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, Climate Change, U.S. Border Wall Materials Sale, Jessica Tarlov, Black Plastic Cooking Utensils, Drone Laser Weapons, Nuclear Power, Kamala Harris's Future, Q2 Job Numbers Faked, Anti-Trump News Liability, George Stephanopoulos, E. Jean Carroll's Memory, Reid Hoffman, President Biden Pardons, TikTok Algorithm, RFK Jr. Polio Vaccine, Mayor Adams, Bill Maher, Derek Chauvin, USPS Privatization, Gavin Newsom Cost Cutting, Reuter's Side Business, Mike Benz, NJ Missing Nuclear Material, Mystery Drones, Collapsing Woke Governments, Trump Common Sense Policies, Sarah Adams Terror Warning, Romania NATO Base, 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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I guarantee you've never had a better time in your life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains...
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip, and it happens.
Now, go.
Well, I don't know how your life has gone for the last 24 hours.
and But ever since Grok got really, really good at making pictures, there's been a nonstop memes of me dating Michelle Obama.
And the images are so photorealistic that all morning long, and yesterday too, I'm looking at photos going by in the locals.
The people who chat on the locals' feed can put in images, so we trade memes.
And there are about 10,000 memes of me making out with Michelle Obama.
But here's the funny thing.
They also tried to do AOC and me.
But every time they did an AOC picture, where I was, you know, as far as AI, I was seemingly dating her.
It didn't look like we had chemistry.
Even though we would be in the picture, we'd be close, but it just didn't look like we were that into each other.
But the funny thing is, the Michelle Obama pictures, almost all of them, it looks like we're really getting it off.
We're really getting it off.
And it makes me wonder, in the real world, it makes me wonder, given that AI is based on pattern recognition, is it possible that AI is predicting That if I ever met Michelle Obama in person, that we'd get along great?
Do you think that that's possible?
Do you think AI could figure out, just with its own little pattern recognition, which kind of people I'd get along with and who I wouldn't?
And is it possible that it knows I wouldn't get along with AOC? And I'm not talking about dating.
I'm just talking about personal charisma and chemistry and stuff.
But it looks like I would really get along with Michelle Obama.
And it makes me curious.
Now I actually really want to meet her to see if we would just have a natural connection.
I'll bet we do.
If I had to bet on it, I'd say 60-40 yes, that the AI is actually revealing that there's some way we'd get along great.
Anyway, one of the top stories is there's a school shooting and there's something about maybe trans and I'm not going to talk about any of that.
I don't love talking about the trans stuff.
I don't love talking about the crimes and when they're together.
I'm twice as likely to not want to...
I have to show, if you don't mind, the people on Locals.
I'm going to show everybody...
Some of the memes.
So here's me with Michelle Obama on a date at the Cat Cafe that doesn't exist but should.
There we are.
See how we're hitting it off?
For some reason it puts like spots on me.
What else we got here?
But then notice how I don't have chemistry with everybody.
So here I am with Kamala Harris.
No chemistry.
Right?
You can see it.
There's just no chemistry there.
Alright.
Now, let's see.
Find another one with Michelle.
There's a whole bunch of them coming in just as I was talking about it.
Alright, here's another one at the Cat Cafe.
You tell me.
Are we not having a good time?
We're petting the cat.
We're drinking coffee.
These are good times.
I'm going to have a false memory that I actually dated her.
Alright, here's the best one.
I almost don't want to show you this one, but it's just too good.
Alright, here's the best one.
Now you tell me, does it look like we have chemistry?
Yes!
Now, it's not exactly what my body looks like, but it's still impressive.
All right, so that's enough of that.
How impressed are you at the quality of the images?
They're kind of amazing.
Anyway, there's some science from the Universidad de Castilla de la Mancha, Spain.
I know, that was a perfect pronunciation.
A lot of people would have had trouble with it because it's a foreign language.
But I just have a thing with languages.
So, Universidad de Castillo la Mancha.
That's how you do it.
Anyway, according to them, people who take a higher number of steps every day are likely to have less depressive symptoms.
Huh.
The people who are more active have less depression.
What's also true is that people who have more depression don't feel like walking.
So is it backward science?
And they admit that they think it might be backwards, by the way.
So in this case, they're very aware that it's correlation, not causation.
But why is it so complicated to know what is the causation?
It's because it works both ways.
There's two causations.
One, if you're depressed, you're not going to take a walk.
Two, if you could force yourself to take a walk, it would probably make you less depressed.
So it's sort of not backward science.
It's more like bisexual two-way science.
Sure, let's call it that.
Meanwhile, there's some microchips being developed that look like they could identify a whole range of diseases from things like just your breath and other factors, I guess, according to Ken Richards at the No Trick Zone.
Oh, wait.
No, this is a different study.
I'm on to a different study.
So let me give you about the chips for measuring stuff.
So a number of years ago, I was at a Berkeley event where some startups were pitching their stuff.
And one of them that I invested in It was a startup that had a very inexpensive, portable, chip-based thing for testing your blood.
So you'd give it the smallest little sample, which actually they would take from not even pinching you.
I think they would do it with like a Band-Aid thing that would slightly pierce your skin, and then they'd put that Band-Aid thing on it, and they would do a blood test.
Now, that startup I don't think worked out.
I haven't checked in with them, but I don't think they hit a home run there.
But that was based on the fact that after 9-11, the government funded a bunch of studies to see if you could develop quickly a way to detect chemical weapons.
So because the government funded fast ways to detect chemical weapons, the technology was developed that could also detect other things and also be portable and inexpensive.
Well, that was years ago.
So it looks like they've got something else going in that domain.
I think that's going to replace your doctor.
If you give me AI and you give me a chip that can find most of my diseases, I'm 80% good.
I mean, other than catastrophic things, that's most of my health care.
Anyway, back to Ken Richards at the No Trick Zone.
There's a study that finds there's no measurable effect of reducing emissions, so the climate won't be any better because of it.
Why?
Well, this is the funniest potential debunk of climate change models that you'll see.
I'm not going to say that I believe this is true.
This is just a claim, right?
Studies are about half of them are true.
But research found, according to this one study, That you get a lot of climate effects when CO2 is up to a certain range, but then after that range, as the CO2 continues to go up, you do not get a predictable amount of warming.
And the theory is that at first, you know, if you went from no CO2 or low CO2 to a little bit, you would see an increase in heat.
But we're way past that.
So where we are, the amount of CO2 we have in the air, if you were to double it, it wouldn't make much difference.
So apparently there's something about the nature of CO2 that a little bit of it will get you warm.
But if you quadruple it, it barely makes a difference.
It was the little bit to make you warm that mattered.
Let me see if I can come up with an analogy.
This is a bad analogy.
Let's say if you were painting a room in your house and you put one coat on it, you'd say, not good enough.
You put two coats of paint on it, you're good.
You've got a nicely painted room.
What if you put a third coat on it?
The third coat wouldn't make any difference.
What about a fourth coat?
No difference.
So the claim, and I'm not saying it's true, it's just a study, Is that the only differences that the CO2 would make, the biggest part, is already made.
And we're fine.
So even if we spent trillions of dollars to try to desperately try to keep that number from rising, it wouldn't make any difference.
Now, is that true?
I don't know.
But I'll tell you what is definitely true.
The models do not predict the future.
All they predict is the assumptions you put into them.
They predict the past.
Climate models predict the past.
Do you know how?
Because they tell you what assumptions you put in them in the past.
If you show me a climate model, and I were an expert in models and climate models, I could look at it and say, hmm, I predict that in the past, You assumed that the temperature goes up smoothly at the same rate as the CO2. That's my prediction.
Did you do that in the past?
Yeah, we did.
Nailed it.
Nailed it.
I predicted the past.
Does it predict the future?
I doubt it.
But it definitely predicts the past.
It'll tell you what assumptions you put in your model in the past.
All right.
I think there's some fake news out there on the political right, but I'm not positive.
So the political right is all upset, and I've reported on this too.
That the Biden administration is selling off perfectly good parts of the southern wall components that are being sold for scrap when it's clear that Trump would use them.
So we're just wasting our money.
And the story is that it's supposedly bad for Trump because he'll have to spend more money to build wall.
But I saw Jessica Tarlov on The Five the other day saying that was fake news.
How many of you have heard that's fake news?
No, I'm not saying it is.
I'm just saying, how many of you have heard the claim that that was fake news?
Have you even heard the claim?
Because I wonder how much is getting through into our bubble.
Because I'm in the same bubble you are.
I only saw one little sliver of that, which is, I was doing something else, and I heard Justin Katarloff just talking while the TV was on, and I was like, what?
What?
So some of you, yes.
So I believe her argument was that the stuff being sold was actually junk.
Now, what's the difference between perfectly good wall and junk?
I don't know.
But I think you'll recall that when I first told you the story, I suggested that there might be more to it, as in there might be a reason they're throwing it away.
So there is a counterclaim, and the counterclaim, I don't know the details of it, but it would suggest exactly what I was imagining.
It would suggest that not all the wall is the same.
And that there might be parts of it that they concluded were not usable.
Maybe they were stored incorrectly.
Maybe there were the wrong specifications.
Maybe there's some structural problem.
I don't know.
So just put a pin in this one.
When I first heard that story, I didn't say it, and I should have, so this is on me.
It wasn't a little bit too much on the nose.
When you heard that Biden is selling off the wall that everybody knows would be a good idea to keep, do you think that that really...
Did that sound like a real story when you first heard it?
Or did it sound like exactly the kind of things that are fake stories?
It sounded to me like exactly like a fake story.
Like it just had all the characteristics of an obviously fake story.
But I didn't see any reporting.
And as of today, I think Fox News and other major pundits who would know better are still reporting it's a real thing.
So, I'll put it out there as a question mark.
If I had to put my money on it, I would bet it's fake.
If I had to put my money on it, I'd bet it's fake.
But I don't know.
So, we'll find out.
Do you remember, I don't know if you even noticed, there was a lot of news about how if you're using a black spatula or any of the black kind of kitchen utensils, you were poisoning yourself because there was stuff in that plastic that was coming off and getting in your body.
And yesterday, I almost replaced all of my black plastic kitchenware, because it's basically all I have.
It's all black plastic kitchenware.
And I thought, damn it!
They were pretty adamant that there was some bad stuff in there.
I better replace it.
Well, it turns out, according to our technique, that...
They made an error in the math, and they added an extra zero, and they were off by 10x.
They were off by a factor of 10. It is 10% as dangerous as they said, and it wasn't exactly that dangerous.
So, what did the scientists do when they found out that instead of finding out that it was above the safe level, it was actually one-tenth of the safe level?
So, obviously, they immediately apologized.
They immediately retracted the paper and concluded that black plastic spatulas are just fine, right?
Obviously.
Obviously, that's what they did.
No.
No, what they did was they said, oh...
It's right directionally.
So instead of being more than you can tolerate, it's one-tenth of what you can tolerate, but still it's the same point because it's one-tenth of what you can tolerate.
So they've decided that they'll keep the conclusion, but the numbers will change by 10x, but not the conclusion.
Conclusion's fine.
But the climate change models are all good, right?
The climate change models are all good, right?
In order to believe the climate change models, sometimes I think you would have had to spend no time in real life.
In real life, all of this stuff is fake.
All of it.
It's all fake.
Anyway.
Well, apparently there's going to be lasers on drones.
Somebody in North Korea.
Not North Korea.
Hong Kong.
A researcher, according to New Atlas, found a way to put powerful lasers on drones, but they did it in a clever way because you're saying to yourself, oh, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Oh, let me clear this up for you.
You are so dumb, Scott, about all things science, and here's another example of it, because you couldn't possibly support the weight of Of the weight of a laser that would be powerful enough to do any damage.
You'd never be able to put this big truck-sized laser on a drone.
Scott, you freaking idiot!
Well, they didn't do that.
They're using a mirror on the drone, and they have a ground-based laser that they would shoot up to the mirror.
I'm simplifying.
It's more than a mirror.
I'm simplifying.
They hit the mirror, and then it would form into a deadly laser beam if they aimed it correctly, which is remarkably impressive technology if they can make it work.
It's not the first time this has been thought of, because there have been space-based ideas for space-based satellites that would also reflect a laser.
Maybe those already exist.
Would we know?
I don't know.
It's kind of a cool idea.
So you'd need a truck-sized thing to make that work.
But the truck would be on the ground.
Support for nuclear energy is at an all-time high.
You're welcome.
I say that because I was one of several people who for the last eight years have been banging that drum.
You don't understand.
It's safer than you think.
The modern ones are not as dangerous as the old ones.
They know how to handle the waste, etc.
So apparently that got through.
But according to Just the News, 70% of men support nuclear energy, but only 44% of women.
Why the difference?
And don't say something sexist.
Why is there such a gigantic difference about something that isn't personal to women?
It's not like it's an abortion.
It's not personal to women in any way.
Why would there be a gigantic difference?
Well, answer the question without being a sexist, you sexists.
Why do you think there would be an enormous difference?
Look at the comments and you can tell.
So my audience has largely been all completely informed that nuclear energy is not only good but necessary, which is what all the tech leaders are saying.
They're all saying it's not only good, it's required.
We're going to need it for AI and other stuff.
Now, my audience is 85% male, and I've trained my 85% male audience completely.
Every one of you could argue about a nuclear energy at your next party, and you'd know what you're talking about.
But also, 15% of the women, the women who are watching me, would also be able to argue the same.
I think it has to do with what sources of information men and women use.
I think the podcaster world and the tech bro world is 100% pro-nuclear energy.
If you watch Joe Rogan, somebody would have been on there like Michael Schellenberger, for example.
And what is that?
Nuclear energy?
No, you have it all wrong.
Nuclear energy is great.
It's necessary.
It's required, really.
And who watches?
What's the gender breakdown of Joe Rogan?
It's probably not too far from mine.
It's probably 80-20.
I'm just guessing, but mostly male.
How many people are following Michael Schellenberger?
So if you just go right down the line, I think you would find that the more tech-oriented topics attract men, and so men become informed on tech-oriented things.
If I said to you, what percentage of men versus women have a pretty good understanding of cryptocurrencies?
It would also skew male, wouldn't it?
Much less, much less.
But it would skew male, maybe 60-40?
There are tons of women who are deeply into crypto and know what they're talking about, but still at least 60-40.
What about electric cars?
If I were going to get into a debate about the pros and cons of electric cars, who do you think would be more informed about that?
Men.
Not because men are awesome, but because they would just automatically, they're drawn to topics like that, and podcasts like that, and articles like that.
So we kind of like our nerdy stuff.
So it makes sense, but it also suggests a fixable problem.
It sounds like women are less informed on the pros and cons of nuclear energy.
And again, this has nothing to do with being female.
There's no gender or anything here.
It's just that there are natural preferences of podcasts and news sources.
So this is a big problem.
And I would argue that the resistance to nuclear energy...
If we had not had it, which means if women had been on the right page, because women are on just the wrong page.
There are very few topics where I can just say, oh, you're 100% wrong.
If we're talking about abortion, it's very subjective.
But not nuclear power.
Nuclear power is purely objective, and it just is clearly in one direction.
You should do a lot of it.
So that's an education problem.
If we don't educate women...
On some of these nerdy things, we're going to have problems getting things done that need to get done.
All right, well, Kamala Harris emerged to do some more word salad, and I feel like she has about four sentences that you can just interchange and then just repeat them in different order, and you would have a Kamala Harris speech.
So it kind of goes like this, but with a drunken accent.
We have to put in the work.
We have not been defeated.
Our spirits have not been defeated.
Because we're going to put in the work.
And I've been very, very clear that we've not been defeated.
And we're going to put in the work.
And we know what we stand for.
And we know democracy matters.
I've been very clear.
And as long as we put in the work, no individual can take away our power.
Because I've been very clear we put it in the work.
So that's basically her old speech right there.
And I would like to make a persuasion suggestion to Kamala Harris.
Now that she's lost, I can give her this advice.
Do you know what the worst possible fucking thing you could ever say if you're running for office?
We need to put in the work.
Don't ever say that.
Nobody likes work.
Let's compare.
We're really going to have to put it in the work.
Compare that to make America great again.
Make America healthy again.
You got me.
Okay.
Got it.
We're entering the golden age.
Really?
The golden age.
Nice.
My energy is up.
Let's make America great again.
Make it healthy again.
The golden age.
I've been very clear that we're going to have to do the work.
Do the work.
I've been very clear they can't steal our democracy.
I've been very clear.
So which one's better?
I mean, I don't want to get all analytical, but which one do you like?
Make America great again!
Or, eh, gotta put it in work.
Work.
Gotta work harder!
All right.
She's anti-persuasive, is what I call her.
Let's see.
Let me tell you the least surprising news.
According to Zero Hedge, the Philadelphia Fed finds that all the jobs created in the second quarter were fake.
Really?
So the Biden administration...
When it needed the jobs to look good, it was maybe the most important thing that they needed.
I had some statistics that have all been, let's say, modified and corrected and improved since then, and now we know that all of the job growth was fake.
It was fake.
Have I ever told you that all data that matters is fake?
If you could remember just one thing about the world, it would protect you so much.
All data that matters is fake.
Now, that matters is doing a lot of work there.
So, for example, if you were to count the number of shoes in your closet and there were too many for your storage space, well, you know, the data matters.
So, I mean, it doesn't matter to the world.
So, in small ways, data is useful.
In small ways, data is useful.
But whenever...
There's a big data that can only be put together by the special people.
Not everybody can do a climate change analysis.
It's got to be the special people.
Not everybody can tell you how much the employment is this quarter.
I can't do it.
You can't do it.
You have to listen to the special people.
So when the special people are in charge, let's see, are these vaccinations going to be good for us or bad for us?
Let's ask the special people because we can't really tell ourselves.
Whenever the special people control the data, it's fake.
Do you know how I know that?
Because it used to be my job to tell people what the data was when I worked in big companies.
Do you think I was concerned about the accuracy of the data?
Yes, if it didn't matter.
But if it mattered, I was concerned about not getting fired.
And when it mattered, I gave my boss whatever he wanted.
That was my job.
And all I had to do was change the assumptions.
I didn't even have to lie.
I didn't even have to do anything dishonest.
I could just look at my assumptions and say, well...
If I tweak that one, it's going to give my boss exactly what he wants.
And then is that dishonest?
No, because I would footnote.
Well, not even footnote.
I'd say it directly.
These are my assumptions.
And it would actually be an assumption page.
So whenever I did any kind of a projection, financial projection, which I did for a living, I would list my assumptions.
And if you were to read those assumptions, you would say, huh, That looks kind of subjective.
You could have gone this way or the other way, and there would be an argument both ways.
So I picked the way that my boss liked.
Just like every other person who does numbers, every other person gives their boss what they want.
If you think it happens some other way, you're not living in the real world.
In the real world, the boss gets what they ask for.
That's how money works.
Anyway, Zero Hedge was reporting on that.
So you know how Trump won the case against George Stephanopoulos, who said he had been found liable for rape?
And then I saw on social media a bunch of other people Passing around video of other people who had also said that Trump was a rapist.
They said, oh, pretty soon you're going to have to pay $15 million.
So it was a way to say that what Stephanopoulos was doing was what everybody else was doing, and they should all be sued as well.
But they weren't doing what he was doing.
What Stephanopoulos was doing was more unique than what the others were doing.
If somebody says Trump is a racist, or Trump is a rapist, or Trump is dishonest, or Trump is anything, whatever they say, that's an opinion.
You're fine if it's just an opinion.
So if you say he is a certain bad thing, that's an opinion.
But if you say that a court found him liable...
And that is not technically true, then you're in trouble, especially if you are a news organization.
If you're a news organization and you've covered that specific news in detail, and that specific news never produced the true fact, I'm saying it's not a true fact, and there was never a point where he was found liable for rape.
If I understand it correctly, the liability was because he called her a liar, and then the court found, in their opinion by a majority, that it wasn't a lie.
But they did not find him guilty or liable for rape.
They found him liable for lying about the situation according to the jury, and we don't know if they lied.
As Byron York pointed out, if you look at how many times Stephanopoulos phrased his question with the phrase libel for rape, he said it like ten times in about five minutes.
About ten times he said libel for rape, but he's libel for rape, libel for rape, libel for rape.
So that's how you know it wasn't an accident.
Like if he said it once, but maybe the other times he'd put the nuance on it, he'd probably be fine.
But if you say it 10 times emphatically, and you're a news organization, and you work for the news part of the news organization, and the news said that didn't happen, but you're saying it did happen 10 times in a row, and it's the worst thing you could say to somebody in public right in front of them, yeah, I guess you lose $15 million.
I think this one totally makes sense.
Apparently...
Trump liked that, and he might be looking at suing 60 Minutes and pollster Ann Seltzer for election interference, I guess.
But 60 Minutes famously took a Kamala Harris answer that was just word salad, and they replaced the word salad answer with her answer to a different question, spliced it together, and looked like she had a coherent answer to a question.
Now, can you sue somebody for that?
Because that certainly looks like election interference to me.
It was an important and rare, the rare part is important too, it was a very important, high-level, rare interview with Kamala Harris.
And they completely changed the reality so that you would see a non-reality and vote on it, instead of a reality.
Is that against the law?
Well, it's not against the law, probably.
Just lying.
But was it intentional election interference?
Well, I guess we'll have to let a jury decide that, maybe.
Because it definitely interfered with the election.
But it's also maybe free speech.
I don't know.
So I'm not sure which way the court case would go.
But there's certainly a claim there.
I mean, that's a real claim.
Then the one about...
The pollster, Ann Selzer, I guess the argument there would be you'd have to prove that she really knew that her poll results said that Kamala Harris was way ahead in Iowa, which was impossible.
You'd have to say that she knew she was wrong and did it anyway, meaning she was trying to influence the election.
I would say the evidence strongly suggests, in a circumstantial but not a proven way, That it would be hard to explain what we saw unless it was intentional.
And the argument for that is that she was such a good pollster.
If you're that good a pollster, and you come up with a number that's clearly out of the field with all the other pollsters, and you don't catch it, and you don't at least say, we're not sure this is true, or at least put a footnote on it.
Like, we'll see if this persists next week, but we're worried maybe there's a problem here.
That would be the way to handle that.
So, should she be sued?
Well, I don't know.
It looks crooked to me, but there's no evidence or proof, let's say.
There's no proof of corruption.
Because if her argument is, I just made a mistake, and by the way, I'm retiring...
You could argue that she retired because she knew she couldn't maintain a reputation after this.
Or you could also say that the reason she's retiring is that maybe she thinks she's losing a step.
And that part of the reason for retiring is that she wasn't confident she could do her job as well as she wanted to.
So whether that's true or not, it feels like it would be a pretty good defense.
So I don't know that you could win on those.
But the Stephanopoulos one was a real clear case.
But back to that.
It seems to me that Stephanopoulos and ABC are often associated with the, let's say, the fake news matrix.
Meaning that they're definitely inventors of fake news and maintainers of fake news.
So I think that what Stephanopoulos was doing was there was probably some meeting, and they said, we have to say, not that he paid E.G. and Carroll, but that we have to make it sound more rapey.
And that they said, let's try this.
Let's try libel for rape, even though he technically wasn't, but he was liable for accusing her of lying.
But lying about the rape, which is kind of close to being liable for rape.
It's like the cousin of it and the zip code next door, but it's not.
So what is the best way we can fool the public into thinking something that happened that didn't happen or maybe didn't happen?
And I think the phrase libel for rape is not a George Stephanopoulos invention that he just liked to say.
I would say that that is professional work that the party told him to say, and then like a good party apparatchik, he just repeated it and repeated it and tried to make it a thing so everybody else would repeat it as well.
Instead, he got his ass sued.
So maybe you got a little too close to the sun there, George.
Bummer.
I've heard separately that E.G. and Carroll did a magazine cover.
For the Atlantic?
In which the headline said, you know, here she is wearing the same dress she was wearing when Trump sexually assaulted her in Bergdorf's.
So that was the claim, that she still had the dress.
She has such a good memory of the event that she remembers the clothes she was wearing, still has it, and wanted to show you wearing it to really make her story land.
But it turns out that that particular dress wasn't even in stores or available until long after the alleged sexual attack.
Now, do you think the jury or the judge heard the evidence that she was claiming she was wearing a dress that did not exist at the time of the claim?
Given that, the quality of her memory was mostly what was on trial.
Because if everybody agreed she had a perfect memory and was telling the truth, well then, Trump's guilty.
But really, the whole trial was about, are these things you think you remember real?
Clearly, a major, really major part of the case, that she remembers the details including what she was wearing, have been debunked.
And I don't think the jury heard that.
So...
It makes me wonder.
So this gets back to Reid Hoffman, who funded Eugene Carroll's case.
That might be one of the creepiest, worst things that's ever happened in politics, from a citizen.
You know, short of actual violence...
Finding this victim and resurrecting a charge and selling it by keeping important information away from the jury, everything about this is the worst of human activity.
This is really, really bad, dark stuff.
So, Reid Hoffman probably has some karma coming for him for this, if nothing else.
So Biden apparently has pardoned or commuted the prison sentence of an Islamic terrorist.
He's the half-brother of the billionaire Hamas leader.
Let me say that again.
According to Breitbart, Joe Biden has commuted the sentence of the half-brother of the billionaire Hamas leader And he was involved also in funding the terrorism.
So he wasn't just related.
He was involved.
He was helping fund it.
Now, some speculate, and I think this is good speculation, that this is not an independent act, but rather related to some negotiations about the hostages.
You could easily imagine that That part of the negotiations are that Israel would have to free a bunch of prisoners.
Maybe America has some prisoners to free and this might be it.
So it's probably in the larger context of a prisoner swap thing and something that Biden is trying to get done before Trump gets it done.
But this would definitely be negotiating with terrorists.
This would be negotiating with terrorists.
Does that work?
I used to think it worked.
No, I didn't.
I never thought it worked.
Didn't we all know that negotiating with terrorists just never works?
Ever?
All right.
Well, we'll see what happens.
So the TikTok is scheduled to go out of existence for American customers in January, unless something changes.
So TikTok filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to block the ban.
And Trump's looking at it, and he's more favorable to TikTok because TikTok helped him get elected.
He believes it, because he got the youth vote and it probably made a difference.
So on one hand, let me break it in.
On one hand, TikTok is a Chinese propaganda machine that is an existential threat to America.
So that would be an argument for banning it, is that it's an existential threat, essentially a weapon in the hands of our biggest adversary.
But on the other hand, Trump did do his Trump thing where he grabs the gun out of their hand and turns around and uses it on them.
So Trump, instead of banning TikTok or wanting to, he joined it, did so well on TikTok that it helped him win the election.
So you can see why he'd want to keep it.
But on the third hand, We should take into account that a major donor to Trump, to Republicans and Trump in particular, a major donor is also a major owner of TikTok, in addition to China.
He's an investor.
He's got a lot of money in it.
So Trump's protecting a donator.
But on the fifth hand...
China does have the right of free speech in America, right?
Oh, no, it doesn't.
All right, here's an argument I'm going to make that I wonder if anybody has made on this case so far, because I think this will be the first time you've heard it.
So China obviously doesn't have the right of free speech in America because they're not American residents or citizens.
Actually, resident would be good enough, I guess.
But if China is managing the algorithm, then the algorithm determines what parts of people's free speech reaches whose ears.
Right?
So they control the algorithm.
So the cumulative speech that's coming out of...
Let's put it this way.
The individuals, the American individuals using TikTok are exercising their freedom of speech.
Protect it.
But the...
The vehicle, TikTok, the platform they use, since it gets to decide who sees what by changing the algorithm, the algorithm effectively changes the speech.
Because let's say you had 10 people saying, Israel must succeed.
And one message says, Israel must be destroyed.
But let's say China decides to show the one message instead of the 10 messages.
Whose free speech is that?
It's not really just the person who said it.
It's China's free speech.
So China, speaking through the algorithm that speaks through TikTok, is exercising its freedom of speech in America that it doesn't have.
China doesn't have free speech.
People do.
So let me say it a different way.
Individuals using TikTok, if you knew that the things they said would reach a predictable audience, the one that they wanted to reach, then that would be pure free speech.
And I'd actually be cool with that.
But if individuals were saying what they want to say, But then that doesn't get to who they want it to get to with the reliability that they'd like.
Rather, it gets massaged, combined, moved to some people sometimes and some people other times.
Who controlled the speech in that case?
Because in that case, the messages that are being received are mostly because of and managed by the algorithm, meaning China.
So, it's not that citizens are using free speech on TikTok.
That's a minor part of it.
The major part of it is that the speech collectively has to be analyzed as a collective speech.
And we don't have a law that says if the average of your algorithm creates some speech, there's a law against it or it's a right.
I don't know that there's any right about Chinese algorithmically managed speech.
Is that a right?
They're not citizens, and they're the ones controlling what you actually consume.
So, anyway, that's it for that.
So there were rumors that RFK Jr. was opposed to the polio vaccine.
And he answered a question on his way to something.
He said, I'm all for the polio vaccine.
So it was fake news that he was opposed to the polio vaccine.
Is it fake news that he suspects the childhood vaccinations in general are dangerous?
That's not fake news.
That's real.
But his plan is not to ban him.
His plan is to make sure we have the right data to decide what we're doing.
And that makes sense.
But Democrats are apparently afraid of science now, which is the perfect, complete turnaround.
I am old enough to remember when it was just an assumption that Democrats had a good, firm grasp of science and the Neanderthals on the right...
We're just ignoring science left and right.
They were science deniers.
But now, you've got Democrats who are opposed to RFK Jr. making sure that we have good science for our healthcare decisions.
And they're against it.
So, I'm not so sure they're the pro-science group.
Well, the Mayor Eric Adams situation is getting interesting because Trump actually said that he was unfairly treated and he'd consider pardoning him.
So Democrat Mayor Eric Adams of New York, who has been strong on the borders, strong against crime, and now he's against wokeness, basically.
So, let's see, strong on crime, strong on borders, and he's anti-woke, and he's being law-affared, maybe.
What does that sound like to you?
A person who's strong on the border, strong on crime, anti-woke, and maybe getting law-affared by Democrats.
That's a Republican.
He used to be a Republican, but I don't think he ever really changed.
So here's what I think might be happening.
I think it's entirely possible that Mayor Eric Adams will Turn back Republican in return for a pardon.
I don't know if that's legal, to offer something in return for a pardon.
But if what he offered was, you know, if I get a pardon, I'm just going to register as Republican and we're going to go from there.
Because it would be a hell of a story.
Hell of a story.
Now, I understand that he has some Democrat positions that you don't like, so we're just keeping an eye on this.
I don't have a strong preference.
It's just a good story.
Meanwhile, Bill Maher on Club Random was talking to a comedian guest actor whose name I can't remember, but he But apparently Bill Maher is no longer suffering the worst of the TDS. So he's decided we might be able to survive the Trump era without losing our democracy.
So here's what he said on Club Random, Bill Maher.
And the truth is, you're probably going to be able to keep doing that, meaning just doing normal life, no matter what's going out there in the world.
Of course, the worst thing could happen.
Trump could get into office and blow up the world on day one.
Could happen.
Obviously it won't.
He goes, but you know, I'm not going through the same spiel I did last time.
Like, when it happens, wake me.
But I'm not giving my mind over to it again, and I'll see what happens.
And here's the kill shot.
You ready?
Bill Maher says, and one thing I've learned about the future is that we're very bad at predicting it, and whatever you think is probably likely to happen probably isn't going to happen.
Let me read that again.
One thing I've learned about the future is that we are very bad at predicting it.
We?
We?
Are we bad at predicting the future?
You and I? And Bill?
We?
Because I remember over 70 million Americans who got it all fucking right in 2016, all fucking right in 2020, but there weren't enough of them, the other side won, and all fucking right in 2024. 70 million people, three out of three.
And he calls that, we can't predict the future.
Yes, we fucking can.
70 million people got the future right three times in a row.
And not just a little bit.
Like, completely right.
Three times in a row.
It's the same people who spotted all the fake news three times in a row.
Right?
Actually, a hundred times in a row.
So, this just fascinates the hell out of me, because I think Bill Maher is actually chewing through the wall of his prison, and I think he's going to make it out.
You know, I would have bet against it.
I would have bet against it.
But he is so close that he's gotten to the barrier, and the barrier wall is that the future is hard to predict.
It's really not.
Not for 70 million people on the right.
They kind of got everything right for 12 years in a row.
If he can't go that final step, he can't get out of his trap.
He's got one step left, and that one step is I, Bill Maher, am bad at predicting the future because I've been reading too much fake news.
We are not bad at predicting the future.
We're not perfect, get lots wrong, but we're pretty darn good at it.
Do you know why the political right is better at predicting the future?
Because the political right is not suffering under a bunch of weird illusions.
They look at motivation.
So when you see Elon Musk, who was posting the other day about something that wouldn't motivate this, I think it was, if you hire somebody to get rid of X, X will never be gotten rid of because that's the person's job.
If he gets rid of it, he doesn't have a job.
So the incentive structure is hiring somebody to get rid of problem X will guarantee that problem X never goes away because the guy's getting paid to stay there and fight it, not to beat it and go away.
So as long as Republicans understand incentives and they also understand the news is all fake, They're going to be in pretty good shape for predicting the future.
If the Democrats still think the news is real, because they read the New York Times, and they don't know that incentives are the only thing that makes anything predictable, is the incentive structure, they will be wrong forever.
You just got to learn these two things.
The news is intentionally wrong, intentionally.
If you don't understand that it's intentionally wrong, then you're really going to be lost.
Because nobody makes that many mistakes accidentally.
All right.
That's enough on that.
Meanwhile, Derek Chauvin's lawyers, or Derek Chauvin himself maybe, is...
He won the right to re-examine the heart tissue and fluid samples from George Floyd's body because there was one hypothesis that somehow didn't make it to Chauvin.
That there was some doctor who hypothesized Floyd had a specific kind of heart condition that would have killed him.
So, if they can find that these heart tissue and samples are suggestive of that specific heart condition, then he's got a cause for maybe overturning it or getting a pardon or, I don't know, something.
And I don't know if this is going to work.
It feels like a bit of a long shot.
But I feel like Trump's third act just needs it.
It just needs it.
I think Trump needs to find out that the climate change alarm was a little overdone.
He needs to find out that all the hoaxes were hoaxes.
He needs to find out that the elections didn't have the integrity that people hoped for.
And we need to overturn the Derek Chauvin thing.
Maybe the Daniel Penny not guilty verdict was, you know, getting us moving in the right direction.
We'll see.
But Trump's getting ready to run the table on all that stuff.
There's a rumor.
Trump says he might be considering, not a rumor, I guess the news.
He says he's considering the privatization of the post office.
Unusual whales was reporting that and somebody said the post office is a garbage delivery service.
That's exactly how I see the post office.
So I've got this box at the end of my driveway that every few days I have to go and empty.
And almost never, almost never is it anything but garbage.
It's literally just garbage.
In fact, I like to check my mail on the day after garbage day.
Because on garbage day, the mailbox is sitting next to my garbage.
So I just open up the garbage, take out the mail and put it in the garbage.
And that's my most efficient mail day.
Now I do check it to make sure there's nothing strange in there.
But at most I have maybe three things, three things that ever come to me in the mail that I care about.
And those three things easily could turn into digital bills and, you know, emails.
So, I don't really have a reason for a post office.
Do you?
We have competing services, and they would just pick up the difference.
So, yeah.
I think maybe getting out of the post service business is exactly what 2025 requires.
Meanwhile, so here's the Trump effect.
I've got a few Trump effect stories.
So Gavin Newsom said that California has been working to reduce costs in government and he's going to eliminate 62,000 positions in California.
There are government jobs.
But here's what he had the nerve to say.
This is Gavin Newsom, governor of California.
Quote, we've been working before Doge was Doge.
It's like a promo project.
We're going to eliminate 62,000 positions.
California is a leader in that space.
So here's what comes after total capitulation.
Okay.
So the Democrat Party completely annihilated.
Just nothing left.
And what you're seeing is that people are finding it might be safer to embrace Trump than to embrace Democrats.
Now that's fully destroyed.
He's actually went from everything Trump does is bad and he's Hillary and he's going to steal your democracy to all the way, all the way to we're going to do Trump stuff better than Trump.
We're going to do even more Trump stuff and sooner than Trump.
That Trump stuff is so good that I'd like to brag about doing the Trump stuff even faster than Trump.
Now, how can Trump win harder than that?
That's the hardest Trump could ever win, is having somebody bragging on the defeated team, having somebody bragging that they're acting more like Trump every day.
How do you win harder than that?
My God!
But anyway, also good work, Gavin Newsom.
So I like to be the guy who doesn't say everything's bad on the other team.
If this is real, if they really eliminated 62,000 positions and it really makes sense, this is just good work.
Do more of this, please.
All right.
As you know, Reuters is a sketchy organization, and their news looks like it's, you know, looks like it's intentionally just Democrat fake news.
But did you know that Reuters is more than just alleged fake news?
They also have some side businesses, and they have over $300 million in government contracts.
This is according to Mike Benz.
They have 11 different Biden agencies targeting Elon's business, and all 11 agencies are paying millions to Reuters.
So the same government agencies that are weaponized against Elon Musk are funding Reuters.
You all see what's going on here?
So Reuters, man.
And then it gets better.
It gets better.
So I'm going to say the first two parts again so that when I say the third part, you'll just, like, throw your phone across the room.
Are you ready for this?
Are you ready?
You better be sitting down for this.
I'll just read the first part again.
So this is from Mike Benz.
The Biden administration paid Reuters over $300 million in government contracts, again, for their side businesses.
And 11 different Biden government agencies targeted Elon Musk's businesses.
And all 11 have paid millions of dollars to Reuters.
And here's the third part.
Wait for it.
Reuters then won the Pulitzer Prize for their work on Elon Musk's misconduct in his businesses.
No, don't throw your phone.
Don't do it.
No, don't do it.
Calm down.
Is this real?
It's real.
Yeah, I bet Benz always shows the receipts.
When Mike Benz tells you something's happening, he always, as far as I know, he always has the publicly available link.
You can look and see it yourself.
So I think all of this is just public.
But until somebody like Benz pulls together the different parts, you don't see the picture, do you?
You can't see the picture until he shows you how it's connected to everything.
Which is, what would we do without Mike Bentons?
And the Glenn Greenwalds and the Michael Schellenbergers and the Matt Taibis.
Elon, to some extent.
David Sachs.
But we now have this constellation of, temporarily anyway, right-leaning people.
Who all have this ability to see the entire field and all the connections.
We didn't have that before.
I'll add Mike Cernovich to the list, somebody who sees the connections.
Jack Posobiec sees the connections.
Bannon in the war room, he sees the connections.
So I could go on with a dozen more names.
But the ability of the political right to understand the whole field and see all the connections is really, really impressive at this point.
I think they're unbeatable for a while.
Well, you know the story about the radioactive material that went missing near New Jersey earlier in December.
And then we've got all these reports of the drones.
So some people say, those drones are looking for the Cat 3 nuclear waste.
Now, first of all, Cat 3 nuclear waste doesn't seem to be like a super dangerous kind.
I'm no expert.
But Cat 3 isn't exactly a dirty bomb, is it?
I mean, I'm not sure why.
I don't know that you can even weaponize it if you wanted to.
So I'll look for a fact check on that.
If somebody could tell me later or in the comments, could you weaponize what they call CAT3 nuclear waste?
I think it's something from medical processes.
What do you think?
Can you weaponize that?
But whether you can or not, here's what I know.
You wouldn't use drones alone, and you wouldn't use these kinds of drones to look for radiation.
I know that because it just, I didn't realize this, but I know somebody.
I know somebody personally who was involved in looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and they were looking for radiation signals, and what we learned from that is that you would have, most of the work would be in the ground.
So it's not impossible that there could be an airborne element to it.
But I think even in the old days, anyway, in Iraq, they would have to drop down some kind of a sensor.
I don't think they could just fly over, unless they have some new tech we don't know about, which is possible.
They might have new tech.
But in the classic sense of looking for radiation, you'd need to be on the ground, and you'd need to have your devices for looking for it on the ground.
Flying 1,000 feet in the air or 500 feet in the air probably doesn't get it done if you're looking for a weak signal.
So I would say the coincidence of the lost materials is probably not related to the drones.
I'm going to say not related.
But here's some updates.
Number one, apparently what the government, the federal government, Emphasis on the federal government.
Apparently, the approach they're going to take is that there were never any unusual drones.
So everything was either a legal airplane or a hobbyist drone or a commercial drone, but nothing actually happened.
There was no unusual activity whatsoever, and that will be their story.
Now, This is fun for me because I like the persuasion and all the psychological elements of the story.
Could it be possible, even remotely, that there was not a single unusual drone?
Now, I'm going to say I haven't seen anything that convinces me I saw any unusual drones on any photography or any video.
I've seen things that people who were there in person, who took the pictures, say, oh, this was not normal, didn't look like a plane, it was too low, too many of them, and that sort of thing.
But I haven't personally seen anything but, you know, shady videos that look like regular planes or regular drones or something.
So I haven't seen any evidence of drones.
Have you?
Just think about that.
I've been following the story and I haven't seen any evidence of drones that I would consider reliable.
But here's the thing that is reliable.
The people who are standing there at the moment and saying, I'm standing here and I'm looking at a sky that doesn't look normal.
Here's what's happening.
These things are hovering.
The hovering might be a mistake.
The hovering might be that they were just in the distance coming toward you and they look like they're hovering, but actually they're just getting close to you slowly.
So is it possible that this is 100% mass hysteria?
Is that possible?
Because here's why I'm resisting it.
I'm resisting it because I didn't see it.
And that's sort of my job.
I feel like it's my job when a mass hysteria forms that I should be the one to tell you it formed.
And I've been saying, I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Did I get taken by this?
Did I get taken by a mass hysteria?
And again, I'd like to emphasize that including individuals that I know personally, when they're standing there looking at it, they'll tell you very clearly, this stuff is not normal.
Whatever we're looking at, this is not not normal.
Which is also very persuasive.
So, here's what I think might have happened.
This is pure speculation.
What I think might have happened is they had to do a lot of training, or maybe they were testing some new technology for drones, but that it was real.
It was real, and it did last for over a month.
But now they're done, or they need to do less of it, or they found another place to do it.
So now that the sightings will be decreased because they don't have the need to do it, they can say it never happened.
And they can walk outside and say, look, I don't see anything.
Nothing happening now.
And all those videos you sent where the pilots are all saying they're just airplanes.
Apparently, pilots are having a good laugh at the whole situation because the professional pilots believe they're experts and they believe that they can tell looking at a picture that it's definitely planes or ordinary drones.
I guess here's a perfect example.
The former governor of Maryland was posting a video of some drones that he was watching that turned out to be the stars of Beetlejuice and Bellatrix.
So the former governor of Maryland couldn't tell the difference between stars and vehicles.
And that's probably what a lot of people were doing.
So I'm going to be right on the fence on this one.
I don't know how much of this was mass hysteria.
I'm guaranteed that 95% of it was mass hysteria.
So I don't know about the 5%.
But I'm sure that most of the sightings were airplanes.
That I'm sure of.
That most of the sightings were airplanes.
That still leaves plenty of room for mysterious drones that were more than we've ever seen.
So I'm going to go with...
The government was definitely doing something.
Like Trump said, the White House knows exactly what they were doing.
Probably training or testing or something.
And now they're done.
Because they had an immediate need, but they met their immediate need.
Probably preparing for war.
I hope it's in the Middle East and not here.
And now the government can claim it never happened.
They'll just debunk all the photos and videos, say, no, no, it's just a bad photo and a bad video.
Nothing happened.
And then you won't see anything happening at the moment, so you won't be able to get any new or better pictures, so they can just say, nope, never happened.
You imagined the whole thing?
They are going to tell us we imagined the whole thing, but we might have imagined the whole thing.
That's actually possible.
So, I've got, you know, the two conflicting feelings.
One is that it's hard for me to imagine so many people saw so many things and it was a mass hysteria, but that's what makes a mass hysteria work.
The reason the mass hysteria works is that people say things like I just said.
Well, I can't imagine so many people would be fooled from a direct observation.
Yes, so many people can be fooled very easily in a direct observation.
Also, a little fake news.
I was one of the people who said, hey, Biden's preemptive pardons are crazy.
There's so many of them because he had like over 6,000 of them when other presidents had a few hundred.
And then somebody said that, or no, he had over 8,000, I guess.
Somebody said that the vast majority of them were people in jail for weed-related offensives.
Is that true?
Are most of the volume of the Biden pardons or commuting sentences, are those for weed-related things?
Because if they are, then I'm okay with it.
And I would say, why didn't Trump do it, basically?
So that might have been fake news that his pardons were out of control.
So in the end, his number of individual pardons might be comparable to the past.
But if he did a whole bunch of marijuana people at once, I'd call that good.
I'd say good for you.
But...
As Jonathan Turley points out, if Biden is planning a blanket pardon for his entire administration, which he might be, he might do that because he's afraid of lawfare, which he should be, and it might create a situation where every president is Can give preemptive pardons to his entire administration.
Which would mean there would be no accountability whatsoever to any administration for anything.
Because they would just all get pardoned.
So we may have drifted into a really bad situation.
We'll see if we can manage this.
Probably can.
But yeah, if Biden does literally preemptive pardons for his entire administration...
It's going to be hard to imagine that Trump wouldn't do the same thing.
And then what do you have?
Anyway, apparently the German government just collapsed with a no-confidence vote.
And that's not too long after the French government collapsed with a no-confidence vote.
And now there are reports that Justin Trudeau is considering resigning.
Why?
Is this all the Trump effect?
Did Trump take down three governments already?
Because I think maybe he did.
And here's why.
I think if the other countries look at America and they say, wait, what's Trump doing?
He's closing the border.
Really?
He's closing your border?
He's saving America by closing your border?
We need that.
Wait, what else is he doing?
He's unleashing the energy production in his country to lower all their prices?
Wait, we need that.
He's tough on crime?
Wait, we need that.
He's for free speech?
We need that.
It might be, it's too early to say, But it might be that when people see that Trump is offering and delivering a package of goods that they desperately need, desperately need in a country, how about nuclear power?
Do you think there are any countries in Europe that are anti-nuclear power or looking at us and saying, they look like they're going strong into nuclear power?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think that Trump, by existing and being so right on all the common sense stuff, these are all common sense things.
Close the border, common sense.
Crime, common sense.
Nuclear energy, common sense.
There's no politics in any of that.
And I would imagine those are universal messages because everybody likes those things.
They like more energy if they know the right way to do it.
So, maybe other governments, specifically the so-called democratic countries, they might all fall.
Because they all got woke, they all got under control.
And watching America lead.
And this is America leading.
Let's be clear about that.
America doesn't always lead.
I think Europe leads in food safety, for example.
So we don't lead in everything, that's for sure.
But we're leading like hell right now.
Trump leads...
Like, he's really good at it.
You know, as much as Trump got credit for being a come from behind, kind of, you know, came out of left field the first time and then came from behind the second time, the thing he doesn't get enough credit for is that once he's secure in his power...
He's one cool cucumber.
He is so much in his exact element, where everything he's ever screamed that he wanted you to believe, you now believe.
Everything he yelled about, you now think is just common sense.
He won everything.
He won everything.
So he's comfortable, and it looks like it.
And I think other countries are going to say, give us one of those.
You've heard this probably, it's going around on social media, but former CIA person Sarah Adams, no relation, says the United States is not ready for the kind of terrorist attacks that are certainly coming.
And she says there'll be swarming attacks And there are new, thinner, blow-up vests.
So you're going to see more people wearing exploding vests in the United States.
And that the people who are fighting, mostly the radical Islamist types, are going to fight until they get killed because they expect to die.
And she says if multiple waves of these kinds of attacks broke out at the same time around America, we'd be really unprepared and really in trouble.
Now, I think she is right that there will be coordinated multi-city attacks, but I still think it's going to be by drone.
And I still worry that it's going to be a chemical attack.
Because if they crop dust enough cities at the same time with any material that looks like it's dangerous, the country's going to fall apart.
Because you won't be able to get out of the city.
The traffic will be immediately stuck.
It'll be a mess.
So I think that's where it's headed.
Multiple attacks at the same time.
Somewhat like the October 7th thing.
So now you've been warned.
I would get a gas mask if you don't have one.
That's serious, by the way.
I don't know where you get one, but if you could get a gas mask that would protect you from any airborne aerosol poisons, I would get one for each of the family members and one for the dog because it's sort of guaranteed.
Not in your town, but it's kind of guaranteed that somebody's going to get a drone with some chemical or biological agents and start sprinkling it somewhere.
So I would be equipped for that.
I wasn't following the Romania thing, but apparently America...
Once again, it's trying to control another country successfully, I guess.
So Romania had an election, and it got canceled because America and NATO want to build a huge NATO base in Romania that is pointing right at Crimea.
Did you know that?
It would be, by a factor of two, it would be the biggest NATO base anywhere.
It would be the biggest one.
And if you could imagine, imagine the Black Sea, like an oval, and then Crimea sort of dangles down like a scrotum.
So Crimea is like the scrotum of the Black Sea, just sort of dangles down.
Well, they want to put this gigantic NATO base on the left side of the potato, facing the scrotum, How happy is Russia going to be if Crimea is like a short walk from the biggest NATO base?
I mean, I'm exaggerating.
It's not a short walk, but it doesn't look good.
So apparently we really need this, and so America seems to have beaten away the election challenger, and it's a now-canceled election.
So, that's sketchy.
So, the question that I ask about the neocons and the plans for Russia and all that, do we really think we can defeat Russia militarily?
Are we actually trying to overthrow the entire country militarily and control it for the rest of time?
Are we really doing that?
And, you know, it would sound crazy...
Except we do this routinely.
We just do it with smaller countries like Romania.
But is that the plan?
Is the golden plan to just conquer Russia and try to fool them into not using their nukes somehow?
So, I don't know.
You know, I don't seem, probably seem to you like I speak out against our evil military colonial ambitions.
And it's because I'm not sure they're bad.
They're evil.
They're 100% evil.
But I don't know if it's bad for me.
Because this concept of controlling other countries...
Probably works to some extent.
Doesn't work every time.
But, you know, I've said before, if your country is not expanding, it's shrinking.
There's just no other way to go.
You're either growing or you're shrinking.
So, if this is how we grow, like trying to dominate other countries, well, what's the alternative?
None of it's good.
I mean, the whole business of geopolitics is dirty business.
All right.
Colonialism is good, people are saying.
All right.
We should do it without being detected.
Expand or die.
Yeah, I think that's true.
I think you either expand or you die.
It was true of Trump.
So when Trump was defeated in 2020...
He doubled down.
He expanded.
So expanding works.
Shrinking doesn't.
Well, Switzerland is the exception that proves the rule.
If Switzerland had anything that anybody wanted, it would already be conquered.
Can we agree on that?
If Switzerland had anything that anybody important really, really wanted, it would already be conquered.
So Switzerland wins by being the banker for all the bad guys.
So the bankers of the bad guys don't get attacked because the bad guys need bankers.
So it's really a special case.
You know, there's certainly no argument.
There's no good argument for staying unaligned.
In the long run, that doesn't work.
Somebody will whack you.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, did I forget anything today?
I believe I've covered everything important, and that means it's time to say hi to the local subscribers privately.
