David Bloomberg dissects September’s election chaos, from Taylor Swift’s Harris endorsement—sparking 1M+ voter registrations—to Trump’s delayed $150M hush money sentencing and passport privilege debates. JD Vance’s "stolen valor" hypocrisy and DUI history contrast with Walz’s National Guard service, while Trump’s erratic debate lies (2020 election stolen, late-term abortions, immigrant threats) expose "reality inversion," fueling fear over facts. Both sides’ baseless conspiracy theories—like ABC debate bias or RFK Jr.’s health secretary hopes—highlight how propaganda thrives by exploiting engagement over truth, demanding skepticism rooted in evidence, not absurdity. [Automatically generated summary]
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast that has a concept of a plan for how we're going to conduct this episode.
And usually we just go off in a random direction.
That's how concepts of plans work, David.
Don't you know?
Yeah.
So here today again with David Bloomberg to discuss an election update for the month of September.
We're not going to wait for the end of the month for this.
We're just going to go into it now because we're available.
Yes.
And any timing compared to anything that has been going on in the past like day as we're recording this is purely coincidental.
Coincidence, because coincidence does happen.
It does exist.
There's a reason why we have the word.
Or it's possible we knew.
We knew that yesterday there was going to be someone in the bushes outside Trump's golf course trying to take a crack at him who would then get arrested.
We had no idea that was going to happen.
This timing is completely not related to that.
Every day in the world, things occur and other people do things and they're not necessarily related to each other.
I thought that the reason we scheduled it was that you knew that Trump was going to go after Taylor Swift.
Right.
So I'm glad you brought that up, David.
Taylor Swift finally got her crap together and endorsed Kamala Harris.
And I'm glad because, you know, without that, we would have almost nothing to talk about on these election update podcasts.
And then Trump is expressing his feelings on the issue yesterday by declaring in all capital letters that he hates Taylor Swift, to which we've seen a remarkable backlash of things like delightful things like Arizona Road Information Signs, where whoever it is who programs those changes it to I love Taylor Swift.
Yeah.
And I don't know if that's true.
That could be AI art on there, but I just think it's really funny that someone, even if it's just AI art, really funny that someone thought to do that.
But yeah, there's been all kinds of people that just respond, instead of responding with, yeah, well, we hate you too, instead just responds with, well, we love Taylor Swift.
Well, and that's the thing.
You know, he's also been, this has not been the only response to it.
He's also been out at his speeches or whatever you want to call them saying, she's going to pay dearly for this.
She's going to lose so much money and so many fans.
And it's like, no, see, Taylor Swift is an actual billionaire, unlike you.
He put out a message saying that she's already lost something like $150 million and everyone's like, there's no basis for this.
There's no basis for this.
I don't.
Okay.
Yeah.
I don't know that that was him.
I saw that it was from an account called like Trump, you know, Donald J. Trump News.
So I couldn't figure out if that was that he had actually said that.
Yeah, but it's from the same pool of coping mechanism that's attempting to justify to their set of followers that it's okay that Taylor Swift, you know, endorsed the other side.
That's the overall message that's trying to be said.
It's okay that the world's most well-known and popular celebrity.
And I leave that with a gap because there is a gap between Taylor Swift and any other celebrity on this list of worldwide popular celebrities that she personally endorsed Kamala Harris against Trump and signed it off as a childless cat lady.
And immediately after she did so again after earlier this year, when she said to register to vote, voter registration tripled in some areas of the U.s.
Overnight in the first 24 hours after she gave the message.
That's not seen when.
You know, Tom Cruise doesn't get involved in these sorts of things, but if he did, he would find that he doesn't have the sort of influence that Taylor Swift does.
Probably why he doesn't bother now?
Because he wants to be in that spot that Taylor Swift does.
He wants to imagine that he could, so he doesn't bother.
Um, you know well, he's trying to attain higher levels of scientology, whatever that means yeah, but you know that at some point.
Uh, I mean we could name other celebrities.
You know at some point that Clint Eastwood would want to have had this level of influence right, but he could never get it to that point in his lifetime and he can't now.
Uh, he hasn't been in The public eye for several years now.
He's probably on the way out.
Right, he's over 80 years old, he's.
You know, I mean, I think he was over 80 years old when he spoke at the uh uh, 2016 Republican National Convention right, and he sounded like he was one foot in the grave then.
That was eight years ago.
So yeah, there's just no other celebrity that has the kind of draw that Taylor Swift does and they all are.
You know, many of them are jealous of it.
If they won't admit it, they still are.
They're reaching their, they're trying to get that level of draw and they're not getting it.
Who wouldn't?
Who wouldn't want that level of draw?
Well, you know, I mean um, it's the, it's the one ring right, it's, it's the.
The argument that Galadriel makes that yeah, you would give me the ring and you wouldn't, have a lord, you would have a queen, dark and terrible right, and maybe that's what we're getting with Taylor Swift.
We hope that she doesn't turn dark at any point right, but right, you know, but that's what we're getting.
She has the one ring now.
She's the, she's the powerful one.
Um, wherever that's going to lead us yeah, I mean, so far, it's okay.
The other interesting thing is that, after she did her announcement, a number of lesser celebrities, mostly singers, but I don't think all came out and said the same thing, yes, I join in, and you know yeah uh and, and I, none of them have the poll, anywhere near the poll.
A lot of them were older artists, you know.
Not, you know, but I just thought it was interesting that, and none of them directly mentioned her when they did it.
I joined right, Taylor Swift in.
Yeah right, so it was just this, you know, and of course, you know that sort of thing gets under Trump's skin much the same way as, yeah, you know uh some, he would.
He would love for Kid Rock to be a bigger star man.
He would love for Kid Rock to have yeah, just about 25 years past the moment when he Might have been in the league of having some kind of draw, maybe.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And we don't even need to mention Mr. Cat Scratch Fever, who's even further past his prime.
Yeah.
So we have some election updating to go through.
So we often, when we do these election update episodes, we step through each candidate.
I think we're going to try to change the format here for the last few as we get to the end because we've had both of the national conventions.
We have both candidates and their VPs confirmed and we're racing to the end.
So I think it's more likely that we should be more useful to compare each against the other for like issue to issue.
And we're not going to go through actually everything all the way.
Although maybe, I don't know, we'll see what we're doing on election night or something in the week before.
Maybe we'll do something then.
But for now, we're going to try to do it tit for tat, man-for-man defense, if you will.
So we're going to start with Trump's legal issues.
This says traditionally in these election update podcasts, episodes taken up a fair amount of time, but it doesn't take up that much time right now.
The only update is because everything else has been pushed off till after the election.
The only update here is that the last remaining piece to any legal issue has again been pushed to after the election.
The Hush Money trial that was going to have a sentencing here in September was going to be, I think, September 18th, just a few days from now, has been pushed to November 26th.
And of course, the election will be over by then, but the inauguration will still be well after that point, still two months past that point.
So we'll see how that goes, if that gets pushed again, or if maybe Trump wins the election and then he is sentenced before he's inaugurated.
That could lead to some interesting things.
But let's hope we don't live in an interesting world, David.
And it's a much more boring world with a Kamala Harris presidency.
Yes.
Do you have anything to add about his legal issues?
No, no, I just, there's a lot of people who have complained about how long it took to bring these.
And they're saying, if these had been brought sooner, then we could have had them taken care of already.
Yeah.
One, cases take time to build sometimes.
Especially cases with this much evidence.
Right.
Yeah.
And two, I still think they'd have found a way to delay.
I mean, one way or another, this one maybe wouldn't have been delayed, but I also don't think, you know, I doubt he's going to get jail time for it.
It's possible, but.
But it's a felony.
So would he need to surrender his passport?
I mean, he's already been convicted of a felony.
Which felony before this one?
No, this one, he's already been convicted.
Right.
It's just the sentencing that I'm talking about.
Right.
But like, what is, you know, this is something that's hard for me to find because no one ever mentions it in any media where they talk about this.
But is his passport already surrendered or will they ask for it to be surrendered when they sentence him?
I mean, I don't know that they're really worried about either.
It's not like, well, he's going to hide something.
Every other felon in the U.S. surrenders their passport, David.
Why would you treat this one differently?
Like in the greater question of, is there two justice systems, one for the privileged and one for the not privileged?
That's a, that's a.
You know, that's a.
We need to answer that question because if he doesn't need to well, why even have this whole justice system?
If there's, you know, if he can't go anywhere else because every other felon in the world is like, why did I have to give up my passport, why do I have to get confined here, even after i'm past my sentencing and i've served my time, and I can't leave the country because I can't apply for a new passport?
You know why is that the case and it's not the case for him?
That's a question.
Yeah, I think that's a good question.
Yeah, yeah it is.
But uh, you'll notice that we just said we're gonna do tit for tat here, and then we just mentioned Trump and not the other side.
And that's because the other side has no legal issues.
They have no impending charges, they have no one suing them.
There's just no list to show.
So well gosh, you just sound like those people making excuses in the debates about the fact checks.
I tell you why.
Totally one-sided here in mentioning the objective reality around us.
Yes yeah, objective reality is one-sided in this case.
I'm sorry, not sorry.
So, moving on to vice presidents, so we have two vice presidents, one for either side.
Um candidates, vice presidential candidates, you're right, i'm sorry.
Vice presidential candidates.
Um, so Tim Walz is the candidate for the Democratic Party.
Uh, he has weathered the first wave of the.
You know, when you a candidate is first mentioned, you know the reporters immediately go out and they try to find all the dirt on them right away and and you'll always get the wildest accusations and as well as some sort of legitimate beefs and this sort of thing.
Um, he seems to have weathered this at this point.
I mean we, we mentioned in the last episode where we talked about this exact thing, about how he did have a dui at one point.
Uh, it was uh, one of those sort of minor duis.
It was like a 0.05 or whatever, like below a 0.08, but he still mentioned it when he was running for governor.
It came up and um yeah okay, you know what I mean.
Like, I don't know where you want to go with that.
You know you want to.
You know, jail him for that or disqualify him.
If that's what you want to do, then say that.
But most people just try to say he had a dui and they leave it at that or try to bring up some other aspect of it and it's just engagement farming, right?
Yeah um, I think there's another point that we didn't hit very hard uh, in the last time.
We just kind of briefly mentioned it, but I think we should mention it in more detail now, because it's one that I think is persisting a little bit, and I say a little bit, not lately, it is only persisting a little bit, but I think we should hit it uh to, to hit some.
Some facts on this is well, it could come up.
It could come up in the vice presidential debate.
If they go through, if Vance goes through with the vice presidential debate yeah right if yeah, if there is a debate, it could come up.
But the there are uh, so-called stolen valor accusations against Tim Walz.
So um, obviously we take military service very seriously.
Um, there's some.
Maybe you know David, is it an actual like crime for a person to claim to have military service that they don't have?
I've, i've heard it said that it is an actual crime, but i've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it.
I don't know.
Yeah um, it probably depends on the situation.
Um, you know like, if you claim to have certain medals or you I I, I don't know my answer yeah yeah, right.
So I mean, i've definitely heard of people who have entire uh uh, military dress and medals and everything and they never were in military service, and this is other cases of stolen valor.
But um, you know I, I don't know, i've never heard of them getting arrested, so I don't, I don't really know.
Of course i'm, I don't live in the states, I don't know all the rules but uh, facts are, Tim Walz was in the National Guard for 24 years and in the National Guard he trained in heavy artillery.
Uh, he did deploy overseas, but he did not personally see any combat.
So at one point he did make a reference to holding a weapon in military service and it was.
It was sort of uh, the way he phrased it sounded a lot like he was in combat.
Um, and then other people said aha gotcha, you didn't actually, you know, you weren't actually on any front lines in combat, and and then it was like okay, he didn't say this repeatedly over many years is kind of a thing.
He said the one time and he was, you know, probably trying to talk up his military service.
Uh, and he, you know, by the wording that he used he didn't lie, but by the wording he used he was clearly angling for something.
Um, that's not stolen valor.
I don't know if anyone wants to look down on him for that, but I mean, we also have to recognize he's a politician who's running for office.
He is trying to say things to make himself look good.
Um, you know, maybe he claims that he cleaned his counters every night before he goes to bed and he didn't actually do that either.
I don't know.
Uh, my wife gets really annoyed at me when I don't clean the counters every night before I go to bed.
So to me that's that same level as I.
I sometimes I claim that I did things I didn't actually fully do.
I don't know.
But the other thing that came up that people are trying to stick him with the other two things is that he they claim that he left the national Guard so that he didn't have to deploy to Iraq.
But and we did mention this briefly last time, but let's go into it in a little more detail he officially retired from his national guard unit in may of 2005 and his guard unit was was given orders to deploy to Iraq in july of 2005.
So that was two months difference.
I also want to add and I think I mentioned this last time, so I don't, I should have looked this up ahead of time in the National Guard, you can't just retire like in my job.
Yeah, I could have just retired, but I, because I was using built up like vacation time, I needed permission to retire when I did right.
That was a whole fight.
But it's similar it with the National Guard, not that he was using vacation days or anything.
But you don't just walk in and say i'm retired.
They have to, you have to request it and they approve it.
Yeah.
I believe he requested it even before me.
Yeah.
So it's not like he could have heard a whisper of it coming two months from now.
And there usually isn't whispers of this exact thing that are credible.
You know what I mean?
Like they're not saying specifically which guard units and which units are going into combat and out of combat and everything else before they're given actual orders.
Like this is, you know, rumors can start over anything.
We might go because they're looking for people.
Yeah.
That's not the same thing as we are definitely going and I need to get the hell out of here before I'm going, which is the implication that they're trying to give, but it's just not found in the facts of the case.
Yeah, I had a couple of, I had a couple of guard members who worked for me, you know, during the time of, you know, the Iraq war.
And, you know, they didn't know anything ahead of time.
They knew when they were told they were deploying.
And that's when we got notification that they were going.
Yeah.
When you're given the orders, that's when you know.
And the orders weren't given until July is two months in between.
So the other one that comes up that people mention is that there seems to be a confusion about ranks.
So I looked it up and I got some details here.
So Tim Walz was a master sergeant.
In his retirement paperwork, he's listed as a master sergeant.
That was his official rank upon retirement.
And he did say in conversation that he was a command master sergeant, which is a rank above master sergeant.
So immediately this is said, aha, gotcha.
You claimed a rank you didn't attain.
So in actual fact, the National Guard doesn't recognize him, wouldn't recognize him on his retirement paperwork as being a command master sergeant until he completed all three of their graduated steps between sergeant and master sergeant or between master sergeant and command master sergeant.
So he had completed one of them.
And in completing one of them, he was allowed to call himself a command master sergeant when he was in the guard.
He was, so he was referring to himself.
He was, and he was like a conditional rank until he had achieved the other two steps.
He was going to be full rank.
So then to the National Guard, he was allowed to say that he had he was a command.
He worked as a command master sergeant because he was working as one and attaining that rank as during the time when he retired.
So yeah, his retirement paperwork lists him as a master sergeant and he was working on attaining the rank of command master sergeant.
So this is a whole lot of hair splitting over a thing where, you know, yeah, he's, he's, you know, in this gray zone.
So I don't know where you want to put the target.
But they're, because there isn't a definitive line here, I don't know where the hell anyone wants to go with this.
They want this to be a gotcha thing.
We're like, yep, he's, he's doing this and it's bad and it's terrible and focus on the terrible bad things.
And like, but the state, the state of this case is not like that he's, you know, lock him up kind of thing.
You know what I mean?
Well, worse than that, You have an actual situation on the Republican side with Congressman Ronnie Jackson, who still says on his website, I just checked, still says on his website that he retired as a rear admiral.
But in point of fact, he was demoted to captain after an investigation.
So, no, he is the one lying, and yet he has the gall to be one of the people who is accusing Walls of lying about this.
Because, I mean, let's face it, Ronnie Jackson has no morals, no scruples, no what's the word I'm looking for?
The word hypocritical does not exist in his dictionary.
Yeah, that sounds wrong.
And, you know, like so many other Republicans.
It's that he doesn't care about those principles.
Right.
Right.
Yeah.
And so he'll attack, and he knows, yeah, there'll probably be someone who fires back at me, but I'm just going to ignore them and life will go on.
It's kind of like when he was one of the people accusing the Biden White House of having a drug problem.
It's like, hello.
Yeah.
Mr. Alsign, whoever's prescription receipt.
Yeah, right.
Yeah.
So by way of comparison, JD Vance is the vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party.
He's still a weirdo.
He's still potentially a sociopath.
And he's more than willing to brush aside the deaths of schoolchildren as a reasonable price to pay for other Americans to have the right to own AR-15 rifles.
Just one day after a recent school shooting in Georgia, JD Vance referred to school shootings as a fact of life.
This casts schoolchildren as though they are soldiers in a war whose lives can be sacrificed for some imagined greater good.
I hate this whole set of ideas, David.
Oh, yeah.
But like you said, he's potentially a sociopath.
He doesn't, he, we talked before about how he's completely changed his viewpoints.
He was against Trump.
Now he's sucking up to Trump.
He does not care who he hurts, what he says, if it's true.
He sees no boundaries there.
There was literally something where I know we'll talk about her later, but Laura Loomer made a comment about, you know, that the White House will smell like curry if Harris wins, you know, going after her Indian ancestry.
Right.
And of course, Vance is married to an Indian woman and has half Indian kids and didn't say anything at first and then was finally prodded into saying something and said something to the effect of, you know, that he hates the racism aspect of that while in the same interview conversation making racist attacks on Haitians.
Yeah.
I mean, he does not see only if it affects him, which again, I don't know.
I don't know that he cares whether someone is white or black or Indian or Latino or whatever or shock in a school.
Right.
What he cares about is attaining power.
Yeah.
And whoever has to be insulted, lied about, killed, it does not matter.
And it reminds me even to a greater extent of Rod Blagojevich when he was governor of Illinois.
There was a situation, I still remember it now, all these years later, where there was a member of the state house who had done something to piss him off.
So therefore, he shut down the offices of state agencies.
They were IDOT agencies in that person's district and moved them to a district where he had a more favorable representative there.
Not caring one bit about all the people's lives it would affect who like had jobs there.
Yeah.
And he literally did it as vengeance.
And I mean, obviously he did other things that were much worse, but it was just, it was that indication of being a sociopath, not caring about anyone else, taking whatever views to get you to power.
And we've seen that as he's gone on.
He's now a, you know, he's now a Trumper.
Yeah.
And, you know, the same, same sort of thing with Vance.
He, yeah, it's disgusting.
Yeah.
So we're moving on to presidential candidates.
And first we want to talk about rallies.
This is a big thing in campaigns and it's been a big thing in campaigns for a very long time is rallies and stump speeches.
So the Harris slash walls rallies are still very packed and very high energy.
Like North Carolina, just a couple of days ago, I saw pictures in video packed the rafters, 10, 15, 20,000 people at these rallies.
And she's hitting swing states almost exclusively.
And so, and that's undeniable.
Trump has tried to say that they haven't been, you know, nearly as full or as big or as energetic as they have been, but that's a whole lot of.
And they're all paid.
They're all paid.
Like you're going to pay 20,000 people to show up.
Yeah, that's okay.
Okay.
So Trump appears to have a different strategy.
There are reports that he is attempting to choose so-called sundown towns across the Midwest for the locations of his rallies.
So, David, do you know what a sundown town is?
No, I was just going to ask you, what's a sundown town?
I needed to look it up when I first heard about this.
I thought it was some kind of retirement community when I first heard about it.
That's what it sounds like because it reminds me of older people, especially those with the sundowners is kind of what they sometimes call them.
Yeah, but they weren't listing towns in Florida when they were listing off the sundown towns.
They were listing towns in Pennsylvania and I can't remember where Ohio, I think Iowa, all across the Midwest was the towns they were listing as sundown towns.
Apparently, at yet another dark chapter in American history, these are towns that were founded and went had a boom during a time when people were leaving the south.
I say people, white people were leaving the south and looking for places in the north that weren't populated by any dark-skinned people.
They wanted to live among only white people.
And they moved to these towns.
And then they had rules in these towns that all the colored people had to be out by sundown.
That's why they were called sundown towns.
That you could come through town, but you had to leave before sundown.
It was sort of a curfew for people that didn't belong there.
And yeah, I was, I was, at first, I heard about it and I was like, that can't be true.
And of course, not only can it be true, it is true.
Yet another sad tale of, you know, institutionalized racism from the U.S. that many people still try to say isn't happening and was never happening.
Yeah.
So that's that.
And the note that he's hitting many more sundown towns than any other places comes with the idea that he might be trying to rile people up into committing some acts that he can of stochastic terrorism that he can use for further division in the country.
No, he would never do that.
I am shocked.
For anyone who isn't totally clear what stochastic terrorism means, it means when a person encourages other people to do the acts of terrorism.
And usually they just claim that I am not responsible for anything that the people did, even if they did exactly what I told them to do.
Yeah.
So I'm going to need a whole episode on stochastic terrorism at some point, but I'm not ready today.
So Trump, there is a problem with crowd size as well.
I mean, we mentioned the Harris Walls rallies are very large, 10, 15, 20,000 people, and they're all packed right to the rafters.
And, you know, by comparison, Trump just recently held a rally in Tucson, Arizona at the Linda Ronstadt Music Hall, at which point when he was going to go there, Linda Ronstadt gave her own message of non-support of Donald Trump and mentioned that she's also a childless cat lady, by the way.
She adopted her children.
And she mentioned in her little note that the Linda Ronstadt Music Hall, for which is named after her, only seats a little over 2,000 people.
So I looked it up.
The rally was actually held in that music hall, and it does seat officially 2,289 people.
So the rally itself was full, and there was a lineup outside that rally for people to get in.
And this was widely publicized by people on the right, that the place is full and the lineup.
But this is like a tenth of the size of the Harris Walls rallies that are themselves filled to the rafters.
You know, this is that they're even Scheduling these events in such small venues is a reflection of the level of confidence that the Trump campaign has, because it's better to have a full rally in a small venue than to have a mostly empty rally in a large venue.
So, another thing that's worth noting is that the Trump and Vance outdoor events now include bullet-resistant glass around the podium.
Yeah.
All level of comparison against the fact that we can't put bullet-resistant glass in schools.
You know, I don't know.
Yeah.
He's going to need a Pope Mobile golf cart now.
Yeah.
Bullet-resistant glass on his golf cart.
Yeah, yeah.
He'll have a, he'll have a tank rolling down the golf course to get to, yeah, so he can golf.
Because it's not the guns that are the problem.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right.
Well, it's not the guns if you can surround yourself with bulletproof glass all the time.
Yeah, guns are no problem once once everyone has bulletproof vests and helmets.
Yeah.
So everybody needs a personal shield.
That's all.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I do think there's another reason for him using these small venues, and we talked about it last time.
I think it's money.
I think a lot of these larger venues, even if he went to them, they'd probably be like, you still owe from the last time.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Maybe.
And this way, you know, it's a lot cheaper, I'm sure.
Nothing against Linda Ronstadt, but I'm sure it's a lot cheaper to rent out the Linda Ronstadt music hall.
Yeah.
Well, it's smaller.
It's got to be cheaper if it's smaller.
Right.
Yeah.
Now, I did see also that he did a rally event in California.
Yeah.
I bet that was a big draw.
In swing states and stuff like that.
And first of all, yeah, I don't know what the draw was there, but it's California.
California's not a swing state.
Yeah, why are you bothering?
But even then, he's out there saying we won California in 2020.
If you counted the ballots properly, we won.
I don't.
Yeah, I don't think a Republican has won California since Reagan.
Yeah.
I mean, it's the delusion, the level of delusion, either by him to say it or by others who believe it.
Right.
It's like, and you know, Elon Musk is among them.
He's spreading the election lies too.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So we should get into the debate.
There was a debate just four or five days ago, something like that.
Seems like much longer.
Maybe it was six days ago.
I don't know.
But not more than a week.
It wasn't more than a week ago from the moment we're currently recording this.
So it featured, in case there was anyone under a rock that didn't notice that there was a debate, Kamala Harris debated Donald Trump.
And I watched it twice.
I wanted to get a good read for what was going on there.
And from the perspective of a sane person who's not an American, Donald Trump did not come off well in this debate.
He was notably crazy.
He ranted a lot.
There was a lot of lies.
And, you know, this has given, you know, the individual lies, I think, are less the point that the collection of lies as a total, I think are more worth talking about.
Because I think this tells us to a great extent how the last part of this campaign is going to go.
Note that this is where like a Canadian campaign would start.
A Canadian campaign that started this far in advance of the election would be a very long Canadian election campaign.
But this is just the tail end of the U.S. one because everything in the US is bigger, apparently.
Except Trump's crowds.
Except Trump's crowd sizes.
So the collection of lies, and if you add them all up, what you're seeing in total, the theme is fear and hate.
Yeah.
It's collectively, that's what it is.
It's immigrants are coming to rape your women and eat your cats and dogs and drive you out of your homes.
And, you know, the border is just wide open.
They're letting everyone in or whatever.
I mean, it's all the bigger the lie, the better in Trump's mind.
It's all the abortions are all terrible.
They are women are deciding in the ninth month they don't want babies anymore and are aborting.
They are aborting after birth.
These are all terrible, hate-filled lies that are meant to trigger as much fear as possible.
It's all the last election was stolen.
So I don't want to spend a lot of time on it.
But Trump did say for a couple days, intimated that, you know, he lost the election in 2020 in his mind by a whisker.
It was relatively close as elections in the U.S. go.
I don't know if by a whisker is a little bit of a exaggeration there, but at least he admitted that it was this.
And he admitted it in such a way that people like Nick Fuentes believed it.
And then he said he doubled down during the debate.
He was asked about it.
He said, well, you know, no, I said that sarcastically.
And at that point, I mean, this is, we talk a lot about on this podcast in general, I talk a lot about things like reality inversion and Schrödinger's meaning, ways that people try to get both meanings out of one saying one thing, ways that people try to, in their mind, reinterpret things to invert their entire meaning to be the opposite.
And this is exactly what he's doing here.
He's trying to say that, yeah, he said that, but he didn't mean what he said.
He meant the opposite of what he said and that everyone should interpret the opposite of that thing.
This is not good.
It wouldn't be good if a Democratic candidate said it.
It wouldn't be good if Justin Trudeau said it.
It wouldn't be good if whoever they have in charge of Kierstharmer in the UK said it.
It wouldn't be good if any other world leader said it.
It's not good when Trump says it.
It puts the idea into the minds of people that the opposite of any random thing they see said by an important person might actually be the opposite of that thing.
And I mean, that's where that election lie thing goes.
All the other, you know, I didn't even make a list of all the individual lies, but those are kind of the big three.
And those are the big three we're going to see over and over again.
Those are the ones he's going to divert every conversation toward is These three big lies.
The immigrants are going to come and terrible things are going to happen because of it.
There's going to be many, many abortions and many, many, in his mind, babies are going to die.
And, you know, the election was stolen last time.
Don't let him steal it this time.
Yeah.
I think when he said the lost buyer whisker stuff.
Yeah.
I think there's, you know, one of two possibilities.
One, whoops, I slipped and accidentally let the truth out.
Now I have to go back and fix that.
Yeah.
Two, he might have been floating it kind of like he did with abortion just like a week or two before.
To see how his crowd would react.
Yeah.
Yeah.
To see, to try to make himself sound more reasonable with the mainstream.
Yeah.
But then, like, when he said that about abortion, I was like, well, obviously none of his own followers are going to believe this bullshit.
He's just trying to do it to get in good with the moderates.
And then his own people went batshit crazy.
Yeah.
And it was like, it was like, wow, you guys are stupid.
And when he said that about the election, that he lost by a whisker and people like Nick Fuentes and Nick Fuentes' line was like, why did we do stop the steal then?
Yeah.
It was, it was, uh, and Nick Fuentes has also tried to walk that back, by the way, but Nick Fuentes noted fascist and neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes, leader of the group of people that we collectively call the Groypers, who's, you know, his vision of the U.S. is much darker even than Trump's.
Yeah.
You know, he was legitimately hurt.
He said, people that I know went to prison because they supported this belief.
And now you say it's a lie.
You know, we're seeing people try to hold Trump to his rhetoric on the right.
And I think, well, okay, whatever working means.
I mean, he went back to it.
We're in the debate.
He was like, oh, no, that was sarcasm.
Right.
But what we used to see on the right was people who were okay with him having this level of hypocrisy in his rhetoric in order to justify getting what they wanted.
I mean, we had a whole episode about that.
Right.
But now we're seeing them say, no, no, no, you don't get to be hypocritical that way.
You have to tow this line.
And I think it underlines a point that we need to talk, we need to say explicitly, which is that, you know, anyone who says, yeah, okay, last time Trump didn't get a lot accomplished, I think that the people on the right don't want that this time.
They want him to win, but they don't want him to walk away from their goals.
Right.
Because he kind of did.
He didn't get a lot done.
He got a couple of Supreme Court justices picked, but he didn't, he picked them, but he didn't cause them to need to be picked.
It was just happenstance that he happened to be the guy there when they needed to be picked.
And he didn't pick them himself.
He chose the person that someone told him to.
So there's never more a moment where a U.S. president is a puppet than the moment when they have to pick a Supreme Court justice.
And that's true on the right or the left.
Someone, you know, a whole team of people has been working on it for years, comes up with the right person for this moment because they have it ready.
And they say, you know what?
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
This is the person you should pick.
Well, that's how he ended up with Vance, too.
So, well, yeah, yeah.
I mean, he's, he's, he's like that.
I mean, he even admitted in the debate.
I don't know.
That was the question where they said, James.
Me and Vance don't talk.
We don't talk about these things.
We haven't talked about that.
It's like, really?
Yeah, I don't really consider his opinion to be important, is more or less what he was saying.
Yeah.
But this, the people who say there isn't that much of a fear of dark things happening when if Trump becomes president need to pay attention to who is making him revert back to the dark line.
It's not the left.
Like people say that the people on the left are exaggerating what he's saying for so that they can they can bring fear and get people to vote for their side.
You're trying to make people afraid of Donald Trump so they'll vote for you is what is being said.
But when Trump tries to walk something back, like the abortion thing, like the like the election lies from his own side is where the chorus is coming saying, no, you have to come back to this line because these dark things are what we want.
We want there to be, if, if, you know, women are bleeding out in parking lots, you know, there are, they're like, that's God's will is really the line they're going to trot out next.
That's what God would have wanted.
God works mysterious ways.
That's the line, right?
And, you know, people try to say there aren't anyone really, women really bleeding out in parking lots.
Well, I recently found a video of a young woman who was brave enough to make a TikTok video where she described her experience.
And I dare anyone to listen to that, watch that video and tell me that she's faking it somehow because give her a goddamn Academy Award.
I just was, I was floored when I listened to the actual her tale of her story and her health issues from that.
I just, that's not a thing that we should allow people to have happen to them.
I, you know, wow.
But this is where the lies are going, David.
This is where, where they're going.
And this is, you know, the calls are coming from inside the house.
The dark things that Trump is trotting out are coming from the people who are supporting him and making him come back to that hard line.
You know, what are your thoughts?
I've talked a lot now.
What are your thoughts on this?
I mean, Trump is very much like we already said Vance is.
He's, you know, likely a sociopath.
He wants power.
He wants money.
I don't know that he cares about anything else.
Now, through the deep immersion in this subculture, he may have convinced himself that these various things are true.
He may have convinced himself that they're important.
I don't know.
I don't know what goes through that man's demented mind.
And I mean, demented in all possible different ways, both the insult and the likelihood that he is suffering from dementia.
So, you know, there.
Yeah.
He, there must be something there because he keeps saying the same thing no matter how many times it's pointed out that it's false.
And to the point that we haven't gotten to yet about the debate, he allowed Harris to bait him.
Yeah.
And he just fell for it.
Whereas everyone said, okay, what Harris needs to do is bait him.
Yeah.
And what every Republican said was, what Trump needs to do is not be baited.
Yeah.
And yet he was.
Like, you literally, you know what it reminds me of?
It reminds me of a baseball hitter.
Okay.
Yeah.
And who always swings at the low and outside pitches.
Yeah.
Every time.
He can never hit them, but he always swings at them because he thinks that they're coming towards him.
Yeah.
And it doesn't matter how many teams he's been on and how many hitting coaches he's had.
He always goes for it and every pitcher knows for it, knows it.
That's Trump.
He's always swinging for the low and away pitch.
And by the way, Cubs fans will know exactly who I'm talking about.
But he, there's something inside of him that is so broken.
Trump, not the hitter.
You don't know that.
Maybe the hitter also has something broken inside of him.
Maybe.
That he just, he can't help it.
And so I think that when the people on the right started reacting to him, he was like, oh, I need their support.
I'd better go back to it.
And it's easy to make use of that.
Now, in a little while, I may contradict myself a little bit on that, but we'll wait for that.
But yeah, I mean, you know, we, you know, you were talking about the debate.
Harris clearly won.
Yeah.
There is no doubt in any sane person's mind.
Yeah.
Even most Republicans admit, or many Republicans admitted it.
And then the excuses started coming.
We should mention, we should mention that debate performance is not strongly correlated with success on election day, nor is it strongly negatively correlated.
It's just not strongly correlated in any direction.
It's not an indicator of who will win.
It's just not.
Unless something happens to show people like Nixon appearing at the debate and looking weathered when he was up against Kennedy.
Yeah, he didn't know that was going to be recorded.
It was an age where it wasn't more often these things are radio only and he didn't know it was going to be recorded.
He didn't shave before.
That was a famous thing.
I don't know that he didn't know, but I don't think he knew what it would look like on TV, more or less.
When I looked, when I read about it, he didn't, the people who, historians, whatever, they said that he didn't know that it would be because very few of his appearances at that time were televised and he didn't bother to shave because he was pressed for time, whatever.
And so he appeared unshaven right next to the very attractive, much younger president John F. Kennedy.
And that was a thing that impressed voters, it seemed at the time.
Yes.
But the other issue is if you show up at a debate and you're drugged out on cold medicine and you look old and tired and suddenly your whole party eventually, you know, turns against you.
Yeah.
As well as the media.
He is also old, David.
Yes.
And, you know, so, you know, in a reasonable society, I think there would have been even more negativity towards him.
We do not live in a reasonable society.
The so yeah, is it likely?
Yeah, I mean, he said anyone who paid any attention was not surprised by anything he said.
You know, there, there were bingo games with squares of stuff that he would say.
And I'm sure everybody got bingo.
They probably filled their whole damn car.
Yeah.
Um, because these were his greatest hits with some new ones like eating the cats, eating the dogs, which was turned into at least one song that I have heard all over TikTok.
Um, but the uh, yeah, there was just no surprises there.
So, therefore, of course, it's not going to change anything.
Um, but yet the Republicans, especially Trump, have all sorts of excuses.
And it's, it's funny because it's always like, you know, when Trump does, well, some will admit he lost and then make excuses and conspiracies about it.
When Trump posts about it, he's like, it was three against one.
The moderators were paid off by the Democratic Party.
They had given her the questions in advance.
She also had an earpiece.
The sun was in his eyes.
Don't forget the sun was in his eyes, David.
Oh, yeah.
It wasn't in Kamala's eyes.
Right.
They were only fact-checking him, not her.
And they were only fact-checking reality.
Yeah, yeah.
They were fact-checking reality is what they were doing.
Yeah.
I mean, I've heard it said for many years.
Reality has a liberal bias.
Yeah.
It's not our fault that reality has a liberal bias, you know.
But, but yeah, he goes through and does all those different conspiracies.
And then even more conspiracies grew out of that because there's the, you know, oh, there's this whistleblower who says they can prove that ABC gave the questions to Harris ahead of time.
Right.
And then, oh, wouldn't you know it?
That darn whistleblower was killed in a car crash.
Yeah.
Oh.
And then, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others are out here spreading this far and wide.
Right.
And it's from some random insane psycho blogger because where else would a congressperson get their news?
This is, yeah, this is the, I mean, a, a concept I, I had an episode about called pseudotangibility, where you try to link an unreal idea with a tangible thing, uh, like a crystal ball.
This is their, their version of a crystal ball.
There's, there's this evidence.
There's this, right, this, uh, this affidavit, and you can't access it.
You can't talk to the person because they just got viciously killed probably in a traffic accident.
And you also, I'm not going to mention their name.
And there's no other details about this that you can corroborate.
But I definitely have all the evidence.
It's right here.
And instead of showing you the evidence, I'm going to tell you about the evidence so that you can interpret it before you ever see it.
It's right here in my safe about the space aliens in Area 51.
Right.
And when I stare into the crystal ball, it definitely says that your future says this, and only I can see what's in the crystal ball.
But you can see the crystal balls right in front of you.
So you know it's real.
Right.
Yeah.
Now, I will say that, you know, they did, she did walk that back.
I think that the website said, oh, nope, wrong.
They weren't killed in a traffic accident.
So I was surprised that she actually tweeted and said, whoops, you know, now she still believes the conspiracy, just not that the whistleblower was killed in a car accident.
Right.
Yeah.
And I suspect that's because someone realized, oh, if they're killed in a car accident, there's no reason we can't give out their name.
Yeah.
So now we have to have actual evidence.
To walk that back.
But yeah, a lot of these conspiracy claims are similar.
I mean, they go back years.
I remember a former survivor player, turned psycho, was promoting that Biden, the conspiracy, that Biden had a wire going up his suit into an earpiece.
It was a wrinkle in his suit.
Anyone could tell it was a wrinkle in his suit, but they were promoting this idea.
Well, now we've switched to wireless earrings.
Yeah.
But the thing that gets me about all of this, none of the questions were a surprise.
Not a single one.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's like, it's like if you're.
If you were surprised by any of these questions, it's because you weren't paying attention to the world around you and you're unprepared for this presidential debate.
Yeah, but the thing is, it's like in college and you're getting ready for a test and some dumbass.
You did a whole course on whatever.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Some dumbass gets an F and the person who studied gets an A.
And the dumbass is like, you must have cheated and had the answers ahead of time.
Well, yeah, it's called the syllabus.
It's called reading the material.
It's called having shown up in class every day.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so it's not hard to figure out.
And the thing is, if you watch her, I mean, you said you watched her twice.
There were a couple times where she reframed the question.
There was a question asked in a certain way, and she kind of picked it up and moved it over a little bit in her answer, which is a smart thing to do.
And you're not going to get called out for it because the moderators are only fact-checking, not question-checking.
These moderators did push a little bit on certain yes or no questions.
But yeah, she had obviously studied and memorized and knew certain ways of doing it.
She's been a politician for a long time, and she was a prosecutor before then.
And one thing that I know about prosecutors is juries don't like for the lawyers to get up there and have notes.
I mean, maybe a couple cards they could look down at, but certainly not reading from them.
So they have to be used to memorizing things, being prepared, getting ready.
And I'm sure that's what Harris did.
She had certain things that were very clearly memorized.
That doesn't mean you got the questions ahead of time.
It just means you're a smart debater.
So I think we want to mention before you go anywhere.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
Okay.
So this is, you know, I warned you I had a hot take.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Right.
So this is right after the debate.
Yeah.
Harris said, okay, ready to debate you again.
Yeah.
And Trump was like, no way.
Which was funny because some of Trump's supporters were assuming that he was going to win and was like, well, if you want to know who you want to show up again for a second, yeah.
And, you know, his claim was you only ask for a rematch if you lost the first time.
Yeah.
And the thing is, he's not totally wrong in terms of strategy.
So this is my hot take.
She shouldn't want to do a second debate anyway.
There is no upside and only downside because she is leaving on a high.
She won.
Everybody talked about how she won.
Yeah.
Okay.
You have a second debate.
Now people already know what she can do.
The bar is higher for her.
The bar is even lower for him than it already was.
And the bar for him was already don't take a crap live on stage.
There is always the chance.
This is the part I said I would argue with myself, contradict myself.
There's always the chance, however small, that Trump could actually learn something about how to respond and not appear so crazy, not get baited into doing what he did.
And then he comes off as, oh, look, he's improved.
Oh, look, he's not as crazy.
And depending on what network you have, the moderators might not be as good.
You might go back to the, you know, the CNN moderators of we're not going to say anything.
We're just going to let them talk, rant.
Right.
Now, she still handled him better.
And people analyzed, as good as these moderators were, they still allowed Trump to bully himself into.
To do more things and to get time that he wasn't.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I have to respond and then let him respond.
Yeah.
And then they wouldn't let her respond when she said the same thing.
Yeah.
She had to take up other answer time to yeah, right.
But my point is, now, maybe they knew he was going to say no.
So it was good strategy to say, hey, let's do it again.
It's a risky strategy because you never know what he's going to say.
I think they're fine.
You don't win the World Series.
I mean, obviously they didn't win yet, but you don't win the World Series and then immediately say, you know what?
Come on, let's play another game just so I can beat you down some more.
Yeah, I'm not sure what their strategy is there.
It's possible they're trying to, you know, look for a new opportunity to make him sound less sane.
You can.
Well, I think it's still possible.
I don't know.
It might just be harder, not worth the effort.
But here's my hot take on the debate is that I think that the Democrats wanted Trump to look as old as Biden looked in the first election.
And I think that in the first debate.
In the first debate, sorry.
And I think that didn't happen.
Yeah.
Right.
He sounded crazy, absolutely crazy.
And should absolutely be mocked for having sounded that crazy because you shouldn't want this guy as president when he sounds just this crazy.
Yeah, by the way, which is something, sorry to interrupt you, which is something I forgot to mention about all those conspiracies.
Even if every single one of them had been true.
Even if ABC had given all the questions to Harris, even if she had an earpiece, even if the moderators were on the payroll, they didn't force Trump to yell into the cameras.
Yeah.
They're eating the dogs.
They're eating the cats.
Yeah.
And other crazy shit.
Yeah.
What level of cope explains that?
You know, did they slip something into his drink before he went on stage?
Like, what sort of, you know, what conspiracy explanation are you trying to tell here?
Right.
Right.
So, yeah, I think Trump didn't look as old as they wanted him to look.
That was a lot of the rhetoric before the debate, and it was notably absent after the debate was any idea that Trump looked 78.
And I think that regardless of how crazy Trump looked and sounded, I think that to the many of his supporters, if not all of his supporters on the right, looking and sounding and acting crazy is not something that turns them off.
I think the property that they most welcome and most want in the candidate is strength, just raw strength.
And I think that dictates a lot of his rhetoric, a lot of the way he positions himself, a lot of the ways that he presents himself.
And I think it's the reason why we're not going to see the needle get moved very far at all by this debate at the end of the day.
The people on the right who support him got what they wanted.
And the people on the left who don't support him and support Kamal and said got more or less what they wanted.
Yeah, I mean, but all of these debates, and this goes for rallies, this goes for everything.
They are fighting over a relatively small percentage of the population.
Like it or not, there's at least 30%, maybe 40% of Americans who support Trump.
Or at least will vote for him.
I'll tell you, when I say support him, I have a relative.
It's unlikely they will listen to this.
And at this point, they'll know anyway, once I finish this story.
But I have a relative who said, posted on Facebook recently, do you really think that I support the Republicans?
No, I don't.
I just hate the Democrats for what they're doing to X.
Yeah.
Okay.
And I mean, first of all, this person has been a Republican and Trump supporter in the past.
They were a Haley supporter more recently.
But they're definitely going to vote for Trump.
Yeah.
While claiming not to support him.
Yeah.
And, you know, so like it or not, there's this at least, like I said, like about 40% of people who are going to do that.
And there's this relatively small percentage in the middle that everybody's fighting about.
Now, personally, and I've seen a lot of this recently, but personally, I don't understand how someone can be sitting here and still be undecided other than being completely ignorant.
Like, have you been living in a cave for all this time?
Are you just not paying any attention at all?
I know some people like that.
They're like, I don't care.
I don't care about the election.
It doesn't affect my life, which is wrong.
They just don't realize it affects their life.
Yeah.
And then, yeah, but anyway, my point is, yes, he's got his people.
She has her people.
It's the ones in the middle that the fight is over.
And I don't know.
I don't know how you can still be in the middle.
Right.
So I want to do, I want to give this quote that I just read this morning.
It's topical for exactly what we're talking about here, because we're talking about kind of the three big areas of lies that Trump is going to tell.
They're all about fear and hate.
And so there was once upon a time a German, I believe she was a philosopher named Hannah Arendt,
who very famously was the one who coined the term the banality of evil in relation to attempting to attempts to understand the process that happened in Germany in the 30s and during the war and allowed the Nazis to occur.
So this quote is from a book she wrote called The Origins of Totalitarianism.
Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.
The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism.
Instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.
So someone had posted that this morning, and I just, I read it and I saw that it really spoke to exactly what we're seeing now and why the propaganda of fear and hate, once it's taken hold, holds in such a grip.
No one in history has been able to both see this upfront and close, as well as write about it to such great extent as Hannah Arendt did.
And I, you know, this, what she's describing is the process of the ability to deny reality, the ability to inspire people to deny reality.
And this is what we need to fight against, no matter how it looks, what is happening, where reality leads us, even to maybe uncomfortable places.
We need to have objective reality be the guiding star by which we steer our ships.
The immovable thing about our universe is objective reality.
And any ideology that's built around ignoring it is the one we should reject.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And as you and I have discussed before, this applies no matter what side of the political aisle you're on.
Yeah.
You know, we did a whole podcast on left-wing conspiracies about the attempted assassination of candidate Trump.
Yeah.
And as we're recording this, it's a day after, as we mentioned, someone else may have been trying to kill him.
Appears that they were on his golf course.
And right away, first the, the um, original conspiracists on the left re-emerged and now new ones are emerging.
And yes, there's also on the right.
You know the, I expect it on the right, I expect Marjorie Taylor Green to say that yeah, I would like to hold, you know, think that the left has a higher standard, but they clearly don't, because these are some major accounts and they're followed by some major people and they keep saying it that you know that there was a, a conspiracy here.
But whenever questioned, I, it's the insinuation alone.
Right, it's the accusation alone.
Is all that?
That's there, it's all they have.
There are questions.
I mean, we even had someone yesterday when you uh called out a major account yeah um, and you know me and someone else were responding to this, because that person, that person had literally said, let me know what you think of this and then turned off replies after a little while.
So I called that out and was like, hey, you know, you're Alex Jones over here.
You don't want to hear that yeah, and then someone else jumped in and said, well, you have questions to answer.
We don't have any questions to answer.
We're not making any claims.
Yeah, we well, in fact, we are making claims and we put them in our podcast episode where we detailed all the claims we're making.
But I was just saying for this one, for the golf person, right right yeah, right.
Our claim was, let's wait, let's wait and see what happens.
Yeah, but there's no indication that there's, that there's a conspiracy.
And then this person was like, well, how did he know Trump would be golfing there?
Um, it was a sunday, at Trump's course, and then just today, we found out that oh, it looks like from cell phone data, he'd been sitting there waiting for Trump for 12 hours.
Yeah, so it doesn't take, which is exactly what we said.
It's like it doesn't take a genius to know where he's probably going to be.
And if Trump hadn't shown up, well then this never would have been an issue.
And until next time, you know that the guy decided to do it and but he just kept going and he's like, he's like uh well, this type of person with a mental instability sounds like exactly the type of person who someone could convince to take a shot at Trump.
Yeah, and then someone else pointed out it's like, or someone with a mental instability sounds just like the type of person who would take a shot at Trump.
Yeah, it's like it, you're adding in extra steps.
Occam's Razor says, don't add in extra steps yeah, out evidence.
One thing to point out here is that in criminal investigations, the police And you know, you'll see this on crime-solving TV shows, but this is more or less what the police do is sometimes they will say, Well, what if this happened?
But that is an indication of where they might look for evidence next, because if that happened, then you might be able to investigate and find communications where someone was convincing someone of a thing, right?
But they're skipping that step, and that's a pretty crucial step, the finding of the evidence.
Well, especially since this is no criminal genius, this guy has been out there on social media tweeting away, you know, his thoughts about everything.
He had his cell phone on him, which indicates exactly where he was.
Yeah.
You know, the man obviously is not mentally stable.
And yet, you're going to add this in.
And, you know, as this person continued to argue, they actually claimed they weren't the ones with the conspiracy.
They started calling us names.
And, you know, eventually I got him calmed down to the point of his final answer was, well, we'll see.
Yeah.
But yes, we will.
We should wait and see.
We're right.
But don't in the meantime.
To make a decision on this right now today.
Yeah.
We have the rest of our lives to come to a conclusion about this.
Why are we rushing to a conclusion right now?
Right.
Before we get all the data.
Yeah.
And I mean, the thing about saying we'll see, yeah, we're saying we'll see.
Yeah.
But then, you know, you ask them, okay, in the meantime, will you stop promoting the idea that it's a conspiracy?
No response.
Yeah, that's unlikely to, yeah.
But there are certain people, of course, who do need to promote it right now.
They can't wait and see.
And they're the engagement farmers on one side or the other because they need to get those clicks and rally.
Yeah.
Whether they're doing it for pure monetary reasons or whether they're doing it to boost their numbers out of ego or whatever.
Those bigger accounts are the ones that they need to, you know, they need to promote this now.
And, you know, I don't think it's a coincidence that the ones with the larger accounts are also the ones who tend not to make specific claims, but also insinuations only.
Yes, right.
Like, hey, let me know your thoughts on whether this looks like a this looks like it could be fake.
Right.
Interested to know your thoughts.
Yeah, that's not a genuine interest thing.
So, so yeah, it's, it's, you know, it comes back to what you said in that quote, you know, we have to adhere to reality no matter what.
I might agree with some of these people 95% of the time.
Yeah.
That doesn't mean I'm going to let them slide when it comes to this.
And I have told my, you know, people who follow me, I have said in no uncertain terms, if I see you promoting this and I follow you, we're done.
Yeah.
We're done.
I'm not going to accept that.
Yeah.
Last night I did quite a bit of pushback against some accounts with large numbers of followers.
I got no direct response from any of those accounts.
They have no incentive.
Yeah.
They're engaging In that time, since I've started that process, the one account that did ever give me a response has since deleted his account.
So I credit you with that.
Yes, he left Twitter.
Yes, he left Twitter because of me.
And also that should be a warning to RFK Jr., who definitely listens to this podcast that no one cares that you canceled your presidential campaign and joined forces with Trump.
You're not becoming the health and health secretary.
It's not happening.
Yeah.
I mean, I, you know, joined in with you on that and, you know, responded to some.
I did get blocked by one for a very, very mundane comment.
Yeah.
And I'll say who it is here.
It's Middle Age Riot.
I have followed them for a long time.
And he wrote, if you think Donald Trump wouldn't stoop to staging fake assassination attempts to win back the White House, congratulations on waking up from your coma.
All I said in response was, just because he would doesn't mean he has.
Nobody on either side of the aisle should spread bullshit.
Yeah.
And this account, to whom I have responded multiple times before, never gave any indication he even knew I existed, has over 100,000 followers blocked me for saying that nobody on either side of the aisle should spread bullshit.
Yeah.
Well, and if there was proof that someone could show me that, you know, that the vaccines were dangerous, you know, I, you know, if the vaccine were dangerous, I would push out against it.
Of course I would.
Why wouldn't I?
I wouldn't take it.
Why would I take it if it was dangerous?
But the evidence that's shown for this is usually merely the accusation.
Yeah.
It's it might be dangerous.
There's a possibility it could be because Pfizer lied about some other thing in some other time several years ago.
It's it might be dangerous because of some other thing.
It might be that it does this.
Well, those, okay, show them.
It might be that some other medications there.
Okay, show that.
But they don't show any proof of that.
Well, because whenever they show anything, it gets debunked.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
So that stops them.
I mean, they'll keep restating the same debunked lies over and over.
People will say that I just accept whatever I'm told because it's what I'm told.
You know, there are people who listen to this podcast who know me personally and, you know, in conversation with me more often than you are on this podcast.
But, you know, I suspect strongly that they don't have in their minds, you know, in their mind's eye where they have a model of me in their mind, a person who just accepts things because they're told them.
Right.
Especially anyone who's ever been my boss, by the way.
You know, I'll point out, you know, this, this thing or that, or I'm not sure that's true.
You know, and I'm like frustrated because, you know, and I'm not convinced just because someone tells me things.
I'm just not.
Right.
Same here.
Everything about me.
It's frustrating to a lot of people around me, but it's just a true thing about me.
Yeah.
That's one of the people, you know, the guy who was arguing saw, you know, he looked at my, he looked at my.
Oh, yeah, I saw that.
He was trying to mock you for being a skeptic.
Yeah, and I'm like, yeah, congratulations on not knowing what the word means.
Yeah, you know, his in his mind, I don't know.
He never said what it meant.
He just made fun of it, made fun of me for having it in my description on Twitter.
And it's like, yeah, because that means I don't just believe your bullshit conspiracies.
Yeah, people think that being a skeptic is the act of just not believing what you're told.
Yeah.
No, it's the act of being convinced only by evidence.
Yes, only by sufficient evidence.
That's what it means.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, anyway, we've yammered on long enough.
Where can people find you, David?
Well, people can find me, as I mentioned, on Twitter where I'm at David Bloomberg.
If you now, there I talk about a wide variety of things.
Just yesterday, you would have seen me tweeting literally one tweet after another about politics, you know, conspiracies, the bears losing, and Big Brother.
All, you know, I mean, and these were interspersed.
If you're following me, it, you know, it can get a little crazy.
But, you know, I just talk about all these different things.
If you want to find me on Blue Sky, same thing, though significantly less.
I'm also at David Bloomberg.
On Threads, I'm at David Bloomberg TV.
Same thing, but significantly less.
And then I do videos.
All my videos are one topic only, and that's reality TV.
There will be no politics there.
So, you know, but I'm at David Bloomberg TV on YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram.
If you're interested in reality TV, so yeah, definitely check me out there.
I can attest that if you want to hear about the Bears losing games, David's feed is the best feed for that.
As for me, you can email your complaints, comments, concerns, death threats, if that's what you're into.
Whoa.
What do you think?
Where people are Elon Musk or something?
Truthunrestricted at gmail.com.
And you can find me on Twitter at Spencer G Watson.
On Blue Sky at Spencer Watson.
Threads, I think I was forced to be Spencer Watson39.
That's an indication that maybe there's 38 other Spencer Watsons that are floating around somewhere.