
In Burma.
Now, for those of you who are not good with your geography, Burma is not a city in the United States.
It's a country.
And it's not even in our hemisphere.
$45 million for diversity and inclusion.
We spent $3 million for, quote, girl-centered climate action in Brazil.
What?
Girl-centered climate action?
Well, I'm not going to make the jokes that I want to make, but you know I do.
Can we take a moment for you to think what joke I'm probably going to make and then just tell it to yourself in your head and then have a good laugh.
All right, good.
I spent $288,000 for diverse birdwatcher groups.
Was that to make them more diverse?
Or because the bird watchers were not diverse enough, so we had to stimulate that?
How about $125 million for critical race theory and public health?
Oh my God, really?
How about $573,000 to men in action?
An anti-Israel group?
To combat, quote, disinformation.
Okay, those are not ideal expenses.
But like everybody says, the big expenses are going to be the defense and Social Security and Medicare and that stuff.
So if we don't figure that out, it doesn't matter if we fix this little stuff.
Meanwhile, Putin continues to be persuasive in his Putin way, and he released a map of all the targets in Europe That Russia can hit with its new IRBM missile.
It says it's capable of reaching London in 17 minutes.
So they've got a map showing all the capitals and stuff that he could destroy with his missile.
Now this, of course, is in preparation for negotiating to some end to the Ukraine war.
So a lot of it is hyperbole and persuasion and stuff.
But I'm just glad that he's targeting our adversaries instead of us now.
Because as you know, London is part of Great Britain.
And Great Britain is apparently involved in trying to get rid of the First Amendment in the United States.
You knew that, right?
Great Britain is not on your side.
So I do not consider Great Britain to be our ally.
I consider them to be a problematic player in the world who sometimes asks for our help, but other times works against our interests.
They're not allies.
They could be, and they have been, and I would love them to be allies again.
But at the moment, they don't look like allies to me.
So, if you want to be allies, you're going to have to up your game.
Great Britain, I'm sure we'll still protect you, but I just can't call them allies.
If they're trying to destroy free speech in America, they sent government people over to help Kamala Harris in the election.
That's not an ally.
I mean, it wouldn't matter who they helped.
They shouldn't be over here at all.
Stay out of our politics.
And maybe there's a greater chance that Russia won't send a missile into London.
I don't want him to bomb London, just in case it sounded like that.
No, I don't want London to be bombed.
But...
I can't call Great Britain an ally of the United States.
It doesn't fit the facts.
All right.
That's all I got for you today and this wonderful Saturday.
I'm going to talk privately to the subscribers on Locals.
And if you didn't know it, the 2025 Dilbert calendar that you see over my back is available now.
And it's available at the link you can see at Dilbert.com or shop Dilbert.online.
They'll take you to it directly.
I would love to put the link on X, but X does not allow me to link Dilbert.com.
It says the website's not safe.
I guess I've got to fix that somehow.
All right.
Everybody on X and Rumble and YouTube, I will see you tomorrow.
