Golden Age on track. Lot's of sketchy claims today about all kinds of stuff.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Eric Dolan PsyPost, Denmark Social Media, Starbucks Bear Cup, Government Shutdown, Chuck Schumer, Russiagate HOAX Subpoenas, Nancy Pelosi Stock Profits, Uzbekistan Trade Deal, Blaze Media, Steve Baker, J6 Pipe Bomber Suspect, Shauni Kerkhoff, NJ Election Allegations, Foreign Meat Packers Investigation, Filibuster, President Trump, James Carville, President Orban, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Erika Kirk, Bill Maher, Trump's Ballroom, Trump's Golden Dome, SCOTUS SNAP, Chad Bianco CA Campaign, 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.
I was complaining before the show when I was talking to the locals people separately and privately.
I was complaining about somebody designing a black interface, which is what the Rumble Studio is.
It's like a black interface.
The background is mostly black.
And the cursor is black.
So the whole time I'm like, where's the freckin cursor?
Where's that freaking cursor?
It's time for my show.
I need a cursor.
So if you're listening, Rumble, people with old eyes cannot tell the difference between the cursor color and the background color, which makes the interface really hard to use if you're over a certain age.
I think it's age.
I don't know what else it would be.
All right.
Comments are working.
We've got everything now.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance of lifting this situation to the highest elevation, something that humans can't even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, if you want that, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker chalicer stein, a canteen jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine here today.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip and happens.
Now go.
Ah, very good.
Very good.
Well, I don't know about you, but all morning I've been sitting here thinking, what is today's date?
If only I had some kind of a calendar device that I could keep on my desk at all times and entertain me and also tell me valuable information about what today is.
It's called the Dilbert Calendar.
It's available now only on Amazon.
And you've got to be in America.
I'm sorry if you're in Kazakhstan.
You cannot buy this.
You'd want it.
Oh man, you'd want it, but you can't buy it.
No.
You cannot go to Amazon Kazakhstan and buy this.
Only America.
It's made in America too.
And has a comic on both sides this year.
The Dilbert Reborn, the spicy ones are in the back, so you don't alarm your co-workers.
And then also, we're going to start out, as tradition requires, with a reframe from my book, Reframe Your Brain.
The best, most important book in your whole life.
Here's one of the best reframes for me.
I just love this one.
All right.
The usual frame is that whatever you think of as your ego is you.
You are not your ego.
Because if you're protecting your ego, you're actually protecting your enemy.
Your ego is your enemy.
Elon Musk said this recently in a podcast.
He basically said ego is the enemy.
Your ego is the enemy.
If you won't do a thing because you think, oh, that's beneath me, but it needs to get done.
Well, that's not a good strategy.
So if you can learn to eliminate your ego, you can hire people who are better at a job than you are.
Have you ever worked with somebody who refused to hire somebody who was smarter than them?
I have.
I've worked with somebody who wouldn't hire somebody who was smarter than they were.
How do you think that worked out?
I mean, just take a guess.
How did that work out?
Yeah, exactly like you think.
So get rid of your ego first, whatever that takes.
I recommend things like the Dale Carnegie course or anything that gets you in an embarrassing situation.
So embarrassment is not something you should avoid, it's something you should practice.
I learned that from Dale Carnegie.
Let me say that again because that's the key point.
You ready?
Your ego is something you should look to destroy, and you should look to embarrass yourself as often as possible because that's how you build that superpower.
The more you embarrass yourself, the more you get used to it until you realize, whoa, I didn't die any of those times.
All right, after the show today, Owen Gregorian will be hosting his after party on spaces.
All you need to do to find that is go to Owen Gregorian.
Just do a search on his name, and you'll see the link.
So it'll be on spaces.
That's the audio-only feature on X.
I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked Scott.
Oh, here's some.
Eric Nolan, writing for the SciPost.
I love Eric.
I wonder if anybody has ever told Eric Nolan that I mention him almost every live stream.
I do like his content.
But it's just funny that he's always on the list of things you could have asked me.
All right, here's the latest.
There's a study that says that higher fluid intelligence is associated with more structured cognitive maps.
Let me explain what that means.
In nerd talk, fluid intelligence and cognitive maps are two kinds of things that are important to your brain function and how smart you are.
I can simplify this.
You want a simplification?
Smart people are smart.
No, really.
If you find somebody who's really smart in one domain, the odds of them being dumb in the other domains are rather low.
Now, it's possible that you could be a genius in, I don't know, math, but bad at something else.
It could happen.
But generally speaking, if you're just looking for the averages, yeah, generally speaking, smart people are smart in general.
All right, here's another one.
This is also from SciPost.
Vladimir Hedra is writing that women, this has been tested now, women can read age, adiposty, and testosterone levels from a man's face.
Now, adiposty is fat, basically.
They can tell if you're overweight by your face.
Did you know that you could tell if somebody is overweight by looking at their face?
Yes, you did.
You didn't even have to ask Scott.
Did you know that women can identify more testosterone?
Maybe they don't think of it as more testosterone, but when asked to identify it, they're way above average.
Yes, you knew that because the men with high testosterone look like me, don't they?
I have the classic high testosterone chin.
If you want to know what it looks like, it's that.
Now, I also have the high testosterone male pattern and baldness.
So basically, I have every sign you could have.
I have sort of an angular face.
It's all obviously testosterone.
Now, at the moment, I have no testosterone at all because I'm on the testosterone blockers.
But I had already been fully formed by them.
So, yes, anybody, women or men, we can all tell who has the most testosterone.
The government of Denmark has announced what they call an agreement.
I don't even know what this means.
Why is it an agreement as opposed to a law or something?
They announced an agreement to ban access to social media for anyone under 15 in Denmark.
I assume that just means the residents, not if you're passing through.
I don't know, maybe if you're passing through too.
But they're concerned that young people are getting too caught up in the online world.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that, first of all, that will work, or will they just do VPNs?
Can't the kids just do a VPN and suddenly nobody knows who's what?
Well, it feels like the kids will get around that, but maybe it'll reduce it.
I like it directionally, but it's worth testing.
So I won't criticize the details because this is definitely the sort of thing that we should be looking at testing.
If they're going to test it in Denmark, good, do that first.
So I saw a headline that Starbucks was having some problems because they introduced a new, very cool-looking cup for coffee.
And the coffee cup looks like a cute little bear, a little bear.
And apparently it's so popular that people are arguing about it, you know, to get the last one, and they're semi-fighting in line.
And Starbucks actually had to release an apology because their product was so good that it caused trouble.
Now, that's pretty good.
Whoever designed that stupid little bear into a cup, I said to myself, well, there's no way you get in a fight over a cup that looks like a bear.
That's not going to happen.
And then I looked at the story and clicked on it, and I saw the little bear.
And as soon as I saw the little bear, I said, oh, oh, oh, now I totally get it.
I would fight over that little bear.
I probably wouldn't have a fist fight over it, but I might, you know, if one of my young kids really absolutely had to have that bear, and it was the last one, and there was something I could do to make it happen, maybe I'd fight over it.
It's actually a really good cup, like crazy good cup.
You should see it.
This is really good.
So whoever designed that, A-plus.
I saw this on a Colin Rugg post.
It's their most successful piece of merchandise.
Well, Jesse Warners has a, I'll call it a scoop.
He says his sources, I think he said this yesterday, his sources in the Senate say the moderate Democrats are about to cave on keeping the government open and that they might vote to open it.
However, at the same time, at the same time, minority leader Schumer has a counteroffer.
He says Democrats are ready to clear the way to quickly pass a government funding bill that includes healthcare affordability.
Now, I think in this context, what he wants to do is just extend the Obamacare tax credits for a year while the Republicans and Democrats work out how to improve it.
Isn't that reasonable?
Doesn't that seem to you like a completely reasonable compromise?
Because they didn't want to open the government at all unless they got something in return.
So if you want to give them something in return, the best thing you can give somebody in a negotiation is what?
If you're negotiating and you're going to give somebody something so that you've compromised, what's the best thing to give them?
The answer is nothing.
The best thing to give them is nothing.
Do you know what this is?
It's nothing.
It's nothing.
Because you wouldn't be able to fix Obamacare in seven weeks or whatever we have before we have to have a real law.
It's going to take a year to fix it.
Whatever the problem is, you think that the government could get it fixed in less than a year?
So my take on this is all he's offering is what was going to happen anyway, no matter what anybody wanted to happen.
In the real world, this takes a year.
Am I wrong?
So really what he's offering is what was going to happen anyway.
Hey, this is going to take longer than you thought.
Why don't we do it right instead of slapping it together?
Now, if your take is, no, I'm not going to spend one more dime, you were going to spend the dime anyway.
You just didn't know it.
If I could prevent you from having to spend one more dime on Obamacare, I'd help you.
I'd do it.
But there's no path to that.
There's definitely a path to spending more than we want to spend for one more year, but getting serious about fixing it.
I don't even know how you would lower the cost, but smarter people would be involved than me.
So I'm looking at your comments because I'm actually very interested.
Sorry, I'm in such pain in my one arm.
Nope, I'm on the wrong page here.
I thought I was looking at your comments, but they were the old ones.
Here we go.
Now we're going.
Damn it.
Just looking at your comments.
What is the next crisis?
Brings us to the next crisis.
Your geek bar just kicked in.
You do two years.
One year is reasonable.
Makes us look bad at midterms when we once again say no to subsidies.
Does it?
Do you think there's a clever midterm play that the Democrats are doing?
I don't know.
The COVID subsidies, which don't apply.
All right.
All right.
Well, so my current take is that the Democrats are trying to find an ego-free, we didn't really lose way to get past the government closure.
This looks reasonable to me.
It looks reasonable.
You know, if Trump negotiated it down to nine months or six months or something, also reasonable.
But we now have entered what I would call the common sense zone, where what the Democrats are offering sounds like, but there's a lot of nuance and all this stuff.
I could be wrong about where the details are going.
It sounds like they're at least creeping into something that would be reasonable.
Giving somebody a little extra time to do something that's really complicated, that's just a reasonable ask.
I don't know how you argue against that, but we will.
Apparently, 30 subpoenas have gone out in Florida to some of the people who are involved in the Russia gate hoax.
People such as Adam Schiff and John Brennan and Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, I guess 20 some other people.
Do you think any of those subpoenas are going to turn into anything like jail time?
How many of you believe that based on everything you've lived through, everything you've seen, everything you know about the government, that the logical end state here is that these people who clearly were doing something inappropriate, I don't know what's legal and what's not legal, I'm not good at that, but clearly something monstrously inappropriate, just monstrously, overthrowing the government.
That's pretty bad.
But do you think they'll be I just don't feel like they're going to be punished.
It just doesn't feel like that's where it's going.
It might go there.
It might.
It doesn't feel like it.
I don't know why.
I think it's just pattern recognition, right?
I've seen too many times we've been disappointed.
So it just feels like, you know, Charlie Brown in the football every day.
All right, well, we'll watch that one.
All right, here's one we're going to do a little fact-checking on, okay?
I want you to, we're going to do, is this real or not real?
So you all know that Nancy Pelosi got very rich trading stocks during her time in office.
And her percentage gains were way better than other people.
Now, when she's challenged about that, and obviously it looks like insider trading, which is legal, completely legal for people in Congress.
They're the only ones that can do it.
They can actually do insider trading as legal.
So some say that's what she was doing, but she denies it.
Now, the reason I haven't been much on this story, you've probably noticed, I know you've been asking me to cover this more forever, and I don't, is because I don't treat things that are legal the same way I treat things that are illegal.
So for the same reason that there are other things I say, well, it's legal, such as pardons.
We're going to talk about a pardon in a little bit.
I don't like pardons, but they're designed such that nobody is supposed to like them.
And they're totally legal and they're transparent, mostly.
Even if they're not, it's still legal.
So if something is totally legal, I just don't feel like bitching about it is worth the time.
So, but I've got a question about what's real, what's true.
So apparently her, her current death worth is close to 300 million.
But in 2024, it was, yeah, it was over 300 million in 2024.
Went down a little bit, it looks like.
But she beat the averages by a million miles.
But here's the part I wanted to suggest.
When asked to explain why she did so well, she says she's not the one who does the trading.
She says her husband is the one who does the stock trades.
Now, is that what you would say?
How is that a good alibi?
Don't we just assume that all she'd have to do is tell her husband what to buy?
That's no alibi at all.
Why would you go with such a weak alibi?
Oh, my husband does the trading.
Who would do that?
In what world would you give the weakest, the weakest alibi?
There's only one world that you would do that.
You didn't have a better alibi.
If you had a better one, you'd use it, right?
As in, oh, I'll give you an example.
Let's say that most of her gains was in one or two stocks.
And she said, you know what?
I was watching the same news you were.
And to me, it looked like AI was going to be big.
So I bought a bunch of NVIDIA early.
And that's about, you know, that's about 30% of all my gains.
But then I also got lucky.
And then tell a story basically of how she did, in fact, make ordinary investments, and they just happened to be good, and they did unusually well.
Now, I'm not saying that's really what happened.
I'm saying if that is what happened, why wouldn't you go with that?
That would be an entirely at least believable.
I mean, she could prove when she bought something and when she sold it.
You could look at the headlines and you could say, Didn't we all know that that was going to be good?
Or did she have some special access?
Now, it does seem guilty as hell when she just says, My husband does the trading.
Now, he's professional, so if he does trading, he should do better than other people, right?
Maybe not that better, not that much better.
So, yeah, that looks like it's exactly what it looks like.
It's just a massive bunch of insider trading, or she's very bad at alibis.
One of the two.
Apparently, Trump has reached some kind of $100 billion trade deal with Uzbekistan.
Thank God, we've all been waiting for this one.
It's the big one: Uzbekistan, finally, finally.
Do you believe that it's a $100 billion deal?
Well, first of all, it's over 10 years, so more like 10 billion, but it's a small place, 36 million people live there.
However, every single day, as I've been telling you for a long time, every day that Trump can make one of these trade deals, and there are a lot of countries left, it makes it look like progress, doesn't it?
I mean, it looks like something good happened.
And if he just keeps rolling these up, like today is Uzbekistan, maybe tomorrow is Kazakhstan, day after that is Albonia, it's just going to look like he's getting a lot done, which he is.
All right.
The name of the Uzbekistan president is Shave Cat.
S-H-A-V-K-A-T.
Shave the cat.
All right.
I like him already.
All right.
Here's a story you all want me to talk about.
Blaze Media has a pretty big breaking news scoop.
So their investigative journalist Steve Baker of Blaze Media.
Apparently, he worked with some entities that can do gate analysis, which is the gate is how you walk, you know, the specific way you walk.
And the claim is that using this gate analysis, they've identified a woman who planted the pipe bomb on January 6th.
Remember, the pipe bomb planter was on video, but you couldn't see any face.
But you can see the body and you can see him walk.
We thought it was a man, probably, but it's a woman.
And the claim is that the odds, if you add together the fact that the gate analysis is usually in the 90% accuracy, and you add to that some human intelligence, they pop the odds that he has identified the correct person at around 98%.
That's a high number.
Now, do you believe that?
The other thing that sort of raises your eyebrow is that the person named was a U.S. Capitol Police officer.
Uh-oh, Shawnee Kirkhoff.
Where do you think she works now?
Let's see, she's accused, just accused, this is an allegation only, of planting that pipe bomb under the role of being a U.S. Capitol Police officer.
Where does she work now?
Take a guess.
Where did she get promoted to?
It's a place called the CIA.
That's right.
If she had moved to anywhere on the whole fucking planet except the CIA, I think I would have dismissed this.
But really?
Really?
All right.
But now I'm going to give you my BS filter test.
Remember, I've given you lots of ways to find out if something is bullshit or real.
What would you expect to see if this were real?
meaning that it was a real thing and you could tell by somebody's walk that it was them.
What would you expect that you, the public, would be shown?
I would expect I would see two videos.
One video of the person walking on January 6th, which is available.
But then secondly, I would expect that the public would have seen by now a video of her walking in her daily life.
So that you and I can look at it and say, yeah, that looks like the same walk.
Now, we don't have to be computers to recognize that somebody has a distinctive walk, right?
But what would happen if the entire claim is based on comparing two videos?
And the best that you can get is you know that somebody talked to somebody who talked to somebody who saw the videos and says that they're the same person.
And secondly, how did they know even who to look for?
How in the world do you find that one person?
If what you're doing is searching all the people in the world that you have some kind of gate analysis for, I don't know how they collected it.
Maybe they collected it from public cameras or something.
How in the world would you know who the person was to even check their walk?
So I'm going to put this down as the not credible.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I do think Glenn Beck is credible.
And I'm sure that this investigative journalist has a good reputation, Steve Baker.
But if you can't cross the bar to show me the only thing I care about, which is the two videos next to each other, and how the hell did you get the one of them that wasn't from January 6th?
Like, why would you even have any of that?
So the questions are bigger than the answers.
So I'm not buying this one.
I'm going to say this does not make the sale.
Now, if you're new to me, you think I just said it wasn't true, right?
Is that right?
Did anybody hear me say it wasn't true?
I didn't say that.
I use the word credible very carefully.
Credible means, you know, maybe the lawyer made the case.
It doesn't mean it's true.
It doesn't mean it's false.
But this is not credible as presented.
Do you remember when Dinesh D'Souza made some claims about the people dropping things off in drop boxes?
And do you remember what I said about that?
If you show me at least a video or two of the same person dropping multiple things in these boxes, I don't think you really have anything.
Because that's the only thing that would have convinced me.
And then I think in the end, we did not get those videos.
So this is sort of reminding me of that.
There's one thing that matters.
Show me the video.
It's the one thing we don't have.
Sketchy.
So it could be true.
It could be true.
So let me say that as clearly as possible.
It could be true.
It's just not hitting the credibility level that I would expect.
Anyway, but we'll wait to hear more about that.
Some of it just might be I'm not as up-to-date on it as I should be.
But the people, the people involved are all credible as far as I know.
Would you be surprised to know that some people are questioning some of the election results from last week, the special election, the three governors?
Well, it turns out, according to PJ Media and Matt Morrigolis, who's writing about this, there's a pollster who's looking at the numbers, and apparently one of the New Jersey race.
The winner won by a surprising margin, a margin that nobody predicted.
Just suddenly the polls stopped working for that one race.
They worked for the other races, but the polls just didn't work for that New Jersey one.
Do you know why the polls didn't work for the New Jersey race?
Well, the claim, and again, who knows, is a claim.
The claim is that 500,000 Democrats suddenly materialized after not voting in the last three gubernatorial elections.
Is there anything else you need to know?
The half a million people suddenly were Democrats and suddenly voted, whereas they hadn't voted in the last three elections.
And there was nothing really that, but then you say, but Scott, maybe they just registered a lot of Democrats.
No, no, that didn't happen.
Just half a million people just appeared.
And it turns out they mostly voted in the same direction.
So now we watched so many claims being made about 2020, and none of them, as far as I know, none of them panned out, at least in terms of the court.
There's no court that ruled that something went wrong at a big level anyway.
This feels a lot like that, doesn't it?
If you had to predict, what do you think is more likely to happen?
That we will learn that the half a million number is just bad data and that really there's not half a million more and they just cared more because of I don't know if they wanted to defeat Trump or something.
So do you think it's going to be that this really is fuckery?
Or, in the end, is it going to disappear, like so many other claims about elections, when somebody says ah, you just counted the numbers wrong or you were looking at the wrong list.
It's not 500,000, which.
Which way do you think this will go?
I don't know about this one.
It feels to me like it.
This would be way too much thumb on way too much scale that anybody thought they could get away with it.
So I'm going to go with.
This will never be proven.
This is what I call a category problem, for for credibility, it's in the category of things that tend not to get proven.
It doesn't mean it's not true.
Again, difference between credibility and what's true or not true.
There's a difference, but it feels to me just like all those other Kraken kind of stories where somebody's got a claim that's so big, it's such a big claim.
It feels like if it were true, you'd get to the bottom of it kind of quickly, because it's just out there slapping you in the face.
It's so big.
But I'll bet we don't.
I'll bet this just disappears.
We'll see.
Well, Trump's going after the meatpackers, so to speak, the meatpackers, if you know what I mean, wink wink.
No, it's actually people who actually pack meat, real meat, the real kind.
And he thinks that the meatpackers, especially some number of them are foreign companies that operate in the U.S., and they're allegedly manipulating prices to keep the price high.
And Trump is going to have the DOJ look into their meat packing business, see if they're cheating.
Those cheating, they're cheating or eating.
Stop it.
Be nice.
Be nice in the comments.
All right.
And Trump is still pushing for the filibuster under the theory that the Democrats would do it if they were in charge, which I think they will.
So James Carville has already warned that the Democrats are absolutely definitely going to get rid of the filibuster if they get in charge.
And he thinks that they will in 2028.
So if it's going to happen anyway, does it make sense that Trump would want it to happen under his term?
If you know it's going to happen anyway, it's a strong argument for doing it first.
So I think that's where Carville fucked up.
Caraville should have said, there's no way.
There's no way the Democrats are going to get rid of that filibuster while simultaneously believing, oh, we're totally going to get rid of that filibuster.
We're going to get rid of that so hard.
We'll just claim we're not so that they could get past a Republican administration and then get all their own goodies.
So I think Trump is smart enough to know that they're definitely going to do this because they're, as he would say, cruel, evil, bad people.
But he listed the things that he could get done if he gets rid of the filibuster.
So he'd be able to get rid of, he'd be able to install voter ID as a requirement.
No mail-in voting, no cash bill, no men and women's sports, no welfare for illegals.
I'm sure the list is longer than that.
But those do seem like kind of biggish things.
There are a lot of people who say the number one thing you want him to fix, the number one thing, is the voter ID, mail-in voting situation.
If he only did that, would there ever be another Democrat president?
Because the play here is kind of interesting.
The only way it makes sense to get rid of the filibuster is if you have some confidence that your team will be in there next time and maybe the time after, which is not normal.
Normally, there's going to be a Democrat and then a Republican sooner or later.
So if Trump knows for sure that they're going to do it, and he knows for sure that if he fixes the voter ID and the mailing, basically the election integrity, if he fixes the election integrity before 2028, can a Democrat ever get elected?
The only way this makes sense is if he thinks that he can prevent Democrats from being elected by getting rid of cheating in the election.
Is that a good assumption?
It's not bad.
I don't know if it'll make a difference.
I don't know.
Because I don't know how much anybody has or will cheat.
I don't know.
But if you assume, and I assume that Trump knows more than we do about what bad behavior people are doing, if he's pretty sure that these changes would lock in a Republican, or at least, when I say Republican, I'm going to say at least a Federman-level Democrat.
You know what I mean?
It's like the furthest it could go would be to a Federman type of Democrat, not a crazy-ass Democrat.
Maybe there's something to this filibuster.
Well, meanwhile, the U.S. and Hungary trying to be best friends.
Trump loves the head of Hungary, Orban, and he's visiting, I guess, now.
And Orban says it's the golden age of U.S.-Hungary relationships.
This is in the European Conservative.
Now, what do you think of that?
If you are a Democrat, you say, oh my God, all the foreign leaders have learned that you can just flatter Trump by saying, you know, using his words and his framing.
And if you flatter him enough, then you can influence him and you can get what you want.
Is that how you take that?
That is true in the sense that flattery is a component of persuasion.
But it's not a strong part.
It's sort of a weak part.
Here's the part that nobody sees coming.
If Trump can make everybody think that if they talk the way he talks, frame things the way he frames them, and give him a king's crown when he visits, for example, that they can influence him, that's exactly the opposite of what's happening.
If he can make other foreign leaders essentially wear the clothes he wants them to wear, say the things he wants them to say, and do the things he wants to do, on a small scale, small scale, such as using his framing of the golden age.
Very small, but it's his.
And every time he can get a foreign leader to act the way he acts, even if the foreign leader is thinking, ha ha, he's falling for my persuasion.
I'm just talking the way he does, and it's going to work.
No.
If it was about one thing, then maybe it would just be flattery and it would work.
But if you fall into his larger frame for everything, you sort of become his subordinate.
Not in a tactical way, but in a persuasion way, because you just sort of fall into the frame.
So he has such a strong frame, meaning the way he looks at things and what he says is important, what isn't important, that's the frame.
It's such a strong frame and consistent.
He doesn't change his frame too much, if ever.
It's easier for people to fall in and thinking that they're influencing him.
And the next thing you know, they've effectively hypnotized themselves to think that what he says is the common sense, smarter thing, whatever the next thing is.
So I don't know that most of you would have spotted that, would you?
Would you have known that, you know, on the surface level, flattery is what they're getting, what they're giving him, and it works.
But as soon as you get to the next level of falling into the larger frames, like immigration and crime, because you notice a lot of foreign leaders are falling into his immigration crime, NATO, NATO is another one, rare earth minerals.
You could just go right down the line and you'd find things that Trump created the frame, and then the foreign leaders fell into it.
You see it everywhere.
And it starts with the small stuff that other people think is flattery.
You probably saw, because I made a lot of news, not very important, but everybody's talking about it, is that Ben Shabiro and Megan Kelly got into it a little bit on some event.
They're on stage.
And I don't know what's true here.
I can tell you that Grok had one version, and I've heard now two different versions of what's true.
But the basic idea is that Ben Shapiro claimed that Candace Owens is implicating Charlie Kirk's widow in his assassination.
And Megan Kelly said, what?
I never heard of that.
That Candace is blaming Charlie Kirk's widow for being part of a murder plot.
And so Ben basically sort of suggested that she's not up to date.
I was not aware of that.
I was not aware that there's a claim of that.
I don't think it's true.
Obviously, I don't think it's true.
So I'm starting with, obviously, there's nothing to it.
And I don't think that TPUSA had anything to do with anything.
I think this is Candace's content.
She's very good at connecting dots, even when the dots shouldn't be connected.
It's a Bible code problem.
Yeah.
So the first thing I would say is, Ben Shapiro, why do you think that the rest of us would be so invested in that conversation that we would know that?
And then secondly, I look to see if it's true, and I don't even know if it's true.
It doesn't seem true that Candace directly accused her of murder, right?
I think it's more like, hmm, I have questions.
This thing happened at the same time as this thing.
Why did this thing happen right after that thing?
Now, I find that interesting content.
It gets a little creepy when it involves somebody who died recently.
So that's a separate thing.
But I do like hearing the conspiracy theories.
I do like when somebody can back it up with some details, even if I don't think it's true.
It's kind of fun.
So as of this morning, I still don't know what is true.
I don't believe that I would ever find a quote where Candace was directly accusing either TPUSA or Erica for being part of the murder.
But Ben Shapiro thinks that that's an indisputable fact.
And he's smarter than me, and he's paying attention to this more than I am.
So I don't know what's going on here.
Do you?
But the main thing I wanted to tell you, actually, it's the only thing I want to say is I didn't know it.
So I'm in the same business as Megan Kelly.
I just don't do it as well.
I'm in the same business.
I wake up every morning and I read all the political gossip and everything.
I didn't know this.
Why would I know it?
And I feel a little insulted that that's a problem that she wouldn't know it or it's a problem that I didn't know it.
And we're both in the business of watching the news.
I think it's because it's not true, right?
I feel like I'd know it if it were true that she had really said that directly.
Now, if she'd been creeping around the edges, I wouldn't be delighted with that, but it'd be entertaining.
So, I don't know.
I just wondered what you thought about that.
I do think that this whole thing of conservatives fighting with conservatives, it really has everything to do with the fact that they're winning.
The conservatives are winning so hard that they're running out of things to complain about, so they just turn their guns on each other.
Doesn't it feel like that?
Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way, but it just feels like we ran out of things to do, so we have to go after each other.
I just don't like to be part of that.
So I love Ben Shapiro, one of the most skilled people in the game.
Megan Kelly, one of the most skilled people in the game, probably the best podcaster, in my opinion.
I don't need to go after either one of them.
Well, it's Saturday, so that means that yesterday was Bill Maher becoming more of a Republican every day.
Every Friday, he becomes a little bit more Republican, but not really.
He's not going to become a Republican.
But here's the latest.
He's weighing in on the Trump ballroom.
So Bill Maher said, when he first mentioned it, it was all about, oh my God, he's desecrating the White House.
And then I finally read, oh, well, they've done this shit to the White House before.
It's just a building, I think.
And then Maher is pointing out, we don't have a place where they have state dinners.
They're doing it in a tent.
This is America.
So do I give a shit that he's doing this to the White House?
I really don't.
And it's private money.
Save your ire for things that matter.
There you go.
Now, what would you call that?
Is that a Republican opinion, a Democrat opinion, or a common sense opinion?
That's a common sense opinion.
Every time somebody goes into the common sense zone, they're sort of in the MAGA zone.
Not entirely, but you've got one foot in there if you're arguing common sense and you're arguing it well, as he is.
Then also, Bill Maher was in favor of Trump's golden dome, the missile protection system that we're trying to build.
Maher said, I have a problem.
He's responding to one of his guests.
He goes, I have a problem if we don't build it.
Just because Trump thought of it, I'm not against it.
Something that would stop the increasing number of rogue missiles in this world from maybe coming over here and incinerating me.
Yeah, mark me down as pro for that.
I'm pro having.
Now, can we do it?
I don't know.
He says it'll take three years and $180 billion.
And they, the Democrats, say, well, that's BS.
But that's to me a worthy investment.
Yeah, maybe it'll have a cost overruns, he went on to say.
But that's everything.
Everything has a cost overrun.
Now, is this opinion Democrat or Republican?
Or just common sense?
It's just common sense.
So doesn't it feel to you as if he's got that one foot in MAGA?
He's not going to have the religious foot, right?
Don't ever expect him to pick up his Bible and say, finally, I've decided.
No, but in the common sense domain, he's completely in.
And he actually recognizes, I say this condescendingly, but he knows what common sense looks like.
And he's willing to call it out despite what trouble it brings him.
I like that.
Well, there are two court decisions, the Supreme Court.
And I'm going to confess that these are so boring that I didn't want to look into them.
And they're going to change 10 times before tomorrow.
But the Supreme Court apparently temporary pause snap payments, which is denying the pause of the denial of the pause of the pause from the lower courts, pause of the snap of the payments of the pause.
All these stories are so filled with negatives that you don't know exactly what got paused.
Wait, you paused the blocking of it.
Okay, the blocking of it means you don't get it, but you pause the blocking.
But now another court says you have to unpause the blocking.
These are impenetrable stories.
I hope everybody gets fed and they don't starve to death because of paperwork.
But it looks like that's coming.
Also, a federal judge ruled that.
So there's something about SNAP.
You can read up if you care.
There's a federal judge ruled that Trump illegally ordered troops to Oregon.
And then the judge permanently barred Trump administration from deploying the National Guard troops in Portland.
Permanently.
How can he do that permanently?
Is that even an option?
The judge can say it's permanent.
Can't the next judge unpermanent a permanent?
Permanent seems like the wrong word.
Anyway, that's happening.
There will be more court cases.
Expect the barring to be unbarred and the barring of the barring to be unbarred by the barring.
Meanwhile, you remember Katie Porter, that horrible human being who was screaming at her assistant and being kind of a bad person on video.
And at one point, she was leading in the polls to be the next governor of California.
But apparently, she got so much pushback from that terrible hit on video that her polling has gone from 17%, which would have been a leading in a big field, down to 11%.
Guess who's number one in the California poll?
Now, this won't last, but the number one person in the current governor of California poll.
Now, it's not Newsome, of course.
He's not running.
The answer is a Republican.
There's a Republican in the lead for California governor.
There's no way that's going to last, but there's a Republican.
So it's Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
He now leads the field with 13%.
So 13, I think that's actually what Trump had when he entered the race, around 13%, right?
So is there any possibility, any possibility, that a Republican could win in California?
I'm going to go out on a limb.
Yes.
There is a genuine chance.
And Steve Hilton's still in the game, too.
Steve Hilton seems to, you know, I believe he would have a set of policies that at least the right would like a lot.
I don't know anything about Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, but it's nice that we got options, isn't it?
All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you're just joining late, you probably didn't hear that today is November 8th, a very special day for reasons that you don't know, but I do.
And if you don't have your Dilbert calendar for 2026 now, I would rush because we really didn't print enough.
Somebody's going to be really mad at me in December.
Hey, I went to order my calendar and you're all sold out, which we might be because we did intentionally go low on the printing because it's expensive.
So we'll see.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say a few words privately to the locals subscribers, as awesome as they are.
And the rest of you, I hope to see tomorrow.
Same time, same place.
And right after the show, make sure you check in with Owen Gregorian on his Spaces event, where he'll talk about this sort of stuff maybe and some other stuff too, which will be fun.
And so just search for Owen Gregorian, and you'll see a link to his spaces event.
It'll happen not very long from now.
He'll fire it up after we're done.
All right, let's see.
Oh, oh, God, that hurts.
I can't lift one arm.
I've got half an arm.
My hand doesn't work on this one, but my arm doesn't work on the other one.
And then the cursor is disappeared.
All right.
Cursor.
Fuck me.
I can't find the cursor again.
All right.
We're gonna have to move the computer to another space so that I can mess around with it in less pain.
