Episode 2596 CWSA 09/13/24
Election integrity better than ever! Lol. And more fun. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
All right, now you're all fixed, aren't you? Now you're happy. Turns out there was a button that needed to be pushed. You're all good now, right? Thank you, Paul. You saved me again. Good save
View segment →. I believe I was telling you that this is Coffee with Scott Adams, and all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, a chalice, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit a…
View segment →oks like through my bad engineering I may have gotten rid of all the viewers who are not serious viewers of the show. The rest of you stayed here and said, "He's going to fix this," because you trusted me, and your trust has been paid off. Did you know that China has got a $31 billion push for maki…
View segment →Paul? Are you still there? I'm getting trolled on the audio. Bunch of people saying I'm muted. Is that because they're—okay, yeah, everything's working. Trolls. Thank you, Paul. So I wonder if DEI is actually a factor. There's no way to know. But the theory is that DEI should destroy every company…
View segment →k. I just have to tell you this one story. This is my one other post office story. In the early post office days when I was a very young kid, the post offices—at least where I lived—they were actually required to have a loaded firearm behind the desk. So the post offices were required. It wasn't op…
View segment →confirmed, but the science very strongly seems to suggest multiple studies show the same thing—that women's preferences for a mate, what could be more important than that? Your preferences for a mate, the most important lifetime decision, is completely reversed by hormonal birth control. And then we…
View segment →New Hampshire probably doesn't have a problem, but you read a story like this and it makes you think, whoa, probably those other states are doing some post-election audits too. Well, if they are, it's probably just as total. Meanwhile, Newsmax has to go to trial because they said some things that S…
View segment →can make them think about how they were done, they have uncritically accepted that these must be hoaxes if they're worrying about how they were done. And that is a very strong persuasion trick. It's one that Trump uses all the time in other contexts, so he knows how to use it. It's one of his best.…
View segment →ns will determine a lot to them. Do we care about how they think? Yes we do, because it matters to us. To imagine that other countries don't give a what the United States thinks about vaporizing them with nuclear weapons is the dumbest thing I've seen all day. So great comment there. You're doing gr…
View segment →All right, now you're all fixed, aren't you? Now you're happy. Turns out there was a button that needed to be pushed. You're all good now, right? Thank you, Paul. You saved me again. Good save.
I believe I was telling you that this is Coffee with Scott Adams, and all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, a chalice, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Well, it looks like through my bad engineering I may have gotten rid of all the viewers who are not serious viewers of the show. The rest of you stayed here and said, "He's going to fix this," because you trusted me, and your trust has been paid off.
Did you know that China has got a $31 billion push for making nuclear power in that country? They've approved 11 reactors recently and 20 in the past two years. And that's not why I bring it up. Now, you know if you're following the news that whatever country falls behind in energy production is going to lose the future, because AI will be driving everything. And if you don't have way more power than we have in this country right now, you're not going to compete with China on AI. So whoever has the most electricity basically is going to win on AI, because they could just do more of it and faster.
So nuclear power has gone from something that would be really important for your economy and maybe good for the world's pollution and CO2 if you care about that. But I would argue that nuclear power is now more important than nuclear weapons. Are you with me on that? That nuclear power plants creating electricity is a more important weapon of war, because it's going to be driving AI, and AI will drive everything. So nuclear weapons of course would still be powerful, but probably the wars of the future are going to depend on electricity. And we don't have a way to dominate in electricity, and China is just kicking our asses on nuclear.
So unless we get somebody who can really push things in the United States, we're all in a lot of trouble. This would be right near the top of my number one existential risk problems. It's not number one, but it's right up there. And I would recommend that you follow the account on X called Zion Lights, which is actually the name of a person. Zion is the first name, just like it sounds: Z-I-O-N, and then Lights, last name. So if you follow that account, which is smish, but the most accurate and unbiased following of what's happening in nuclear energy. So highly recommended. Get on that account if you're not already there.
By the way, one of the things that I see as my Spider-Man responsibility—you know the Spider-Man curse, with great power comes great responsibility. Now I don't have great power, but I have over a million followers, and I feel like one of the most useful things I can do with my 1.1 million followers is tell you who else you should follow to make you smarter. That's really one of the best things I could ever do for the world: just make you smarter by telling you who to follow. So Zion Lights—add that one to your list.
Apparently Boeing's labor union, the biggest labor union, is going on strike because Boeing didn't need any more problems. But here it is. Or they did, I guess. I should have said that the other way. But you know what would really help their profits and their ability to pay their employees more? Would be building really good planes. So the machinists are on strike. I feel like Boeing is really getting every bad news it could possibly get.
How much of this do you think is DEI related? And the trouble is we don't know. You still saying you're muted or are you trolling me now, Paul? Are you still there? I'm getting trolled on the audio. Bunch of people saying I'm muted. Is that because they're—okay, yeah, everything's working. Trolls. Thank you, Paul.
So I wonder if DEI is actually a factor. There's no way to know. But the theory is that DEI should destroy every company and then every country it comes in contact with, because by design it destroys organizations. It is the one thing that guarantees that you focus on hiring less qualified people to meet a different goal. Now if you say, "Scott, you racist, why are you saying that some other group is less qualified?" I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you focus on something other than merit, you're going to get something other than merit every time. It's just the way everything works. And there's a small pool of people available for certain types of jobs, and if you try too hard to fix things with that small pool of availability, it should destroy every company in America that focuses on it.
So although there's no direct evidence that that's what's happening at Boeing, given that they have a bunch of government contracts, I would pretty much feel confident in saying it's probably their biggest problem. I'm sure they have other big problems, but it's probably the biggest one. And it's not recoverable. It's not recoverable. They're not going to fire the people they already hired. So whatever their situation is now, that's what they're going to have to work with. So I don't know how they work around it. Create a skunk works? I don't know. I have no idea how anybody survives DEI. It should, by its design on paper, destroy every organization that touches it eventually. And certainly lots of evidence of that.
Well, you'd be delighted to know there's a research consortium—or consortium, or consortium, I don't know, but it's one of those things—but yeah, a bunch of geoengineering types want to dump a bunch of iron in the ocean to make the ocean capable of absorbing, I guess. Basically they'd be fertilizing the ocean with some kind of iron stuff, and it will make the phytoplankton bloom, and it'll suck the carbon dioxide right out of the air.
All right, let me ask you this. What are you more afraid of: a nuclear power plant or trying to change the chemistry of the ocean? This is the scariest thing I've ever seen. It's scary that they want to change the atmosphere, you know, have the planes release some kind of chemicals that will alter the atmosphere to solve climate change. But I'm not so sure I want to bloom a lot of phytoplankton, because I don't know exactly if we know what happens if you do that. So I'd be a little careful about this one. I suppose there's probably a way to test it small. But yeah, I don't know. And is it recoverable? If you stopped doing it, do things go back to where they were pretty quickly? I just don't know if this is a good idea, but I've got questions.
Well, this is exciting. According to the New York Post, there's this device that's been created by researchers at University College in London, and it's a little device that you stick your finger in. And somehow, believe it or not, it's a breakthrough medical device to stimulate what they call the natural, quote, "real feel" sensation of human touch. So if you're isolated and you don't have a lot of human touch, you can stick your finger into a device and it will give you the sensation that there's a human being touching your finger.
So I plan to get one of those to stick my finger into it. No, my finger. I'm just going to put my finger in it. Well, what were you thinking, you perverts? My God, you're disgusting. I'm going to put my finger in it. What are you even thinking? Oh my God, I'm disgusted by all of you. That never even occurred to me. Not once did I think if you can stick your finger in it and it feels like a real person that there might be some other application for it. I never thought of that. You're disgusting. I love every one of you.
All right, here's a story that makes you shake your head and say, should we just give up and leave the country? Maybe we should just give up on America if you're an American. Just give up. All right, here's a story that just makes me want to go, all right, we're not even trying anymore.
The National Association of Letter Carriers—in other words, Post Office Union—announced their endorsement of Kamala Harris and Governor Walz. The letter carriers, the people who will be holding in their hands the ballots. They know exactly what the voters in their area are likely to favor by a majority. They know if they're working a red neighborhood or a blue neighborhood. And they've just endorsed one side. And you have to trust the people who endorsed Harris to deliver your ballot without throwing it away, which is what they want to do. They want to throw it away because they don't want the other team to win.
Now I'm not going to cast any aspersions on any postal workers. My father worked for the Post Office for his entire career and retired. And if there's one thing I know from all of the many, many stories my father told us over the dinner table, you can trust the Post Office. No, you can trust the Post Office as much as you can trust any other part of the government, which is not at all. Not at all.
When I used to mail my art—so when I was a new cartoonist, we didn't do everything digital back then. I would actually create art on paper, and then I'd make copies of it because I knew I was going to mail off the originals. So I'd mail the original to my syndication company, and then they would do what they needed to do to put it in newspapers. I heard that Gary Larson, famous cartoonist of the time, had to stop using the post office because as soon as they figured out who he was, they stole all of his packages because they could sell his original art.
So I heard that, and I said to myself, well, but they don't know who I am because I was new. So I was mailing my art every day, and then I got a little more famous, and then they started recognizing me in the post office. And that was the last time any of my art ever reached its destination. They just started stealing it after that. So no, the post office cannot be trusted.
Years ago I also wrote a story about a single woman who didn't have any money but was giving money to homeless people when she saw them because they were doing even worse than she was. And she could not even afford basically anything. I wrote a story, and I said, you know what, here's a post office box if you want to send her some money and solve her problem, because she's literally so kind—this is a real story—she was so kind and religious really that if she could eat a sandwich that day and she saw somebody who might not, she would give him half her sandwich. Like literally she would reach in her lunch and give half of it to a street person.
And people were moved by the story, and they sent her envelopes full of cash. I mean not full of, but you know, a $20 bill here and there. And she got, if you could imagine, probably thousands—my best guess, thousands of dollars—were sent to her by just people who wanted to help her out. How many of those thousands of dollars do you think she actually received? Because it went through the post office. As soon as they noticed that one of her letters had cash in it—because I don't know, maybe you could hold it up and see it or something—they stole everything else that ever went to her. They got 100% of all of her letters and kept them.
The post office. Now you feel good about the post office? The post office is going to determine the election because the mail-ins will probably be the consequential thing. And they get to decide if they deliver it or not. If they throw it away instead of delivering it, you'll never know. And if you did know, it would be after the new president is already in office, and nothing would change after that.
How in the world is this legal? How in the world is this legal? Now Joel Pollak asked this question before I did on X, so I'm stealing his stuff. But I mean, I look at this and I think, well, I guess there's no law against it because of free speech. But if you design a system—let's say you drew it down on paper and you said, all right, we're going to have this election system. We're going to have the determined vote are going to come in the mail, and then we're going to make sure the people who deliver the mail are very biased in who wins, and they won't be watched every moment because mail carriers don't have body cams. So they could just leave the whole crate of ballots in their car, drive it home at night and throw it away, or throw it away in a dumpster on the way. Now, would you have ever approved that system if you were designing the system? Would you have approved that? No, you would not. On paper you would have rejected that immediately. You would have said no, whatever we do, we can't do that.
It's the least trustworthy group probably of any entity. I mean, I don't know what experience you've had with post offices, but it's hard to imagine a more corrupt organization, more corrupt at the individual level than the top. I don't have any accusations against senior management. I only know that the individuals that they hire are pretty damn sketchy on a regular basis. And I say that, you know, my father worked there for over 30 years, I think.
I just have to tell you this one story. This is my one other post office story. In the early post office days when I was a very young kid, the post offices—at least where I lived—they were actually required to have a loaded firearm behind the desk. So the post offices were required. It wasn't optional. They had to have a loaded gun available in case some trouble went down. Now of course times have modernized, so I'm pretty sure they got rid of that. But this is a true story. There were days when for whatever reason there was nobody to look after me when I was a young kid, and so my father would just take me to work, and I'd be just sort of running around behind the counter in the post office. And there was this loaded gun on a shelf that I could reach as a toddler. Do you think I played with it when nobody was watching? Yeah, of course I did. I'm like a toddler with a loaded gun in the post office. Now if you have any other questions, that's a true story. If you have any other questions about the workings of the post office, I hope I've answered them all.
All right, so our election is being rigged in plain sight. I think that that's a fact based on reported news. To me this is rigging. And I gave you six other examples. They're pretty obvious rigging. So you don't have to cheat on the individual votes to see how much rigging is going on. But that would be cheating on individual votes, I guess.
Kamala Harris has been saying that Goldman Sachs approved of her economic plan over Trump's. Goldman Sachs says, well, that might be technically true, but when we compared them there was like 0.2% of a difference between the plans. Yes, hers was 2.2% better. Now let me ask you this. Do you believe that Goldman Sachs can look at some political plans and calculate accurately? Do you think that they can calculate accurately to within 0.2% of what it's going to do to the economy? You idiots. No. Goldman Sachs, you are idiots if you think that any of your employees, your smartest ones, with all their computers and maybe they use some AI, and they calculated what the economy would be up to 0.2% in the future. Nobody can predict the future with a complicated model. All right?
If you believe the climate change models are real, you're an idiot, because they couldn't be real. Humans can't do anything like that. Not only can we not measure the planet to any accurate and reliable degree, which we know, but nobody can put together the variables to calculate the future of the temperature. And Goldman Sachs, you're doing the same thing. And the public just doesn't know. Oh, smart people. It must be something smart people are doing. Well, I couldn't possibly understand it because of all the smart people doing the models. Oh, I guess somebody calculated exactly what the economy will be in 10 years. No. None of this is possible. It's not even close to possible. It's not even in the general realm, zip code, planetary system of being possible.
So if you're talking about whether they did it or didn't do it, you're in the wrong conversation. It's not possible. That's what you need to know. Not whether they forgot a variable. It's just not possible. And the fact that we've ever been convinced that the smart people can figure that out is one of the greatest cons of all time. And let me tell you, the next time somebody who's really smart tells you that they've predicted the future in a complicated environment with many variables, it's also not possible. I don't even need to know what the next thing is. Whatever the next thing is, if it's a complicated model that's predicting in the future, it's not real. That's what you need to know.
All right. Marianne Williamson interestingly says that the Democrats are making a mistake by continuing to dump on Trump about the eating cats issue, because she says, quote, "Haitian voodoo is in fact real," quote, "and to dismiss the story out of hand rather than listen to the citizens of Springfield, Ohio, confirms in the minds of many the voter stereotype of Democrats as smug elite jerks who think they're too smart to listen to anyone outside their own silo." Silo. Who uses that word a lot? Marianne, if you're listening, that was pretty awesome.
So I don't know if there's much reality to the eating of animals. I do think that it's, you know, if there's a Haitian voodoo component of the population and that they've done that before and it can be confirmed that it's something that happens in Haiti, it would be a miracle if it didn't happen here. Right? If somehow it happened in a—let's say not even widespread, let's say if 10% of Haitians had ever done it, there's certainly enough Haitians in America where it would happen. So if you want to answer the question is it happening in America, I would ask one question: Did it happen in Haiti? And is it like a regular thing that even maybe 5% or even 2%? If it happens in Haiti, it's happening here. Can we agree that asking the Springfield, Ohio residents is a waste of time? Because we're not going to believe them anyway. Many times they won't know. It's just their cat is missing and they'll be like, well, my cat's missing. I think they got them. You're probably never going to settle it just by asking the Springfield people.
Now there might be a huge smoking gun. You know, maybe somebody got some video. Maybe there's a Haitian who's confessing. So that would be useful. But if you want to know without any doubt whatsoever, just confirm whether or not it happens in Haiti. Because everything that happens there is going to come here. Why wouldn't it? There's no reason it wouldn't. If there's a religious—you know, I don't know what voodoo is. Is it religious or just a belief? But if it's a strong belief and it's strong enough that they were going to kill an animal there, nothing would stop them from killing an animal in the United States. Nothing. So just find out if it's true. As Marianne Williamson says, the Haitian voodoo is real and that it involves on any regular basis or even irregular the sacrifice of animals. We can get a 100% accurate answer. Just look at Haiti. Am I wrong? Am I wrong to say that we're looking in the wrong place? We might find it in Springfield, and then that would be good information. But if you want to know for sure, for sure, just look at Haiti. See if they're doing it. And I don't know that, by the way. I don't know the answer if Haiti is doing that in any way that would possibly translate to the United States.
All right. New York Post is talking about how there are more single liberal women than ever. Now I assume that the relative birth rates are not the story, but rather that more women are remaining single, and of them more of them are turning Democrat. So that's why the Democrats have this huge lead. But I would like to—I can't remember if I've given you this hypothesis before, but true or false. By the way, ChatGPT says this is true as to searches on the internet. But do you believe that science has demonstrated to your satisfaction—I think there have been multiple studies of the same thing—that if you're on hormonal birth control, you would have a different preference for a male mate than if you were off it? You're all aware of that, right?
So I believe the way it works—I don't think I have it backwards—I think the way it works is if you're on the pill, you're looking for more of a dad type who would be the dad type in the race. Tim Walz has that dad kind of vibe, right? So in theory, and I'm just talking in the most general way here, if you were on hormonal birth control, you would think that you'd rather marry Tim Walz. Again, I'm not saying he's your type. I'm just speaking conceptually. You would rather look for a Tim Walz type who's got a dad bod and a dad vibe than you would a Donald Trump type who is sort of a Chad, alpha bastard personality. But if you are off of hormonal birth control, you would actually prefer the Chad bad alpha bad guy who you hate but you still want to hump his leg. But Tim Walz, you might think he's a great guy but boring, and you don't need him to protect your children or anything. He's just, yeah, he's there for the money maybe.
So if you believe—and I would say this is not 100% confirmed, but the science very strongly seems to suggest multiple studies show the same thing—that women's preferences for a mate, what could be more important than that? Your preferences for a mate, the most important lifetime decision, is completely reversed by hormonal birth control. And then we observe that these single women, the people most likely to be on hormonal birth control, have an almost, in my opinion, a mental illness that seems to be based on their dislike of Trump and their weird like of the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz campaign.
Now what about older Republican women? If you're over 45 and you're Republican, what do you think of Donald Trump? Well, you're probably not on hormonal birth control, and you probably like him. Now are we going to keep treating that like it's a coincidence that the people who are almost certainly likely to be on hormonal birth control—and we know that hormonal birth control completely changes your preferences for a mate—you don't think that changes your preference for a candidate?
If you're thinking of doing a major scientific research study to find out if hormonal birth control changes your political preferences, can I interrupt you for a moment and save you some time? I can save you a lot of time and a lot of money. You know what I'm going to say next, right? Just ask Scott. Of course it does. Of course, of course it does. There's no way in hell that it could change your mating preferences without changing your election leader preference. There's no way in hell that they could be unrelated. No way. But if you want to do the research study and waste your time and waste your money, go ahead.
And by the way, we know that if you pump somebody with testosterone, it's going to change all the preferences too, right? So it's not just women. Men who are doing testosterone upgrades probably are changing their preferences. Probably. Has anybody noticed that? Let's see if we can think of an example. Do you remember what Mark Zuckerberg was like when he first founded Facebook? You probably would have said he's a nerdish kind of a guy. He was always in good shape, I'll give him that. But have you seen him shirtless lately after a bout with some MMA fighters? He's freaking ripped. Do you think he's taking any kind of testosterone boost? I don't know. But the activities he's involved in are absolutely testosterone boosters. He's doing more dangerous stuff, definitely dangerous. He's doing physical stuff. He's clearly lifting and working on his fitness. And then magically, unexpectedly, surprisingly, he comes out a strong appreciator of Trump saying "fight, fight, fight" and how awesome that was. Are these all coincidences? It can't be a coincidence if you can predict it.
Let's take Reid Hoffman, put him on a diet, give him some testosterone, make him lift until he looks like Mark Zuckerberg with that shirt off, and then you check. You tell me if his political preferences changed. Now he might have other reasons for his political preferences. We don't know. But just using that as an example, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Democrat men have a certain look and the Republican men have a different look. I think a lot of this testosterone—and I don't know if anybody studied this, but I'll bet you if you just took a random 100 Democrat men and a random 100 Republican men, I don't think their T levels would be even close. And don't waste your money on it. Just ask me. I just told you it's obvious.
Well, Politico reports that January 6 has now been deemed a national security event by Department of Homeland Security, and that means that they can put way more resources into protecting it. So here's the good news. It authorizes the Secret Service to have a greater role in taking care of things. You know, it'd be the other law enforcement as well, of course. Lots of law enforcement. But Secret Service would have a bigger role. Well, you can trust those guys, can't you?
Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat, he told us that the report on the Trump assassination attempt—which by the way also involved the Secret Service—that the report coming out will absolutely shock the American people. He says, quote, this is Blumenthal, "I think the American people are going to be shocked, astonished, and appalled by what we'll report to them about the failures of the Secret Service." The assassination attempt. They ought to be appalled and astonished by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security. Well, so those are the same people who are going to make sure that our Capitol is secure this time.
Now I'm no person who's developed a multivariable model for the future, but I think it's deeply unlikely that Republicans are going to storm the Capitol again. Does anybody think that a Republican is going to storm the Capitol again? Because there was never any chance it would work, and a lot of them went to jail. Now if it worked even in any way you could determine that something worked, if you could make any argument at all that at least in some small way it worked, well yeah, it might happen again. But I don't believe there's a single person in the world who says, you know, if we had just sauntered a little bit longer, I think we could have fixed the country. Nobody thinks that. Nobody thinks that they under-sauntered. If we'd moved that lectern a little bit further, we could have changed everything. No. No, I wouldn't worry about the Capitol getting attacked anyway.
But at least our elections are secure. Let's see. The Concord Monitor is reporting that apparently there's a way of auditing their machines so that you can feel confidence in it. So here's their auditing technique they're using in New Hampshire. And I'd like to ask you after I've explained it, do you feel good now? Because I'm doing this to make you feel like our elections are secure.
All right, so they have an audit process after the election to make sure that the machines didn't do anything sketchy. Now you're happy about that, right? Because we all want to make sure, you know, obviously they test them before, but they also test them after to make sure that there's no mistakes. That's pretty good, right?
Here's how they test it. They randomly select eight machines. Randomly. Who do you think does the random selecting? Do you think they put all the machines into a random number generator, or is there somebody whose job it is to determine which eight of them are the randomly selected ones? What do you think? Do you think the scrappy little state of New Hampshire put together an AI model and some—maybe had some kind of nuclear decay thing like Schrodinger's cat to make sure that they had randomly picked the machines? Or was it just some guy whose job it was to pick the ones that were easy to drive to? What do you think? I'll tell you what I think, but I probably don't have to tell you what I think.
Now suppose the randomness was actually appropriate. Suppose that wasn't a problem. And suppose they had actually randomly correctly randomized. Do you think checking eight machines is going to tell you anything? How in the world is checking eight machines going to tell you anything? My assumption about cheating is that if it involved machines—and I have no confirmed evidence of any kind of cheating of that kind, but hypothetically if it involved machines—do you think they were going to spread it across all the machines? Do you think they were going to just put a bug in every machine in New Hampshire so if you check eight of them you're going to catch it? That's not the way I would do it.
Do you know what machines I would corrupt in New Hampshire if I were trying to influence an election? None. None. Because New Hampshire is not in play. It's not even a freaking up-for-grabs kind of a state. Nobody would cheat in New Hampshire. So no, we don't care if you check your eight random, not random machines. You're not even trying. That's like not even trying to audit. Now again, New Hampshire probably doesn't have a problem, but you read a story like this and it makes you think, whoa, probably those other states are doing some post-election audits too. Well, if they are, it's probably just as total.
Meanwhile, Newsmax has to go to trial because they said some things that Smartmatic, the company that makes some machines, didn't like. The big problem here, it looks like allegedly, is that Newsmax may have suggested in their reporting through who they talked to more than what they said themselves that some Smartmatic machines were involved in states where there were some irregularities reportedly. But apparently Smartmatic doesn't even have any machines in those places. So Newsmax has to kind of explain why they think the Smartmatic machines were rigged in a place where there are no Smartmatic machines. So that would be Smartmatic's take.
Now I don't know if there's a—I think the defense is that Newsmax was reporting other people's opinions. So I think the defense says, well, but they didn't get the case killed on that, so we don't know if that's going to hold any weight. But it does seem to me that every conservative news site is being bludgeoned to the point where questioning any election in the future would be corporate suicide. So do you think Newsmax and Fox News are going to aggressively question any election results? I don't think so, because they might have gigantic amounts of money on the line because they'll get sued, especially if they mention machines.
Let's see. There's a report from the Gateway Pundit. Now if any of this is true, it's really bad. But I remind you that stories of election irregularities, 95% of them won't pan out. So most of them are fake. Are there 5% real ones? Well, I don't know that. I wouldn't know unless I saw one and it got confirmed, which I haven't seen at least one that's big enough that would have changed everything. So whenever I tell you a story—this is me trying not to get sued—so whenever I tell you a story about a claim of election irregularity, it's someone else's claim and I'm reporting it. So I'm going to try the same defenses Newsmax in case they come after me. Because I do not know of any confirmed cheating that would have changed the election. That's true. I don't know of any.
Anyway, so according to the Gateway Pundit, there are a lot of ballots that come in from overseas. And of course that's legal because if you're an American and you're just happen to be stationed overseas for a number of reasons, you're allowed to vote by mail. So here's the claim. According to a poll watcher, they received lots of ballots from overseas, and they know what a ballot looks like. It's a certain size. It's 11 by 19. And he says when he opened up the box of ballots from overseas and he expected to see all these 11 and a half by 19 ballots because that's the only ones there are, it was a whole bunch of ballots that were 8 and a half by 11 on copy paper and faxes from unknown sources. And the number of them was enough to change the Maricopa result. Just hold that in your head for a moment.
Now I don't know if this is true. Remember, this is somebody else's allegation. I haven't done any independent reporting on it. And the Gateway Pundit's talking about it. But this seems like sort of an easy claim to check, doesn't it? Or at the very least, Laura Trump and her watchers should be watching this. And the question they should be watching is, wait a minute, why do these ballots look like photocopies and faxes? They don't even look like real ballots. And do you think that the watchers could get them maybe challenged or thrown out if they catch it and challenge it at the point of noticing it? Maybe. Maybe.
I still think the third act perfect ending to the Trump movie—not an ending because I'd like to see him in office for a few years—but would be that they cheat right in front of the witnesses hoping to get away with it but they don't. And that the witnesses say this entire election has to be thrown out.
People keep asking me, do I have a vision of who wins? Because in the past I have, right or wrong. Like I have this imagination of somebody winning, and I don't. I just see blackness. But not blackness like it's the end of the world or the end of the country. What I see is no decision. What I see is that between the election and the end of the year we won't know who's going to be president. And I don't know why, but probably something to do with legitimate complaints about the process. Maybe somebody catches something, but it takes the courts a while to sort it out. We might have a president in January if let's say our court system can decode things enough and they try really hard and people cooperate and it's possible. But I feel like there might be months without a president. We might even have to run the election again. We might have to. Congress might have to change all the laws so that the citizens believe that the election is true next time. So and that's impossible. So I don't even see a path. I don't see any path that we're going to choose a president.
The system is designed to deny us an outcome. Again, if you showed it to me on paper, said all right, here's our situation. We got all these states doing things differently. We got all these people watching. The watchers may see some real things, but even if they see some fake things like they mistake something that's real as a fake, they're going to report it. So you're going to have like 40,000 credible sounding, signed under oath reports of cheating. What are you going to do with that? 40,000 credible sounding, signed under threat of going to jail, saying yeah I saw this and in my opinion this was cheating. What are you going to do? How in the world do you certify it if you've got 40,000 legitimate signed under oath eyewitnesses? Multiple people saw it. It's on camera.
Now remember my assumption is that you'll have 40,000 reports of cheating even if there are none, because confirmation bias is just so heavy in this situation. If you put me there as a watcher, I'm sure my brain would tell me I saw some cheating because I kind of want to be the guy who catches it. You know, like it would be my perfect fantasy that I'm the one who caught the election cheating. It's got to be the same for the other watchers. They don't put all that time in there without thinking, you know, I'd be kind of a star if I found that cheating and changed everything. So that is a setup for confirmation bias of the highest kind. Like guaranteed. There's nowhere around it. And on paper that's the system we have now.
Now I think we need the watchers. That's exactly the right thing to do. But it guarantees we don't have an election result that we can trust. What are we going to do? I don't know. I don't think it's going to turn into any kind of a civil war. It'll just be a messy, messy process, and somehow we'll work our way through it because we work our way through everything. But wow, is it going to be messy.
All right. Here's my best idea of the day. Let's see if everybody stayed for this. Yeah, looks like we got a lot of people watching right now. Here's my strongest strategy. I was challenged the other day—I won't tell you by who—to figure out how to get out of the sort of doldrums of things looking bad and into more of a fighting optimism. Let's call it that. It's not just optimism, but it's optimism driving fight. And I woke up this morning thinking, you know, I got a lot of sleep last night, and I have the optimism that we have not yet begun to fight. That's different than the optimism you're definitely going to win. I think you should have some uncertainty about that because it'll drive your fight a little harder.
But here's my best take on how to win, and it's a reframe. By the way, I have a book called Reframe Your Brain, but this one's not in the book, so it's going to take a little while for me to develop it. So bear with me. I think you're going to like the payoff. So I posted this on X if you want to see it yourself. I said this. I said the Harris campaign's Trump hoax overload strategy has been hugely successful. So they throw so many hoaxes at Trump, including the debate, that it makes him either always on the defensive, which makes people think some of these must be true. It also takes him off of his positive messaging and off of his attacking her for her bad whatever. So as a strategy it's brilliant persuasion-wise. It's unethical as hell, but is it effective? Yeah, it really is. And it's working totally. So it's taking all the energy out of Trump's supporters and it's taking all the energy out of Trump, and they've completely owned the conversation when they do the hoax overload. Because it used to be they'd toss in a hoax here and there, but Harris just one after another. And they were the kind of hoaxes that are so obviously debunked and so universally debunked that you can't believe they do it unless, as others have pointed out, unless they knew they wouldn't get fact-checked by the mainstream media. And sure enough they didn't get fact-checked.
Now that we know that's the case, what you can't depend on is the media helping you out debunking any hoaxes. And there's no reason for them to stop with the hoax overload strategy because it's not just hoaxes. The overload is the key. It's not just hoaxes. Just hoaxes is not good enough. It has to be the overload. It's taking all your energy away. Diversion. So that's totally working.
So what would you do about that? Apparently they know Trump has no effective defense against it. Because your most obvious defense is to say it's not true, and then people want to think it's true. Say, oh you're a liar, because they've already framed him as a liar. Once you've framed Trump as a liar, his denial of a hoax doesn't have any weight to the people who have been convinced that he lies about everything.
But what could you do? How could you reframe this so it's not just a bunch of hoaxes and somebody trying to say they're not true? Because that ain't working. So here's my idea. And also I should note that Trump's most capable supporters, the ones who really are good at persuasion and stuff like that, don't have any hope of changing this because we're all siloed, as Marianne Williamson points out. The press, including X by the way—I have almost no exposure to anybody who's a Democrat because X's algorithm gives you more of what you want. If you're a Democrat, you want Democrat stuff, so you'll never see my stuff. And that's the free speech platform. The free speech platform is useless as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want. It's useless. It doesn't have any free speech power at all. So I'm not sure if Elon Musk has completely grasped that he doesn't have a free speech platform. He has a silo where people can talk to themselves. And I hate to say it because I'm a giant fan of Elon Musk and what he's done with X, but as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want—which by the way doesn't sound crazy, sounds pretty sane, give people more of what they want—but as long as that's the case, there's no free speech going on. It's people just talking to themselves. The ability to talk to people who already agree with you is not any kind of free speech I'd recognize. It's talking to the people in the other silo and getting them all worked up and vice versa. Now that's some free speech, but we don't have it. Don't have it anywhere.
The debates were stupid and fake and controlled. That was nothing like any information at all for voters. So given all that, the helpers can't help. Vance can go in public and do something freaking awesome every day, and he almost does. If you're following Vance, his public appearances are almost jaw-droppingly smart, and you think, wow, that could move the needle. No Democrat will see it. They just don't see it. It makes no difference. And I would argue that there are a number of people in that category. They just can't break through the silo.
So what do you do? Well, only Trump can break the silo, meaning that if he says something interesting, Democrats have to hear it. But he's the only one. He's also the only one who seems incapable of doing the thing I'm going to suggest. So something would have to change.
Here's what I'm going to suggest. And it's based on a trick I learned years ago in my media training. That there is a weakness that the media has which I exploit every chance I get, which is why you're listening to me by the way. If I had not been exploiting this flaw in the media for 30 years, you wouldn't even know who I was. It's the primary trick I use. It goes like this. Nobody in the press cares that you did something better than somebody else. You know, unless it's the Olympics, some special case. But they don't care you're really good at something and somebody's a little bit not as good. That's not a story, and they won't care about it and they won't write about it.
But here's what they will write about. If you're a public figure and you're doing something in a whole new way, they'll write about that. Do you know why? Because when they write about a whole new way, it's fascinating. It interests the writers, but more importantly it interests the readers. So readers like, whoa, you're doing this a whole new way. So a story about Trump not spending as much on elections but using this social network strength that he had, that was a story. Everybody told it, right? Both sides told that story. It's a process story. If somebody uses a new process and is so good it wins them the election of the United States president, you cannot not tell that story. Every journalist wants to tell that story. And they will if you do a new way of doing something. That's guaranteed to cut across both silos.
So what he needs to do with the hoaxes is stop saying this is a hoax because that gets him nothing. Instead he needs to do the following. Number one, build a hoax debunk website. I know they exist. I know the fans have built them. He needs his own. He needs a Trump campaign hoax debunking site. But here's the key part, and if you leave this out it's nothing. So I don't think I can emphasize this enough because I don't want you to hear, well if he had a website debunking the hoaxes he's in good shape. No, it would be useless. That would be useless. It has to describe how they made the hoaxes. That's the magic sauce. The magic sauce is showing the technique.
So let me give you an example. Let's say the fine people hoax comes up. If Trump says that's a hoax, everybody goes, it's been debunked. Yeah, nothing. But if he says, you know what you really need to know, you voters, about how the system works is that it's almost entirely hoax-based at this point. And I'd love to teach you how the hoaxes are created so that you can spot them on your own. For example, the fine people hoax is created just by a simple edit. If you don't believe that—and I wouldn't believe it if I'd been watching the mainstream news either—you can go to our hoax debunking website. Here's the URL. And you can see for yourself the method they used. The method. That's the secret sauce.
If you want a journalist to cover it on both sides, you talk about the method. The method, not the reality. The method. The method was to take off the end of it, and then the media that's fake would keep repeating it as a real thing. And then you say here's another one: the Covington kids, the overfeeding the koi. I would argue that you find the drinking bleach one, but I know that's more complicated. It was about light. They cut out the light part, etc. It's a little harder sell. But for each of the hoaxes you could say, okay, this one was done by mind reading. They pretend they know what I'm thinking, and they've pretended that when I said I would be a dictator for a day—which was clearly just a hyperbole to make a case about closing the border—they read my mind and acted like that was a real thing. So you do the mind reading ones, the fake edit ones. And instead of organizing the hoax list by hoaxes—wait for it, wait for it—you organize the hoax list by method. Here are the ones that are fake edits. Here are the ones that are mind reading. Here are the ones that are quotes taken out of context or whatever the categories are.
If you turn it into a how-to-do-it and how-they-did-it, both sides are going to report it. And if you can get a Democrat to look at even one of them—and somebody said to me that debunking the fine people hoax wouldn't change any votes. What most of the Democrats who have changed sides have said is that figuring out that the fine people hoax was fake was a deciding factor. You've heard it, right? I mean this is anecdotal, but have you all heard public figures say once I found out about the fine people hoax I was done with Democrats? You've heard that, haven't you? Some high-profile people have said that recently. So no, that one is the Rosetta Stone. The fine people hoax more than all the other hoaxes is the one that's so simple to explain because they just clipped off the part where he clarified. If you can get people to realize that they've been that duped by their own people, they will be pissed. And that causes action. Anger causes action. And they will. And the people who have switched sides, they say I was angry when I found out what they did to me, and I'd been out there repeating this hoax forever.
Next, all the supporters of Trump need to refer to the same page. Now there are some hoax debunk sites, but they're not organized the way I just described, and therefore they have no value. Right? And let me say it again. A list of hoaxes has no value. It has to be a page that tells you how they did it. How they did it is inescapable. Everybody wants to know how.
So let me give you the talk that would do it. The wrong answer is, well the fine people hoax has been debunked. It's been widely debunked. That's wrong. Doesn't work. Here's the right one. If you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, now you have my attention, right? If the first thing I say is if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, that's so interesting that you're going to listen to whatever comes next. That's a writing trick. Make your first sentence too interesting to skip. The second sentence. So you say if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media, go to the hoax site. Give the URL to see how that hoax was created with a fake edit. You can see the unedited video to see for yourself. And when you're there, look at how the other hoaxes were created too. It's appalling that we have to live like this. We need honest media to have a great country.
That would have ended the debate, by the way. If Trump had done that when the fine people hoax came up, he would have been the winner of the debate, and you wouldn't have remembered anything else.
And then further I would say that we need a QR code that goes to the debunk page, and it could be included very easily on any other messaging that has an image. You know, so just in the corner of anything else you say, just put the QR code and you know, hoax debunk site, something like that. And then supporters could take the QR code. We just take a picture of it ourselves. And every time somebody in the comments or on X or anywhere on social media says blah blah blah hoax, you just say, check this out. You either put the URL for a click or put the QR code.
And then I would also preemptively predict how the Democrats are going to respond with more hoaxes and fake fact-checking. So you might say, you know, if you go check this, the press is going to respond with just more new hoaxes. But now you know how they're made. When you see the new one, check this page and you'll see which category it fits in. It's either a mind reading or fake edit or something out of context. And you just teach people to be experts at spotting it.
And what's that called? Does anybody understand the technique I'm teaching you? It has another name. You've heard it before. Oh come on, you know this one. Tell me what technique I'm using. The persuasion technique. It's one Trump uses all the time. He just hasn't used it in this context. All right, I think the comments are a little delayed. I think you know this one. It's called thinking past the sale. The sale is that these are hoaxes. Thinking past is let me show you how they were done. If you can make them think about how they were done, they have uncritically accepted that these must be hoaxes if they're worrying about how they were done. And that is a very strong persuasion trick. It's one that Trump uses all the time in other contexts, so he knows how to use it. It's one of his best.
Meanwhile, World War III is kicking off. Save that for last. So apparently the news is saying that Blinken, Secretary of State Blinken, may have given Ukraine the green light to send some American-made missiles deep into Russia. As Putin has pointed out, there is no way that Ukraine could send these missiles deep into Russia unless they used NATO satellites, which would make it a NATO operation. And unless the NATO operators are the ones who actually sort of set up the missiles and probably push the button, because it isn't so easy just to hand these missiles to somebody and say hey, point them at Russia. Doesn't work like that. Apparently there's quite a bit that goes into making sure your missile goes to the right place, and it's unlikely that anybody except NATO people would be firing them. So says Putin. I'm not sure that's true, but that's what Putin says. And that would make it, as Putin is trying to warn us, that would make it a NATO attack on Moscow, which would be a red line, which would allow him to use nuclear weapons.
And you know, I'd still bet against him using nuclear weapons because he would die, right? If Putin uses nuclear weapons, Putin's going to be dead. There's no question about that. But so would a few billion other people. So I think it's the last thing he wants to do because he is rational. But man, here's what I would expect as a response. I think if an American missile hits Moscow—and they already have—but if it becomes more of a major attack on Moscow, I think he's just going to bulldoze Kiev. So obviously he's made major attacks on the capital before, but I don't think he's really concentrated on it. I mean he could send his entire army, his entire air force, just to turn it into rubble. And he might. And he wouldn't be wrong to do it in the context of war. Nothing's good in war. But in the context of war, if they do a strong attack on Moscow and he has the stronger military, if he wants to he can just destroy the capital of Ukraine and with no remorse. So I think that's more likely. So I think Kiev has to worry about what they're getting.
I suppose I did hear an opinion the other day that maybe Ukraine and maybe Israel would like to start more of a war, perhaps with Iran or Hezbollah, which is also Iran in a sense. But that it might be the very best time to start a war is right away because the United States is so distracted and disjointed at the moment that if you don't want a strong response from America, this would be the time to do it. Now I don't know. I do not embrace that to be true.
So I'd like to give a message to both Israel and Ukraine, because I know you're watching. If you take advantage of the United States when we're temporarily weakened, you better finish us off. Because if you take advantage just because we don't have our act together for a few months, whoever gets in power is going to make that right. And we're not going to be happy about it. So my warning to anybody who wants to take advantage of a little bit of unrest in the United States is we're not going to be unscathed, right? And we're not going to be happy about it. So I wouldn't mess with us when we've got some problems. That's going to come back 10 times stronger than you think. And I think that's just human nature. I'm not really saying anything that's some kind of brilliant strategy or geopolitical opinion. I'm just saying human nature. If you hit us when we're confused and down, we're going to be way madder when we get right. And we're going to get right pretty quickly, especially if you hit us. So if you want the United States to organize and be united for once, just hit us when we've got some trouble like during the election season. Yeah, you're going to pay for that. That's going to be the most expensive thing you've ever done. So just want you to know that.
Meanwhile, Russia has their own thermite-spewing dragon drones. So you saw that Ukraine has these thermite—it's basically fire-breathing drones. Now when you imagine how bad that would be, you think to yourself, well it's a little drone. How far can it throw fire anyway? I mean it seems like it'd have to get pretty close and it can't be that powerful. Oh yeah it can. Because it turns out that the way they're doing it is they're having the fire just use gravity. So in other words they just fly over something and there's something about this thermite that makes it basically almost like a solid. So the fire falls like a solid and it's some bad stuff. So really bad stuff.
So I'm seeing a comment: You suffer from the same idiot mindset most Western people do. You look at other people as if they like you. They are not. Russia is not susceptible to your big mouth. Never was, never will be. Well, you sound like an idiot. All right. See, you are somebody who doesn't understand how anything in the world works. You don't think that Russia and China are watching public opinion in the United States? You don't know how risk management works either. If I increase the risk profile of any action, it changes behavior. Maybe not in the end, but it changes the likelihood of behavior. So does Russia care about what Americans think? Yes they do, you idiot. Does Israel care about what Americans think? Yes they do, you idiot. They do, because our actions will determine a lot to them. Do we care about how they think? Yes we do, because it matters to us. To imagine that other countries don't give a what the United States thinks about vaporizing them with nuclear weapons is the dumbest thing I've seen all day. So great comment there. You're doing great.
Anyway, I feel a little spicy today because I may have gotten enough sleep for the first time. So ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I'm going to go talk to the locals people—except that one—privately. And I'll see you tomorrow and maybe in the man cave tonight if you're part of Locals. So it takes a while for us to be active. It's going to be about 30 seconds before I'm talking to Locals privately.
e e now you're all fixed aren't you now you're happy turns out there was a button that need to be pushed you're all good now right thank you Paul you saved me again good save um I believe I was telling you that this is coffee with Scott Adams and all you need is a cup or mug or glass a tanker chalse a canteen Jugger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparallel pleasure of the dopamine end of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous Sip and it happens now go well it looks like through my bad engineering uh I may have gotten rid of all the viewers who are not serious viewers of the show the rest of you stayed here and said he's going to fix this because you trusted me and your trust has been paid off well did you know that China is uh got a $31 billion push for making nuclear power in that country they've uh approved 11 reactors recently and 20 in the past two years and that's not why I bring it up now you know if you're following the news that whatever country falls behind in energy production is going to lose the future because AI will be driving everything and if you don't have way more power than we have in this country right now you're not going to compete with China on AI so whoever has the most electricity basically is going to win on AI because they could just do more of it and faster so so nuclear power has gone from something that would be really important for your economy and maybe good for the the world's uh pollution and CO2 if you care about that but I would argue that nuclear power is now more important than nuclear weapons you are you with me on that that nuclear power plants creating electricity is a more important weapon of War because it's going to be driving Ai and AI will drive everything so nuclear weapons of course would still be powerful but probably the wars of the future are going to depend on electricity and we don't have a way to dominate in electricity and China is just kicking our asses on Nuclear So unless we get somebody who can really push things in the United States we're all in lot of trouble this would be right near the top of my number one existential risk problems it's not number one but it's right up there and I would recommend that you follow the account on X called Zan lights which is actually the name of a person Zion is the first name just like it sounds z o n and then lights last name so if you follow that account which is smish but the most uh I would say the most accurate and unbiased following of what's happening in nuclear energy so highly recommended get on that account if you're not already there um by the way I one of the things that I see as my Spider-Man responsibility you know the Spider-Man uh curse with great power comes great responsibility now I don't have great power but I have over a million followers on and I feel like one of the most useful things I can do with my 1.1 million followers is tell you who else you should follow to make you smarter that that's really one of the best things I could ever do for the world just make you smarter by telling you to follow so Zion lights add that one to your list apparently uh Boeing uh labor union the biggest labor union is going on strike because Boeing didn't need any more problems but here it is or they they they did I guess I should have said that the other way but um you know what would really help their uh profits and their ability to pay their employees more would be building really good planes so the machinists are on strike I feel like Boeing is really getting every bad news it could possibly get how much of this this do you you think is Dei related and the trouble is we don't know you still saying you're muted or are you trolling me now Paul are you still there I'm getting trolled on the audio bunch of people saying I'm muted is that because they're okay yeah everything's working trolls um thank you Paul so I wonder if de is actually a factor there's no way to know but the theory is that um de should destroy every country or every company and then every country it comes in contact with because by design it destroys organizations it is the one it is the one thing that guarantees that you focus on hiring less qualified people to meet a different goal now if you say Scott you racist why are you saying that some other group is less qualified I'm not saying that I'm saying that if you focus on something other than Merit you're going to get something other than Merit every time it's just the way everything works and there's you know a small pool of people available for a certain time types of jobs and if you try too hard to fix things with that small pool of availability it should destroy every country in America the focuses on it so although there's no direct evidence that that's what's happening at Boeing given that they have a bunch of government contracts I would pretty much feel confident in saying it's probably their biggest problem I'm sure they have other big problems but it's probably the biggest one and it's not recoverable it's not recoverable they're not going to fire the people they already hired so whatever their situation is now it's that's what they're going to have to work with so I don't know how they work around it create a skunk works I don't know I have no idea how anybody survives Dei it should by its design on paper it should destroy every organization that touches eventually and uh certainly lots of evidence of that well you'd be delighted to know there's a research Consortium Consortium or Consortium which is is a Consortium or Consortium I don't know but it's one of those things but uh yeah a bunch of uh geoengineering types want to uh dump a bunch of iron in the ocean to make the ocean capable of absorbing I guess I guess it basically they'd be fertilizing the ocean with um some kind of iron stuff and it will make the phytoplankton Bloom and it'll suck the carbon dioxide right out of the air all right let me ask you this what are you more afraid of a nuclear power plant or trying to change the chemistry of the ocean this is the scariest thing I've ever seen it it's scary that they want to change the atmosphere you know have the Planes release some kind of chemicals that will alter the atmosphere does solve climate change but I'm not so sure I want to bloom a lot of phyto Plankton because I don't know exactly if we know what happens if you do that so um I'd be a little careful about this one I suppose there's probably a way to test it small but yeah that I don't know and is it is it recover able if you stopped doing it do things go back to where they were pretty quickly I just don't know if this is a good idea but I've got questions well this is exciting according to the New York Post there's this device that's been uh created by researchers at University College in London and it's a little device that you stick your finger in and somehow believe it or not it's a they call a Breakthrough Medical device to stimulate what they call the natural quote real feel sensation of human touch so if you're isolated and you don't have a lot of human touch you can stick your finger into a device and it will give you the Sensation that there's a human being touching your finger so I plan to get one of those to uh stick my finger into it no my finger I'm just going to put my finger in it well what were you thinking you perverts my God you're disgusting I'm going to put my finger in it what are you even thinking oh my God I'm disgusted by all of you that never even occurred to me not once that I think if you can stick your finger in it and it feels like a real person that there might be some other application for it I never thought of that you're disgusting I love every one of you all right uh here's a story that makes you shake your head and say should we just give up and leave the country maybe we should just give up on America if you're an American just give up all right here's a story that just makes me want to go all right it we're not even trying anymore the National Association of letter carriers in other words Post Office Union uh announced their endorsement of K Harris and governor and Governor Waltz uh the letter carriers the people who will be holding in their hands the ballots they know exactly what the voters in their area are likely to favor by a majority they know if they're living if they're working a red neighborhood or a blue neighborhood and they've just endorsed one side and you have to trust the people who endorsed Harris to deliver your ballot without throwing it away which is what you know they want to do they want to throw it away because they don't want the other team to win now I'm not going to cast any aspersion on on any postal workers my father worked for the Post Office for his entire career and retired and if there's one thing I know from all of the many many stories my father told us over the dinner table you can trust the Post Office no you can trust the Post Office as much as you can trust any other part of the government which is not at all not at all well when uh I used to uh mail my art so when I was a new cartoonist the we didn't do everything digital back then I would actually create art on paper and then I'd make copies of it because I knew I was going to you know mail off The Originals so I'd mail the original to my syndication company and then they would you know do what they needed to do to put it in newspapers I heard that Gary Larson famous cartoonist of the time had to stop using the post office because as soon as they figured out who he was they stole all of his packages CU they could to sell his original art so I heard that and I said to myself well but they don't know who I am because I was new so I was mailing my art every day and then I got a little more famous and then they started recognized me in the post office and that was the last time any of my art ever reached its destination they just started stealing it after that so no the post office cannot be trusted years ago I also uh wrote a story about a single woman who didn't have any money but was giving money to uh homeless people when she saw them because they were doing even worse than she was and she could not even afford basically anything I wrote a story and I said you know what here's a post office box if you want to send her some money and solve her problem because she's literally so kind this is a real story she was so kind and religious really that if she could eat a sandwich that day and she saw somebody who might not she would give him half her sandwich like literally she would reach in her lunch and give half of it to A A Street person and people were moved by the story and they sent her envelopes full of cash I mean not full of but you know $20 bill here and there and she she got uh if you could imagine probably thousands my best guess thousands of dollars were sent to her by just people who wanted to help her out how many of those thousands of dollars do you think she actually received because it went through the post office as soon as they noticed that one of her letters had cash in it because I don't know maybe you could hold it up and see it or something they stole everything else that ever went to her they got 100% of all of her letters and kept them the post office now you feel good about the post office the post office is going to determine the election because they're going to the the mail ends will probably be the confirmative you know consequential thing and they get to decide if they deliver it or not if they throw it away instead of delivering it you'll never know and if you did know it would be after the new president is already in office and nothing would change after that how in the world is this legal how in the world is this legal now Joel Pollock asked this question before I did on X so I'm stealing his stuff but I mean I look at this and I think well I guess there's no law against it because of free of speech but if you design a system let's say you you drew it down on paper and you said all right we're going to going to have this election system we're going to have a the determined vote are going to come into the mail and then we're going to make sure the people who deliver the mail are very biased in who wins and they won't be watched every moment because mail carriers don't have body cams so they could just leave the whole crate of ballots in their car drive it home at night and throw it away or throw it away in a dumpster on the way now would you have ever approved that system if you were designing the system would you have approved that no would not on paper you would have rejected that immediately you would have said no whatever we do we can't do that it's the least the least trustworthy group probably of any entity I mean I don't know what experience you've had with post offices but it's hard to imagine a more corrupt organization more corrupt in the individual level than the top you know I I don't have any accusations against Senior Management I only know that that the individuals that they hire are pretty damn sketchy and on the regular basis and I say that you know my father worked there for over 30 years I think um I just have to tell you this one story this is my one other post office story in the early post office days when I was a very young kid uh the post offices at least were where I lived they were actually required to have a loaded firearm behind the desk so the post offices were required it wasn't optional they had to have a loaded gun available in case some trouble went down now of course times of modernized so I'm pretty sure they got rid of that but this is a true story there were days when for whatever reason there was nobody to look after me when I was a young kid and so my father would just take me to work and I'd be just sort of running around behind the counter in the post office and there a this this loaded gun on on a shelf that I could reach as a toddler do you think I played with it when nobody was watching yeah of course I did I'm like a toddler with a loaded gun in the post office now if you have any other questions that's a true story if you have any other questions about the the workings of the post office I hope I've answered them all all right so our election is being rigged in plain sight I think that that's a fact based on reported news to me this is rigging and I gave you you know six other examples they pretty obvious rigging uh so you you don't have to cheat on the individual votes to see how much rigging is going on but that would be cheating on individual votes I guess uh K Harris has been saying that Goldman Sachs approved of her economic plan over Trump's uh Goldman Sachs says well that might be technically true but when we compared them there was like 0 2% of a difference between the plans yes hers was 2.2% better now let me ask you this do you believe that Goldman Sachs can look at some political plans and calculate accurately do you think that they can calculate accurately to within 0.2% of what it's going to do to the economy you idiots no Goldman sacks you are idiots if you think that any of your employees you're smartest ones with all their computers and maybe they use some Ai and they calculated what the economy would be up to 0 2% in the future nobody can predict the future with a complicated model all right if you believe the climate change models are real you're a idiot because they couldn't be real humans can't do anything like that not only can we not measure the planet to any accurate and reliable degree which we know but nobody can put together the variables to to calculate the future of the temperature and Goldman Sachs you're doing the same thing and the public just doesn't know oh smart people it must be something smart people are doing well I couldn't possibly understand it because of all the smart people doing the the models oh I guess somebody calculated exactly what the economy will be in 10 years no none of this is possible it's not even close to possible it's not even in the general realm zip code planetary system of being possible so if you're talking about whether they did it or didn't do it you're in the wrong conversation it's not possible that's what you need to know not whether they forgot a variable it it's just not possible and the fact that we've ever been convinced that the smart people can figure that out is one of the greatest cons of all time and and and let me tell you the next time somebody who's really smart tells you that they've predicted the future in a complicated environment with many variables it's also not possible I don't even know what I don't need to know what the next thing is whatever the next thing is if it's a complicated model that's predicting in the future it's not real that's what you need to know all right um Marian Williamson interestingly says that uh the Democrats are making a mistake by continuing to dump on Trump about the eating cats issue because she says quote Haitian Voodoo is in fact real quote and to dismiss the story out of hand rather than listen to the citizens of Springfield Ohio confirms in the minds of many the voter stereotype of Democrats as smug Elite jerks who think they're too smart to listen to anyone outside their own Silo Silo who uses that word a lot Maryanne if you're listening that was pretty awesome so um I don't know if the 's U much reality to the eating of animals I do think that it's you know if there's a Haitian Voodoo component of the population and that they've done that before and it can be confirmed that it's something that happens in Haiti it would be a miracle if it didn't happen here right it if somehow it happened in a let's say not even widespread let's say if 10% of Haitians had ever done it there's certainly enough Haitians in America where it would happen so if you want to answer the question is it happening in America I would ask one question did it happen in Haiti and is it like a regular thing that even maybe 5% or even 2% if it happens in Haiti it's happening here can we agree that asking the Springfield Ohio resident is a waste of time because we're not going to believe them anyway many times they won't know it's just their cat is missing and they'll be like well my cat's missing I think they got them you you're probably never going to settle it just by asking the Springfield people now there might be a huge Smoking Gun you know maybe somebody got some video maybe there's a a Haitian who's confessing so that would be useful but if you want to know without any doubt whatsoever just confirm whether or not it happens in Haiti because everything that happens there is going to come here why wouldn't it there's no reason it wouldn't if there's a religious you know I don't know what Voodoo is is it religious or just a a belief uh but if it's a strong belief and it's strong enough that they were going to kill an animal there nothing would stop them from killing an animal in in the United States nothing so just find out if it's true as Maran Williams says the Haitian Voodoo is real and that it involves on any regular basis or even irregular the sacrifice of animals we we can get a 100% accurate answer just look at Haiti Am I Wrong Am I Wrong to say that we're looking in the wrong place we might find it in Springfield and then that would be good information but if you want to know for sure for sure just look at Haiti see if they're doing it and I don't know that by the way I don't know the answer if Haiti is doing that in any way that would possibly translate to the United States all right New York Post is talking about uh how there are more single liberal women than ever now I assume that the relative birth rates you know are not the story but rather that more women are remaining single and of them more of them are turning Democrat so that's why the Democrats have this huge lead but I would like to I can't remember if I've given you this hypothesis before but true or false by the way uh chat GPT says this is true as to searches on the internet but do you believe that uh science has demonstrated to your satisfaction I think there have been multiple studies of the same thing that if you're on hormonal birth control you would have a different preference for a male mate than if you were off it you're all aware of that right so I believe the way it works I don't think I have it backwards I think the way it works is if you're on the pill you're looking for more of a a dad type who who would be the the dad type in the race Tim Walls timal has that Dad kind of vibe right so in theory and I'm just talking in the most General way here if you were on hormonal birth control you would think that you'd rather marry Tim wals again I'm not saying he's your type I'm just speaking conceptually you would rather look for a Tim Walls type who's got a dad b and a dad Vibe then you would a Donald Trump type who is sort of a Chad CAD uh Alpha bastard personality but if you are off of hormonal birth control you would actually prefer the Chad bad Alpha bad guy who you hate but you still want to hump his leg but Tim W you might think he's a great guy but boring and you don't need him to protect your children or anything he's just yeah he's there for the money maybe so if you believe and I I would say this is not 100% confirmed but the science very strongly seems to suggest multiple studies show the same thing that uh women's preferences for a mate what could be more important than that your preferences for a mate the most important lifetime decision is completely reversed by hormone or birth control and then we observe that these single women the people most likely to be on hormonal birth control have an almost in my opinion a mental illness that seems to be based on their uh dislike of trump and their weird like of the Comm Harris Tim Walls campaign now what about older uh Republic Republican women if you're over 45 and you're Republican what do you think of Donald Trump well you're probably not on hormonal birth control and you probably like him now are we going to keep treating that like it's a coincidence that the people who are almost certainly likely to be on hormonal birth control and we know that hormonal birth control completely changes your preferences for a mate you don't think that changes your preference for for a candidate if you're thinking of doing a major scientific research study to find out if hormonal birth control changes your political preferences can I can I interrupt you for a moment save you some time I can save you a lot of time and a lot of money you know what I'm going to say next right just ask Scot of course it does of course of course it does there's no way in hell that it could change your mating preferences without changing your election leader preference there's no way in hell that they could be unrelated no way but if you want to do the research study and waste your time and waste your money go ahead um and by the way we know that if you pump somebody with testosterone it's going to change all the preferences too right so it's not just women men who are doing testosterone upgrades probably are changing their preferences probably has anybody noticed that uh let's let's see if we can think of an example do you remember what uh Mark Zuckerberg was like when he first founded Facebook you probably would have said he's a nerdish kind of a guy he was always in good shape I'll give him that but have you seen him shirtless lately uh after a bout with some MMA fighters he's freaking ripped do you think he's taking any kind of testosterone boost I don't know but the activities is involved in are absolutely testosterone boosters he's doing more dangerous stuff definitely dangerous um he's doing physical stuff he's clearly lifting and you know working on his Fitness and then magically unexpectedly surprisingly he comes out a strong um appreciator of Trump's saying fight fight fight and and how and how awesome that was are these all coincidences it can't be a coincidence if you can predict it let's uh let's take Reed Hoffman put him on a diet give him some testosterone make him lift until he looks like Mark Zuckerberg with that his shirt and then you check you you tell me if his political preferences changed now he might have other reasons for his political preferences we don't know but just using that as an example I don't think it's a coincidence that the that the Democrat men have a certain look and the Republican men have a different look I think a lot of this testosterone and I don't know if anybody studied this but I'll bet you if you just took a random 100 Democrat men and a random 100 Democrat Republicans I don't think their tea levels would be even close and don't waste your money on it just ask me I just told you it's obvious well Politico reports the January 6 has now been uh deemed a national security event by Department of Homeland security and that means that they can put way more resources into protecting it so here's the good news uh it authorizes um the Secret Service to have a great role in taking care of things you know it' be the other law enforcement as well of course uh lots of law enforcement but uh Secret Service would have a bigger role well you can trust those guys can't you um let's see Senator Richard Blumenthal Democrat uh he told us that the report on the Trump assassination attempt which by the way also involved the Secret Service um that the report coming out will absolutely shock the American people he says quote this is Blumenthal I think the American people are going to be shocked astonished and appalled by what will report to them about the failures of the secret services the assassination them uh they ought to be appalled and astonished by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security well so those are the same people who are going to make sure that our capital is secure this time now I'm no uh person who's developed a multivariable model for the future but I think it's deeply unlikely that Republicans are going to storm the capital again does anybody think that a republican is going to storm the capital again because there was never any chance it would work and a lot of them went to jail now if it worked even in any any way you could determine that something worked if you could make any argument at all that at least in some small way it worked well yeah it might happen again but I don't believe there's a single person in the world who says you know if we had just sauntered a little bit longer I think we could have fixed the country nobody thinks that nobody thinks that they under sauntered if if we' moved that Lecter a little bit further we could have changed everything no no I wouldn't worry about the capital getting attacked anyway um but at least our elections are secure let's see the conquered monitor is reporting that um apparently there's a way of auditing their machines so that you can feel confidence in it so here's their auditing technique they're using in New Hampshire and I I'd like to ask you after I've explained it do you feel good now because I'm doing this to make you feel like our elections are secure all right so they have an audit process after the election to make sure that the machines didn't do anything sketchy now you're happy about that right because we all want to make sure you know obviously they test them before but they also test them after to make sure that there there's no mistakes that's pretty good right here's how they test it they uh randomly select eight machines randomly H randomly who who do you think does the random selecting do you think they put all the machines into a random number generator or is there somebody whose job it is to determine which eight of them are the randomly selected ones what do you think do you think they the scrappy little State of New Hampshire put together an AI model and some maybe maybe had some kind of nuclear Decay thing like Schrodinger's cat to make sure that they had randomly picked the machines or was it just some guy whose job at was to pick the ones that were easy to drive to what do you think I'll tell you what I think but I probably don't have to tell you what I think now suppose the randomness was actually appropriate suppose that wasn't a problem and suppose they had actually randomly correctly randomized do you think checking eight machines is going to tell you anything how in the world is checking eight machines going to tell you anything my assumption about cheating is that if it involved machines and I have no confirmed evidence of any kind of cheating of that kind but hypothetically if it involved machines do you think they were going to spread it down across all the machines the you think they were going to just put a bug in every machine in New Hampshire so if you check eight of them you're going to catch it that's not the way I would do it do you know what machines I would uh corrupt in New Hampshire if I were trying to influence an election none none because New Hampshire is not in play it's not even a freaking you know up for grabs kind of a estate nobody would cheat in New Hampshire so no we don't give a if you check your eight random not random machines you're not even trying that's like not even trying to audit now again New Hampshire probably doesn't have a problem but you read a story like this and it makes you think whoa probably those other states are doing some postelection audits too well if they are it's probably just as as this total meanwhile Newsmax has to go to trial because they said some things that a uh smartmatic the company that makes some machines didn't like uh the big problem here it looks like allegedly is that Newsmax may have suggested in their reporting through who they talked to more than what they said themselves that some smartmatic machines were involved in states where there were some irregularities reportedly but apparently smartmatic doesn't even have any machines in those places so news Newsmax has to kind of explain why they think the smartmatic machines were rigged in a place where there are no smart Matic machines so that would be smartmatic take now I don't know if there's a I think the defense is that Newsmax was reporting other people's opinions so I think the defense says well but they they didn't get the case killed on that so we don't know if that's going to hold any weight but it does seem to me that every conservative news site is being bludgeoned to the point where questioning any election in the future would be corporate suicide so do you think Newsmax and Fox News are going to aggressively question any election results I don't think so because they might have gigantic amounts of money on the line because they'll get sued especially if they mention machines um let's see there's a report from the Gateway pundit now if any of this is true it's really bad but I remind you that stories of uh election irregularities 95% of them won't pan out so most of them are fake are there 5% real ones well I don't know that I wouldn't know unless I saw one and it got confirmed which I haven't seen at least one that's big enough that would have changed everything so whenever I tell you a story this is this is me trying not to get sued so whenever I tell you a story about a claim of election irregularity it's someone else's claim and I'm reporting it so I'm going to try the same defenses Newsmax in case they come after me um because I do not know of any confirmed cheating that would have changed the election that's true I don't know of any anyway so according to the Gateway pundit um uh there are a lot of uh ballots that come in from overseas and of course that's legal because if you're an American and you're you're just happen to be stationed overseas for a number of reasons you're allowed to vote by mail so here's the claim um according to a Paul Harris um there's this they uh received lots of ballots from overseas and uh they know what a ballot looks like it's a certain size it's 11 12 by1 19 and he says when he opened up the box of ballots from overseas and he expected to see all these 11 and a half by1 19 ballots because that's the only ones there are it was a whole bunch of ballots that were 8 and a half by 11 on copy paper and faxes from unknown sources and the number of them was enough to change the Maricopa result just hold that in your head for a moment now I don't know if this is true remember um this is somebody else's allegation I haven't done any independent reporting on it and the Gateway pundits talking about it but this seems like sort of an easy claim to check doesn't it or at the very least uh Laura Trump and her her Watchers should be watching this and the question they should be watching is wait a minute why are these ballots look like photocopies and faxes they don't even look like like real ballots and do you think that the Watchers could get them maybe challenged or thrown out if they if they catch it and challenge it at the point of noticing it maybe maybe I still think the the third Act perfect ending to the the Trump movie uh not an ending because you know I'd like to see him in office for a few years but uh would be that they cheat right in front of the witnesses hoping to get away with it but they don't and that the witnesses say this entire election has to be thrown out people keep asking me do I do I have a vision of who wins because in the past I have right or wrong like I I have this imagination of somebody winning and I don't I I just see Blackness but not Blackness like it's the end of the world or the end of the country what I see is no decision what I see is that between the election and the end of the year we won't know who's going to be president and I don't know why but probably something to do with legitimate complaints about the process maybe somebody catches something but it takes the courts a while to sort it out we might have a president in January if let's say our court system can decode things enough and you know they try really hard and people cooperate and it's possible but I feel like there might be months without a president if we we might even have to run the election again we might have to Congress might have to change all the laws so that the the the citizens believe that the election is true next time so and that's impossible so I don't even see a path I don't see any path that we're going to choose a president the system is designed to deny us an outcome again if you showed it to me on paper said all right here's our situation we got all these states doing things differently we got all these people watching the Watchers may see some real things but even if they see some fake things like they m AK something that's real as a fake they're going to report it so you're going to have like 40,000 credible sounding signed under oath reports of cheating what are you going to do with that 40,000 credible sounding signed it under you know threat of going to jail saying yeah I saw this and in my opinion this was cheating what are you going to do how in the world do you certify it if you got 40,000 legitimate signed under oath eyewitness multiple people saw it it's on camera now remember my my assumption is that you'll have 40,000 reports of cheating even if there are none because confirmation bias is just so heavy in this situation if you put me there in the as a watcher I'm sure sure my brain would tell me I saw some cheating because I kind of want to be the guy who catches it you know like I it would be my perfect fantasy that I'm the one who caught the election cheating it's got to be the same for the other Watchers they don't put all that time in there without thinking you know I'd be kind of a star if I found that cheating and changed everything so that is a setup for confirmation bias of the highest kind like guaranteed you there's nowhere around it and on paper that's the system we have now now I think we need the Watchers that's exactly the right thing to do but it guarantees we don't have an election result that we can trust what are we going to do I don't know I don't think it's going to turn into any out of a civil war it'll just be a messy messy process and somehow we'll work our way through it because we work our way through everything but wow is it going to be messy all right um here's my best idea of the day let's see if everybody stayed for this yeah looks like we got a lot of people watching right now here's my strongest strategy I was challenged the other day I won't tell you by who to figure out uh how to get out of the sort of dull Drums of things looking bad and into more of a a fighting optimism let's call it that it's not just optimism but it's optimism driving fight and I woke up this morning thinking you know I got a lot of sleep last night and I have the optimism that we have not yet begun to fight that's different than the optimism you're definitely going to win I think you should have some uncertainty about that because it'll drive your fight a little harder but here's my best take on how to win and it's a reframe by the way I have a book called reframe your brain but this one's not in the book so it's going to take a little while for me to develop it so bear it with me I think you're going to like the payoff so I I posted this on X if you want to see it yourself I said this I said the Harris campaign's Trump hoax overload strategy has been hugely successful so they they throw so many hoaxes at Trump including the debate that it makes them either always on the defensive which makes people think some of these must be true it also takes him off of his positive messaging and off of his attacking her for her bad whatever so as a strategy it's brilliant persuasion wise it's unethical as hell but is it effective yeah it really is and is working totally so it's taking all the energy out of Trump's support ERS and it's taking all the energy and a trump and they've completely owned the they basically own the conversation when they do the hoax overload because it used to be they'd toss in the hoax here and here and there but Harris just just one after another and they were the kind of hoaxes that are so obviously debunked and so universally debunked that you can't believe they do it unless as others have pointed out unless they knew they wouldn't get fact checked by the mainstream media and sure enough they didn't get fact checked now now that we know that's the case what you can't depend on is the media helping you out debunking any hoaxes and there's no reason for them to stop with the hoax overload strategy because it's not it's the overload that's the key it's not just hoaxes right just hoaxes is not good enough it has to be the overload it's taking all your energy away diversion so that's totally working so what would you do about that apparently they know Trump has no effective defense against it because your most obvious defense is to say it's not true and then people want to think it's true say oh you're a liar because they've already framed him as a liar once you framed Trump as a liar his denial of a hoax doesn't have any weight nothing to the people who have been convinced that he lies about everything but what could you do how could you reframe this so it's not just a bunch of hoaxes and somebody trying to say they're not true because that ain't working so here's my idea um and and also I should note that Trump's most capable supporters the ones who really are good at persuasion and stuff like that don't have any hope of changing this because we're all siloed as Maran Williamson points out the the Press including X by the way I have almost no exposure to anybody who's a Democrat because X's algorithm gives you more of what you want if you're a Democrat you want Democrat stuff so you'll never see my stuff and that's the Free Speech platform the Free Speech platform is useless as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want it's useless it it doesn't have any free speech power at all so I'm not sure if uh Elon Musk has completely grasped that he doesn't have a free speech platform he has a silo where people can talk to themselves and I hate to say it because you know I'm a giant fan of Elon Musk and what he's done with X but as long as the algorithm gives you more of what you want which by the way doesn't sound crazy sounds sounds pretty sane give people more of what they want but as long as that's the case there's no free speech going on is people just talking to themselves the the ability to talk to people who already agree with you is not any kind of free speech I'd recognize it's talking to the people in the other Silo and getting them all worked up and vice versa now that's some free Free Speech but we don't have it don't have it anywhere the debates were stupid and fake and controlled that was nothing like any information at all for voters so given all that the the helpers can't help um V can go in public and do something freaking awesome every day and he almost does if you're following vake his public appearances are almost jaw-droppingly smart and you think wow that could move the needle no Democrat will see it they just don't see it it makes no difference and and uh you know I would argue that there are a number of people in that category they just can't break through the silo so what do you do well only Trump can break The Silo meaning that if he says something interesting Democrats have to hear it but he's the only one he's also the only one who seems incapable of doing the thing I'm going to suggest so something would have to change here's what I'm going to suggest um and it's based on a trick I learned years ago in my media training that there is a weakness that the media has which I exploit every chance I get which is why you're listening to me by the way if if I had not been exploiting this flaw in the media for 30 years you wouldn't even know who I was it's the primary trick I use it goes like this nobody in the Press cares that you did something better than somebody else you know unless it's the Olympics some special case but they don't care you're really good at something and somebody's a little bit not as good that's not a story and they won't care about it and they won't write about it but here's what they will write about if you're doing something if you're a public figure and you're doing something in a whole new way they'll write about that do you know why because when they write about a whole new way is fascinating it interests the writers but more importantly it interests the readers so readers like whoa you're doing this a whole new way so a story about Trump not spending as much on elections but using this you know social network strength that he had that was a story everybody told right both sides told that story it's a process story if somebody uses a new process and is so good it wins them the election of the United States President you cannot not tell that story every journalist wants to tell that story and do so if you do a new way of doing something that's guaranteed to cut across both silos so what he needs to do with the hoaxes is stop saying this is a hoax because that gets him nothing instead he needs to do the following number one build a hoax debunk website I know they exist I know the fans have built them he needs his own he needs a trump campaign H hoax debunking site but here's the key part and if you leave this out it's nothing so I I don't think I can emphasize this enough because I don't want you to hear well if he had a website debunking the H hoaxes is in good shape no it would be useless that would be useless it has to describe how it how they made the hoaxes that's the magic sauce the magic sauce is showing the technique so let me give you an example um let's say the fine people hoax comes up if Trump says that's a hoax everybody knows it's debunk yeah nothing but if he says you know what you really need to know you voters about how the system works is that it's almost entirely hoax based at this point and I'd love to teach you how the hoaxes are created so that you can spot them on your own for example the find people hoax is created just by a simple edit if you don't believe that and I wouldn't believe it if I've been watching the mainstream news either you can go to our hoax debunking website here's the URL and you can see for yourself the method they used the method that's the secret sauce if you want a journalist to cover it on both sides you talk about the method the method not the reality the method the method was to take off the take off the end of it and then the media that's fake would keep repeating it as a real thing and then you say here's another one the uh Covington kids the overfeeding the koi the I I would argue that you find the the drinking bleach one but I know that's that's more complicated it was about light they cut out the light part Etc it's a little harder sell but for each of the hoaxes you could say okay this one was done by mind reading they pretend they know what I'm thinking and they've pretended that when I said I would be a dictator for a day which was clearly just a hyperbole to to make a case about closing the Border they read my mind and acted like that was a real thing so you do you know there's the mind reading ones the fake EIC ones and instead of organizing The hoax list by hoaxes wait for it wait for it you organize the hoax list by Method here are the ones that are fake edits here are the ones that are mind reading here are the ones that are quotes taken in a context or whatever the categories are if you turn it into a how to do it and how they did it both sides are going to report it and if you can get a Democrat to look at even one of them and some somebody said to me that debunking the fine people hoax wouldn't change any votes what most of the Democrats who have changed sides have said that figuring out that the fine people hoax was fake was a deciding factor you've heard it right I mean this is anecdotal but have you all heard public figures say once I found out about the fine people hoax I was done with Democrats you've heard that haven't you some some high-profile people have said that recently so no that one is the that's the Rosetta Stone the fine people hoax more than all the other hoaxes is the one that's so simple to explain because they just clipped off the part where he said he clarified if you can get people to realize that they've been that duped by their own people they will be pissed and that causes action anger causes action and they will and they were the people who have switched sides they say I was angry when I found out what they did to me and I'd been out there repeating this hoax forever um next um you need to the all the supporters of trump need to refer to the same page now there are some uh hoax debunk sites but they're not organized the way I just described and therefore they have no value right and let me say it again a list of hoaxes has no value one it has to be a page that tells you how they did it how they did it is inescapable everybody wants to know how um so let me let me give you the the the talk that would do it the wrong answer is well the fine people uh hoax has been debunked it's been widely debunked that's wrong doesn't work here's the right if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media now you have my attention right if the first thing I say is if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media that's so interesting that you're going to listen to whatever comes next that's a writing trick make your first sentence like too interesting to to skip the second sentence so you say if you want to lose all remaining faith in the media go to the hoax site give the URL to see how how that hoax was created with a fake edit you can see the unedited video to see for yourself and when you're there look at how the other hoaxes were created too it's appalling that we have to live like this we need honest media to have a great country that would have ended the debate by the way if Trump had done that when the fine people hoax came up he would have been the winner of the debate and you wouldn't have remembered anything else and then further I would say that we need a QR code that goes to the uh the debunk page and it could be included very easily on any other messaging that has an image you know so just in the corner of anything else you say just put the QR code and you know hoax debunk site something like that and uh then then is sporters could take the QR code we just take a picture of it ourselves and every time somebody in the comments or on X or anywhere on social media says blah blah blah hoax you just say h check this out you either put the URL for a click or uh put the QR code and then uh I would also preemptively predict how the Democrats are going to respond with more hoaxes and fake factchecking so you might say you know if you got to check this the the uh press is going to respond we're just more new hoaxes but now you know how they're made when you see the new one check this page and you'll see which C it fits in it's either a mind reading or fake edit or something out a context and you just teach people to be experts as spotting it and what's that's called does does anybody understand the technique I'm teaching you it has another name you've heard it before oh come on you know this one tell me what technique I'm using the persuasion technique it's one Trum uses all the time he just hasn't used it in this context all right I think the the comments are a little delayed I think you know this one it's called thinking past the sale the sale is that these are hoaxes thinking past is let me show you how they were done if you can make them think about how they were done they have uncritically accepted that these most be hoaxes if they're worrying about how they were done and that is a very strong person persuasion trick it's one that Trump uses all the time in other contexts so he knows how to use it it's one of his best um meanwhile World War III is kicking off save that for last so apparently there the news is saying that uh blinken Secretary of State blinkin uh may have given Ukraine the green light to send some americanmade missiles uh deep into Russ Russia as Putin has pointed out there is no way that Ukraine could send these missiles deep into Russia unless they used NATO satellites which would make it a NATO operation and unless the NATO operators are the ones who actually sort of set up the missiles and probably push the button because it isn't so easy just to hand these missiles to somebody and say hey Point them to Russia doesn't work like that apparently there's quite a bit that goes in to making sure your your missile goes to the right place and it's unlikely that anybody except NATO people would be firing them so says Putin I'm not sure that's true but that's what Putin says and that would make it as Putin is trying to warn us that would make it a NATO attack on Moscow which would be a red line which would allow him to use nuclear weapons and you know I'd still bet against him using nuclear weapons because he would die right if Putin uses nuclear weapons Putin's going to be dead there's no question about that but so would a few billion other people so I think it's the last thing he wants to do because he is rational um but man here's what I would expect as a response I think if an American missile hits Moscow and they already have but but if it becomes more of a major attack on Moscow I think he's just going to bulldoze ke Kev Kev so obviously he's you know made major attacks on ke the capital before but I don't think he's really concentrated on it I mean he could send his entire Army his entire Air Force just to turn it into Rebel and he might and he wouldn't be wrong to do it in the context of War nothing's good in war but in the context of War if they do a strong attack on Moscow and he has the stronger military if he wants to he can just destroy the capital of Ukraine and with no remorse so I think that's more likely so I think KF has to worry about what they're getting um I suppose I did hear an opinion the other day that maybe uh you Ukraine and maybe Israel would like to start more of a war perhaps with Iran or Hezbollah which is also Iran in a sense um but that it might be the very best time to start a war is right away because the United States is so distracted and disjointed at the moment that if you don't want a strong response from America this would be the time to do it now I don't know I do not Embrace that to be true so I'd like to give a message to both uh Israel and Ukraine cuz I know you're watching if you take advantage of the United States when we're temporarily weakened you better finish us off because if you take advantage just because we don't have our together for a few months whoever gets in power is going to make that right and we're not going to be happy about it so my warning to anybody who wants to take advantage of a little bit of unrest in the United States is we're not going to be unstaffed right and we're not going to be happy about it so so uh I wouldn't I wouldn't mess with us when we've got some problems that that's going to come back 10 times stronger ER than you think and I think that's just human nature I'm not really saying anything that's some kind of brilliant strategy or geopolitical opinion I'm just saying human nature if you with us when we're confused and down we're going to be way matter way matter when we get right and we're going to get right pretty quickly especially if you with us so if you want the United States to organize and be United for once just with us when we got some trouble like during the election season yeah you're going to pay for that that that's going to be the most expensive thing you've ever done so just want you to know that meanwhile Russia has their own thermite spewing Dragon drones so you saw that the Ukraine has these thermite it's basically fire uh fire breathing drones now when you imagine how bad that would be um you think to yourself well it's a little drone how far can it throw fire anyway I mean it seems like itd have to get pretty close and it can't be that powerful oh yeah it can because it turns out that the way they're doing it is they're having the fire just use gravity so in other words they just fly over something and there's something about this thermite that makes it basically almost like a solid so the fire falls like a solid and it's some bad stuff so really bad stuff so I'm seeing a comment you suffer from the same idiot mindset most western people do you look at other people as if they like you they are not Russia is not susceptible to your big mouth never was never will be well you sound like a idiot all right see you are somebody who doesn't understand how anything in the world works you don't think that Russia and China are watching public opinion in the United States you don't know how risk management works either if I increase the risk profile of any action it changes Behavior maybe not in the end but it changes the likelihood of behavior so does Russia care about what Americans think yes they do you idiot does Israel care about what Americans think yes they do you idiot they do because our actions will determine a lot to them do we care about how they think yes we do because it matters to us to imagine that other countries don't give a what the United States thinks about vaporizing them with nuclear weapons is the dumbest thing I've seen all day so great comment there you're doing great anyway I feel a little spicy today because I may have gotten enough sleep for the first time so ladies and gentlemen this concludes my uh my prepared remarks and I'm going to go talk to the locals people except that one uh privately and uh I'll see you tomorrow and maybe in the man cave toight if you're part of locals so it takes a while for us this uh to be active it's going to be about 30 seconds before I'm talking to locals privately e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for
e e
now you're all fixed aren't
you now you're
happy turns
out there was a button that need to be
pushed you're all good now
right thank you Paul you saved me again
good
save um I believe I was telling you that
this is coffee with Scott Adams and all
you need is a cup or mug or glass a
tanker chalse a canteen Jugger flask a
vessel of any kind fill it with your
favorite
liquid I like coffee and join me now for
the unparallel pleasure of the dopamine
end of the day the thing that makes
everything better it's called the
simultaneous Sip and it happens now
go well it looks like through my bad
engineering
uh I may have gotten rid of all the
viewers who are not serious viewers of
the show the rest of you stayed here and
said he's going to fix this because you
trusted me and your trust has been paid
off well did you know that China is uh
got a $31 billion push for making
nuclear power in that country they've uh
approved 11 reactors recently and 20 in
the past two years and
that's not why I bring it up now you
know if you're following the news that
whatever country falls behind in energy
production is going to lose the future
because AI will be driving everything
and if you don't have way more power
than we have in this country right now
you're not going to compete with China
on AI so whoever has the most
electricity basically is going to win on
AI because they could just do more of it
and faster so so nuclear power has gone
from something that would be really
important for your economy and maybe
good for the the world's uh pollution
and CO2 if you care about that but I
would argue that nuclear power is now
more important than nuclear
weapons you are you with me on that that
nuclear power plants creating
electricity is a more important weapon
of War because it's going to be driving
Ai and AI will drive
everything so nuclear weapons of course
would still be powerful but probably the
wars of the future are going to depend
on electricity and we don't have a way
to dominate in electricity and China is
just kicking our asses on Nuclear So
unless we get somebody who can really
push things in the United States we're
all in lot of trouble this would be
right near the top of my number one
existential risk problems it's not
number one but it's right up
there and I would recommend that you
follow the account on X called Zan
lights which is actually the name of a
person Zion is the first name just like
it sounds z o n and then lights last
name so if you follow that account which
is smish but the most uh I would say the
most accurate and
unbiased following of what's happening
in nuclear energy so highly recommended
get on that account if you're not
already there um by the way I one of the
things that I see as my Spider-Man
responsibility you know the Spider-Man
uh curse with great power comes great
responsibility now I don't have great
power but I have over a million
followers on
and I feel like one of the most useful
things I can do with my 1.1 million
followers is tell you who else you
should follow to make you
smarter that that's really one of the
best things I could ever do for the
world just make you smarter by telling
you to follow so Zion lights add that
one to your
list apparently uh
Boeing uh labor union the biggest labor
union is going on
strike because Boeing didn't need any
more problems but here it is or they
they they did I guess I should have said
that the other way
but um you know what would really help
their uh profits and their ability to
pay their employees more would be
building really good planes so the
machinists are on strike I feel like
Boeing is really getting every bad news
it could possibly get how much of this
this do you you think is Dei
related and the trouble is we don't
know you still saying you're muted or
are you trolling me
now Paul are you still
there I'm getting trolled on the audio
bunch of people saying I'm
muted is that because they're okay yeah
everything's working
trolls um thank you
Paul so I wonder if de is actually a
factor there's no way to know but the
theory is
that um de should destroy every country
or every company and then every country
it comes in contact with because by
design it destroys
organizations it is the one it is the
one thing that guarantees that you focus
on hiring less qualified people to meet
a different goal now if you say Scott
you racist why are you saying that some
other group is less
qualified I'm not saying that I'm saying
that if you focus on something other
than Merit you're going to get something
other than
Merit every time it's just the way
everything works and there's you know a
small pool of people available for a
certain time types of jobs and if you
try too hard to fix things with that
small pool of availability it should
destroy every country in America the
focuses on it so although there's no
direct evidence that that's what's
happening at Boeing given that they have
a bunch of government contracts I would
pretty much feel confident in saying
it's probably their biggest
problem I'm sure they have other big
problems but it's probably the biggest
one and it's not recoverable
it's not recoverable they're not going
to fire the people they already
hired so whatever their situation is now
it's that's what they're going to have
to work with so I don't know how they
work around it create a skunk
works I don't know I have no idea how
anybody survives Dei it should by its
design on paper it should destroy every
organization that touches
eventually and uh certainly lots of
evidence of that
well you'd be delighted to know there's
a research Consortium Consortium or
Consortium which is is a Consortium or
Consortium I don't know but it's one of
those things but uh yeah a bunch of uh
geoengineering types want to uh dump a
bunch of iron in the ocean to make the
ocean capable of absorbing I guess I
guess it basically they'd be fertilizing
the ocean with
um some kind of iron
stuff and it will make the phytoplankton
Bloom and it'll suck the carbon dioxide
right out of the
air all right let me ask you this what
are you more afraid of a nuclear power
plant
or trying to change the chemistry of the
ocean this is the scariest thing I've
ever seen it it's scary that they want
to change the atmosphere you know have
the
Planes release some kind of chemicals
that will alter the atmosphere does
solve climate change but I'm not so sure
I want to bloom a lot of phyto Plankton
because I don't know exactly if we know
what happens if you do that
so um I'd be a little careful about this
one I suppose there's probably a way to
test it
small
but yeah that I don't know and is it is
it recover
able if you stopped doing it do things
go back to where they were pretty
quickly I just don't know if this is a
good idea but I've got
questions well this is exciting
according to the New York Post there's
this device that's been uh created by
researchers at University College in
London and it's a little device that you
stick your finger in and
somehow believe it or not it's a they
call a Breakthrough Medical device to
stimulate what they call the natural
quote real feel sensation of human
touch so if you're isolated and you
don't have a lot of human touch you can
stick your finger into a device and it
will give you the Sensation that there's
a human being touching your
finger so I plan to get one of those to
uh stick my finger into
it no my finger I'm just going to put my
finger in it well what were you thinking
you perverts my God you're disgusting
I'm going to put my finger in it what
are you even thinking oh my God I'm
disgusted by all of
you that never even occurred to me not
once that I think if you can stick your
finger in it and it feels like a real
person that there might be some other
application for it I never thought of
that you're disgusting I love every one
of you
all right uh here's a story that makes
you shake your head and say should we
just give up and leave the
country maybe we should just give up on
America if you're an American just give
up all right here's a story that just
makes me want to go all right it
we're not even trying
anymore the National Association of
letter carriers in other words Post
Office
Union uh announced their endorsement of
K Harris and governor and Governor
Waltz uh the letter
carriers the people who will be holding
in their hands the
ballots they know
exactly what the voters in their area
are likely to favor by a
majority they know if they're living if
they're working a red neighborhood or a
blue neighborhood and they've just
endorsed one
side and you have to trust the people
who endorsed Harris to deliver your
ballot without throwing it away which is
what you know they want to do they want
to throw it away because they don't want
the other team to win now I'm not going
to cast any aspersion on on any postal
workers my father worked for the Post
Office for his entire career and
retired and if there's one thing I know
from all of the many many stories my
father told us over the dinner table you
can trust the Post
[Laughter]
Office no you can trust the Post Office
as much as you can trust any other
part of the government which is
not at all not at all well when uh I
used to uh mail my art so when I was a
new cartoonist
the we didn't do everything digital back
then I would actually create art on
paper and then I'd make copies of it
because I knew I was going to you know
mail off The Originals so I'd mail the
original to my syndication company and
then they would you know do what they
needed to do to put it in
newspapers I heard that Gary Larson
famous cartoonist of the time had to
stop using the post office because as
soon as they figured out who he was they
stole all of his packages CU they could
to sell his original
art so I heard that and I said to myself
well but they don't know who I am
because I was new so I was mailing my
art every day and then I got a little
more
famous and then they started recognized
me in the post office and that was the
last time any of my art ever reached its
destination they just started stealing
it after that so
no the post office
cannot be trusted years ago I also uh
wrote a story about a single woman who
didn't have any money but was giving
money to uh homeless people when she saw
them because they were doing even worse
than she was and she could not even
afford basically
anything I wrote a story and I said you
know what here's a post office box if
you want to send her some money and
solve her problem because she's
literally so kind this is a real story
she was so kind and religious really
that if she could eat a sandwich that
day and she saw somebody who might not
she would give him half her sandwich
like literally she would reach in her
lunch and give half of it to A A Street
person and people were moved by the
story and they sent her envelopes full
of cash I mean not full of but you know
$20 bill here and there
and she she got uh if you could imagine
probably thousands
my best guess thousands of dollars were
sent to her by just people who wanted to
help her out how many of those thousands
of dollars do you think she actually
received because it went through the
post office as soon as they noticed that
one of her letters had cash in it
because I don't know maybe you could
hold it up and see it or something they
stole everything else that ever went to
her they got 100% of all of her letters
and kept them the post
office now you feel good about the post
office the post office is going to
determine the
election because they're going to the
the mail ends will probably be the
confirmative you know consequential
thing and they get to decide if they
deliver it or not if they throw it away
instead of delivering it you'll never
know and if you did know it would be
after the new president is already in
office and nothing would change after
that how in the world is this legal
how in the
world is this legal now Joel Pollock
asked this question before I did on X so
I'm stealing his stuff
but I mean I look at this and I
think well I guess there's no law
against it because of free of speech but
if you design a system let's say you you
drew it down on paper and you said all
right we're going to going to have this
election system we're going to have a
the determined vote are going to come
into the mail and then we're going to
make sure the people who deliver the
mail are very biased in who wins and
they won't be watched every moment
because mail carriers don't have body
cams so they could just leave the whole
crate of ballots in their car drive it
home at night and throw it away or throw
it away in a dumpster on the way now
would you have ever approved that system
if you were designing the system would
you have approved that no would not on
paper you would have rejected that
immediately you would have said no
whatever we do we can't do that it's the
least the least trustworthy
group probably of any
entity I mean I don't know what
experience you've had with post offices
but it's hard to imagine a more corrupt
organization more corrupt in the
individual level than the top you know I
I don't have any accusations against
Senior Management I only know that that
the individuals that they hire are
pretty damn sketchy and on the regular
basis and I say that you know my father
worked there for over 30 years I
think
um I just have to tell you this one
story this is my one other post office
story in the early post office days when
I was a very young kid uh the post
offices at least were where I lived they
were actually required to have a loaded
firearm behind the desk so the post
offices were required it wasn't optional
they had to have a loaded gun available
in case some trouble went down now of
course times of modernized so I'm pretty
sure they got rid of that but this is a
true story there were days when for
whatever reason there was nobody to look
after me when I was a young kid and so
my father would just take me to work
and I'd be just sort of running around
behind the counter in the post
office and there a this this
loaded
gun on on a shelf that I could reach as
a
toddler do you think I played with it
when nobody was
watching
yeah of course I
did I'm like a toddler with a loaded gun
in the post office now
if you have any other
questions that's a true story if you
have any other questions about the the
workings of the post office I hope I've
answered them
all all right so our election is being
rigged in plain sight I think that
that's a fact based on reported news to
me this is
rigging and I gave you you know six
other examples they pretty obvious
rigging uh so you you don't have to
cheat on the individual votes to see how
much rigging is going on but that would
be cheating on individual votes I guess
uh K Harris has been saying that Goldman
Sachs approved of her economic plan over
Trump's uh Goldman Sachs says well that
might be technically true but when we
compared them there was like 0 2% of a
difference between the
plans yes hers was 2.2% better now let
me ask you this do you believe that
Goldman Sachs can look at some political
plans and calculate
accurately do you think that they can
calculate accurately to within
0.2% of what it's going to do to the
economy you idiots no Goldman
sacks you are idiots if you
think that any of your employees you're
smartest ones with all their computers
and maybe they use some Ai and they
calculated what the economy
would be up to 0 2% in the future nobody
can predict the future with a
complicated model all right if you
believe the climate change models are
real you're a idiot because they
couldn't be real humans can't do
anything like that not only can we not
measure the planet to any
accurate and reliable degree which we
know but nobody can put together the
variables to to calculate the future of
the temperature and Goldman
Sachs you're doing the same thing and
the public just doesn't know oh smart
people it must be something smart people
are doing well I couldn't possibly
understand it because of all the smart
people doing the the models oh I guess
somebody calculated exactly what the
economy will be in 10 years no none of
this is
possible it's not even close to possible
it's not even in the general realm zip
code planetary system of being
possible so if you're talking about
whether they did it or didn't do it
you're in the wrong conversation it's
not
possible that's what you need to
know not whether they forgot a
variable it it's just not possible and
the fact that we've ever been convinced
that the smart people can figure that
out is one of the greatest cons of all
time and and and let me tell you the
next time somebody who's really smart
tells you that they've predicted the
future in a complicated environment with
many
variables it's also not possible I don't
even know what I don't need to know what
the next thing is whatever the next
thing is if it's a complicated model
that's predicting in the future it's not
real that's what you need to
know all
right um Marian Williamson interestingly
says that uh the Democrats are making a
mistake by continuing to dump on Trump
about the eating cats issue because she
says quote Haitian Voodoo is in fact
real quote and to dismiss the story out
of hand rather than listen to the
citizens of
Springfield Ohio confirms in the minds
of many the voter stereotype of
Democrats as smug Elite jerks who think
they're too smart to listen to anyone
outside their own
Silo
Silo who uses that word a
lot Maryanne if you're
listening that was pretty
awesome
so um I don't know if the 's U much
reality to the eating of
animals I do think that it's you know if
there's a Haitian
Voodoo component of the
population and that they've done that
before and it can be confirmed that it's
something that happens in Haiti it would
be a miracle if it didn't happen
here right it if somehow it happened in
a let's say not even widespread
let's say if 10% of
Haitians had ever done it there's
certainly enough Haitians in America
where it would happen so if you want to
answer the question is it happening in
America I would ask one question did it
happen in
Haiti and is it like a regular thing
that even maybe 5% or even
2% if it happens in Haiti it's happening
here can we agree that asking the
Springfield Ohio resident
is a waste of time because we're not
going to believe them anyway many times
they won't know it's just their cat is
missing and they'll be like well my
cat's missing I think they got them you
you're probably never going to settle it
just by asking the Springfield people
now there might be a huge Smoking Gun
you know maybe somebody got some video
maybe there's a a Haitian who's
confessing so that would be useful but
if you want to know without any doubt
whatsoever just confirm whether or not
it happens in Haiti because everything
that happens there is going to come here
why wouldn't it there's no reason it
wouldn't if there's a religious you know
I don't know what Voodoo is is it
religious or just a a belief uh but if
it's a strong belief and it's strong
enough that they were going to kill an
animal there nothing would stop them
from killing an animal in in the United
States nothing so just find out if it's
true as Maran Williams says the Haitian
Voodoo is real and that it involves on
any regular basis or even irregular the
sacrifice of
animals we we can get a 100% accurate
answer just look at Haiti Am I
Wrong Am I Wrong to say that we're
looking in the wrong place we might find
it in Springfield and then that would be
good information but if you want to know
for
sure for sure just look at
Haiti see if they're doing it and I
don't know that by the way I don't know
the answer if Haiti is doing that in any
way that would possibly translate to the
United
States all
right New York Post is talking about uh
how there are more single liberal women
than
ever now I
assume that the relative birth rates you
know are not the story but rather that
more women are remaining single and of
them more of them are turning Democrat
so that's why the Democrats have this
huge lead but I would like to I can't
remember if I've given you this
hypothesis
before
but true or false by the way uh chat GPT
says this is true as to searches on the
internet but do you believe that uh
science has demonstrated to your
satisfaction I think there have been
multiple studies of the same thing that
if you're on hormonal birth
control you would have a different
preference for a male mate than if you
were off it you're all aware of that
right so I believe the way it works I
don't think I have it backwards I think
the way it works is if you're on the
pill you're looking for more of a a dad
type who who would be the the dad type
in the race Tim Walls timal has that Dad
kind of
vibe right so in theory and I'm just
talking in the most General way here if
you were on hormonal birth
control you would think that you'd
rather marry Tim wals again I'm not
saying he's your type I'm just speaking
conceptually you would rather look for a
Tim Walls type who's got a dad b and a
dad
Vibe then you would a Donald Trump type
who is sort of a Chad CAD uh Alpha
bastard
personality but if you are off of
hormonal birth control you would
actually prefer the Chad bad Alpha bad
guy who you hate but you still want to
hump his
leg but Tim W you might think he's a
great guy but boring and you don't need
him to protect your children or anything
he's just yeah he's there for the money
maybe
so if you believe and I I would say this
is not 100% confirmed but the science
very strongly seems to suggest multiple
studies show the same thing that uh
women's preferences for a mate what
could be more important than that your
preferences for a mate the most
important lifetime decision is
completely
reversed by hormone or birth control
and then we observe that these single
women the people most likely to be on
hormonal birth control have an almost in
my
opinion a mental
illness that seems to be based on their
uh dislike of
trump and their weird like of the Comm
Harris Tim Walls campaign
now what about older uh Republic
Republican
women if you're over
45 and you're Republican what do you
think of Donald
Trump well you're probably not on
hormonal birth
control and you probably like him now
are we going to keep treating that like
it's a
coincidence that the people who are
almost certainly likely to be on
hormonal birth control and we know that
hormonal birth control completely
changes your preferences for a mate you
don't think that changes your preference
for for a
candidate if you're thinking of doing a
major scientific research study to find
out if hormonal birth control changes
your political preferences can I can I
interrupt you for a moment save you some
time I can save you a lot of time and a
lot of money you know what I'm going to
say next right just ask Scot of course
it
does of course of course it does there's
no way in hell that it could change your
mating preferences without
changing your election leader preference
there's no way in hell that they
could be unrelated no
way but if you want to do the research
study and waste your time and waste your
money go
ahead um and by the way we know that if
you pump somebody with testosterone it's
going to change all the preferences too
right so it's not just women men who are
doing testosterone upgrades probably are
changing their preferences probably has
anybody noticed that uh let's let's see
if we can think of an
example do you remember what uh Mark
Zuckerberg was like when he first
founded
Facebook you probably would have said
he's a nerdish kind of a guy he was
always in good shape I'll give him that
but have you seen him shirtless lately
uh after a bout with some MMA fighters
he's freaking ripped do you think he's
taking any kind of testosterone boost I
don't know but the activities is
involved in are absolutely testosterone
boosters he's doing more dangerous stuff
definitely dangerous um he's doing
physical stuff he's clearly lifting and
you know working on his Fitness and then
magically unexpectedly surprisingly he
comes out a strong um appreciator of
Trump's saying fight fight fight and and
how and how awesome that was are these
all
coincidences it can't be a coincidence
if you can predict
it let's uh let's take Reed Hoffman put
him on a diet give him some
testosterone make him lift until he
looks like Mark
Zuckerberg with that his shirt and then
you check you you tell me if his
political preferences changed now he
might have other reasons for his
political preferences we don't know but
just using that as an example I don't
think it's a
coincidence that the that the Democrat
men have a certain
look and the Republican
men have a different
look I think a lot of this testosterone
and I don't know if anybody studied this
but I'll bet you if you just took a
random 100 Democrat men and a random 100
Democrat Republicans I don't think their
tea levels would be even
close and don't waste your money on it
just ask me I just told you it's
obvious well Politico reports the
January 6 has now been uh deemed a
national security event by Department of
Homeland security and that means that
they can put way more resources into
protecting
it so here's the good news uh it
authorizes um the Secret Service to have
a great role
in taking care of things you know it' be
the other law enforcement as well of
course uh lots of law enforcement but uh
Secret Service would have a bigger role
well you can trust those
guys can't
you um
let's see Senator Richard Blumenthal
Democrat uh he told us that the report
on the Trump assassination attempt which
by the way also involved the Secret
Service um that the report coming out
will absolutely shock the American
people he says quote this is Blumenthal
I think the American people are going to
be shocked astonished and appalled by
what will report to them about the
failures of the secret services the
assassination them uh they ought to be
appalled and astonished by the failure
of the Department of Homeland
Security
well so those are the same people who
are going to make sure that our capital
is secure this
time
now I'm no uh person who's developed a
multivariable model for the future but I
think it's deeply unlikely that
Republicans are going to storm the
capital again does anybody think that a
republican is going to storm the capital
again because there was never any chance
it would
work and a lot of them went to jail now
if it worked even in any any way you
could determine that something worked if
you could make any argument at all that
at least in some small way it worked
well yeah it might happen again but I
don't believe there's a single person in
the world who says you know if we had
just sauntered a little bit longer I
think we could have fixed the country
nobody thinks that nobody thinks that
they under sauntered if if we' moved
that Lecter a little bit further we
could have changed everything no no I
wouldn't worry about the capital getting
attacked anyway um but at least our
elections are secure let's see the
conquered monitor is reporting that um
apparently there's a way of auditing
their machines so that you can feel
confidence in it so here's their
auditing technique they're using in New
Hampshire and I I'd like to ask you
after I've explained it do you feel good
now because I'm doing this to make you
feel like our elections are secure all
right so they have an audit process
after the election to make sure that the
machines didn't do anything sketchy now
you're happy about that
right because we all want to make sure
you know obviously they test them before
but they also test them after to make
sure that there there's no mistakes
that's pretty good right here's how they
test
it they uh randomly select eight
machines
randomly H randomly who who do you think
does the random selecting do you think
they put all the machines into a random
number
generator or is there somebody whose job
it is to determine which eight of them
are the randomly selected ones what do
you think do you think they the scrappy
little State of New Hampshire put
together an AI model and some maybe
maybe had some kind of nuclear Decay
thing like Schrodinger's cat to make
sure that they had randomly picked the
machines or was it just some guy whose
job at was to pick the ones that were
easy to drive
to what do you
think I'll tell you what I think but I
probably don't have to tell you what I
think now suppose the randomness was
actually
appropriate suppose that wasn't a
problem and suppose they had actually
randomly correctly
randomized do you think checking eight
machines is going to tell you anything
how in the world is checking eight
machines going to tell you
anything my assumption about cheating is
that if it involved machines and I have
no confirmed evidence of any kind of
cheating of that kind but
hypothetically if it involved machines
do you think they were going to spread
it down across all the
machines the you think they were going
to just put a bug in every machine in
New Hampshire so if you check eight of
them you're going to catch it
that's not the way I would do it do you
know what machines I would uh corrupt in
New Hampshire if I were trying to
influence an
election none none because New Hampshire
is not in play it's not even a freaking
you know up for grabs kind of a estate
nobody would cheat in New Hampshire so
no we don't give a if you check
your eight random not random
machines you're not even trying that's
like not even trying
to
audit now again New Hampshire probably
doesn't have a
problem but you read a story like this
and it makes you think whoa probably
those other states are doing some
postelection audits too well if they are
it's probably just as as this
total
meanwhile Newsmax has to go to
trial because they said some things that
a uh smartmatic the company that makes
some machines didn't like uh the big
problem here it looks like allegedly is
that Newsmax may have suggested in their
reporting through who they talked to
more than what they said themselves that
some smartmatic machines were involved
in states where there were some
irregularities
reportedly but apparently smartmatic
doesn't even have any machines in those
places so news Newsmax has to kind of
explain why they think the smartmatic
machines were rigged in a place where
there are no smart Matic machines so
that would be smartmatic take now I
don't know if there's a I think the
defense is that Newsmax was reporting
other people's opinions so I think the
defense says well but they they didn't
get the case killed on that so we don't
know if that's going to hold any weight
but it does seem to me that every
conservative news site is being
bludgeoned to the point where
questioning any election in the future
would be corporate suicide so do you
think Newsmax and Fox News are going to
aggressively question any election
results I don't think so because they
might have gigantic amounts of money on
the line because they'll get sued
especially if they mention
machines um
let's see there's a report from the
Gateway
pundit now if any of this is true it's
really bad but I remind you that stories
of uh election
irregularities 95% of them won't pan out
so most of them are
fake are there 5% real ones well I don't
know that I wouldn't know unless I saw
one and it got confirmed which I haven't
seen at least one that's big enough that
would have changed everything so
whenever I tell you a story this is this
is me trying not to get sued so whenever
I tell you a story about a claim of
election irregularity it's someone
else's claim and I'm reporting it so I'm
going to try the same defenses Newsmax
in case they come after me um because I
do not know of any
confirmed cheating that would have
changed the election that's true I don't
know of
any anyway so according to the Gateway
pundit um uh there are a lot of uh
ballots that come in from overseas and
of course that's legal because if you're
an American and you're you're just
happen to be stationed overseas for a
number of reasons you're allowed to vote
by mail so here's the claim
um according to a Paul
Harris
um there's this they uh received lots of
ballots from
overseas and uh they know what a ballot
looks like it's a certain size it's 11
12 by1 19 and he says when he opened up
the box of ballots from overseas and he
expected to see all these 11 and a half
by1 19 ballots because that's the only
ones there
are it was a whole bunch of ballots that
were 8 and a half by
11 on copy
paper and
faxes from unknown sources
and the number of them was enough to
change the Maricopa
result just hold that in your head for a
moment now I don't know if this is true
remember um this is somebody else's
allegation I haven't done any
independent reporting on it and the
Gateway pundits talking about it but
this seems like sort of an easy claim to
check doesn't it or at the very least uh
Laura Trump and her her Watchers should
be watching this and the question they
should be watching is wait a minute why
are these ballots look like photocopies
and faxes they don't even look like like
real
ballots and do you think that the
Watchers could get them maybe challenged
or thrown out if they if they catch it
and challenge it at the point of
noticing it
maybe maybe I still think the the third
Act perfect ending to the the Trump
movie uh not an ending because you know
I'd like to see him in office for a few
years but uh would be that they cheat
right in front of the witnesses hoping
to get away with it but they don't and
that the witnesses say this entire
election has to be thrown out people
keep asking me do I do I have a vision
of who wins because in the past I have
right or wrong like I I have this
imagination of somebody winning and I
don't I I just see Blackness but not
Blackness like it's the end of the world
or the end of the country what I see is
no
decision what I see is that between the
election and the end of the year we
won't know who's going to be president
and I don't know why but probably
something to do with legitimate
complaints about the process maybe
somebody catches something but it takes
the courts a while to sort it
out we might have a president in
January if let's say our court system
can decode things enough and you know
they try really hard and people
cooperate and it's possible but I feel
like there might be months without a
president if we we might even have to
run the election again we might have to
Congress might have to change all the
laws so that the the the citizens
believe that the election is true next
time so and that's
impossible so I don't even
see a path I don't see any path that
we're going to choose a president the
system is designed to deny us an outcome
again if you showed it to me on paper
said all right here's our situation we
got all these states doing things
differently we got all these people
watching the Watchers may see some real
things but even if they see some fake
things like they m AK something that's
real as a fake they're going to report
it so you're going to have like
40,000 credible sounding signed under
oath reports of cheating what are you
going to do with
that 40,000 credible sounding signed it
under you know threat of going to jail
saying yeah I saw this and in my opinion
this was cheating what are you going to
do how in the world do you certify it if
you got 40,000 legitimate signed under
oath eyewitness multiple people saw it
it's on
camera now
remember my my assumption is that you'll
have
40,000 reports of cheating even if there
are
none because confirmation bias is just
so heavy in this situation if you put me
there in the as a watcher I'm sure sure
my brain would tell me I saw some
cheating because I kind of want to be
the guy who catches it you know like I
it would be my perfect fantasy that I'm
the one who caught the election
cheating it's got to be the same for the
other Watchers they don't put all that
time in there without thinking you know
I'd be kind of a star if I found that
cheating and changed everything so that
is a setup for confirmation bias of the
highest kind like guaranteed you there's
nowhere around it and on paper that's
the system we have now now I think we
need the Watchers that's exactly the
right thing to do but it guarantees we
don't have an election result that we
can
trust what are we going to do I don't
know I don't think it's going to turn
into any out of a civil war it'll just
be a messy messy process and somehow
we'll work our way through it because we
work our way through everything but wow
is it going to be
messy all right um here's my best idea
of the day let's see if everybody stayed
for this yeah looks like we got a lot of
people watching right now here's my
strongest strategy I was challenged the
other day I won't tell you by
who to figure out uh how to get out of
the sort of dull Drums of things looking
bad and into more of a a fighting
optimism let's call it that it's not
just optimism but it's optimism driving
fight and I woke up this morning
thinking you know I got a lot of sleep
last
night
and I have the optimism that we have not
yet begun to fight that's different than
the optimism you're definitely going to
win I think you should have some
uncertainty about that because it'll
drive your fight a little
harder but here's my best take
on how to
win and it's a
reframe by the way I have a book called
reframe your brain but this one's not in
the book so it's going to take a little
while for me to develop it so bear it
with me I think you're going to like the
payoff so I I posted this on X if you
want to see it yourself I said this I
said the Harris campaign's Trump hoax
overload strategy has been hugely
successful so they they throw so many
hoaxes at Trump including the debate
that it makes them either always on the
defensive which makes people think some
of these must be true it also takes him
off of his positive messaging and off of
his attacking her for her bad whatever
so as a strategy it's
brilliant persuasion wise it's unethical
as hell but is it effective yeah it
really is and is working totally so it's
taking all the energy out of Trump's
support ERS and it's taking all the
energy and a trump and they've
completely owned the they basically own
the conversation when they do the hoax
overload because it used to be they'd
toss in the hoax here and here and there
but Harris
just just one after another and they
were the kind of
hoaxes that are so obviously debunked
and so universally debunked that you
can't believe they do it unless as
others have pointed out unless they knew
they wouldn't get fact checked by the
mainstream media and sure enough they
didn't get fact checked now now
that we know that's the case what you
can't depend on is the media helping you
out debunking any hoaxes and there's no
reason for them to stop with the hoax
overload strategy because it's not it's
the overload that's the key it's not
just
hoaxes right just hoaxes is not good
enough it has to be the overload it's
taking all your energy away diversion so
that's totally working so what would you
do about that apparently they know Trump
has no effective defense against it
because your most obvious defense is to
say it's not true and then people want
to think it's true say oh you're a liar
because they've already framed him as a
liar once you framed Trump as a liar his
denial of a hoax doesn't have any weight
nothing to the people who have been
convinced that he lies about everything
but what could you do how could you
reframe this so it's not just a bunch of
hoaxes and somebody trying to say
they're not true because that ain't
working so here's my
idea um and and also I should note that
Trump's most capable supporters the ones
who really are good at persuasion and
stuff like that don't have any hope of
changing this because we're all siloed
as Maran Williamson points out the the
Press including X by the way I have
almost no exposure to anybody who's a
Democrat because X's algorithm gives you
more of what you want if you're a
Democrat you want Democrat stuff so
you'll never see my stuff and that's the
Free Speech platform the Free Speech
platform is
useless as long as the algorithm gives
you more of what you want it's useless
it it doesn't have any free speech power
at all so I'm not sure if uh Elon Musk
has
completely grasped that he doesn't have
a free speech platform he has a silo
where people can talk to
themselves and I hate to say it because
you know I'm a giant fan of Elon Musk
and what he's done with X but as long as
the algorithm gives you more of what you
want which by the way doesn't sound
crazy sounds sounds pretty sane give
people more of what they want but as
long as that's the case there's no free
speech going on is people just talking
to themselves the the ability to talk to
people who already agree with you is not
any kind of free speech I'd
recognize it's talking to the people in
the other Silo and getting them all
worked up and vice versa now that's some
free Free Speech but we don't have it
don't have it anywhere the debates were
stupid and fake and controlled that was
nothing like any information at all for
voters so given all that the the helpers
can't help um V can go in public and do
something freaking awesome every day and
he almost
does if you're following vake his public
appearances are almost jaw-droppingly
smart and you think wow that could move
the needle no Democrat will see it they
just don't see it it makes no difference
and and uh you know I would argue that
there are a number of people in that
category they just can't break through
the
silo so what do you do well only Trump
can break The Silo meaning that if he
says something
interesting Democrats have to hear it
but he's the only one he's also the only
one who seems incapable of doing the
thing I'm going to suggest
so something would have to
change here's what I'm going to
suggest um and it's based on a trick I
learned years ago in my media
training that there is a weakness that
the media has which I exploit every
chance I get which is why you're
listening to me by the
way if if I had not been exploiting this
flaw in the media for 30 years you
wouldn't even know who I was it's the
primary trick I
use it goes like this nobody in the
Press cares that you did something
better than somebody else you know
unless it's the Olympics some special
case but they don't care you're really
good at something and somebody's a
little bit not as good that's not a
story and they won't care about it and
they won't write about it but here's
what they will write about if you're
doing something if you're a public
figure and you're doing something in a
whole new way they'll write about that
do you know why because when they write
about a whole new way is fascinating it
interests the writers but more
importantly it interests the
readers so readers like whoa you're
doing this a whole new way so a story
about Trump not spending as much on
elections but using this you know social
network strength that he had that was a
story everybody told right both sides
told that story it's a process story if
somebody uses a new process and is so
good it wins them the election of the
United States President you cannot not
tell that story every journalist wants
to tell that story and
do so if you do a new way of doing
something that's guaranteed to cut
across both silos so what he needs to do
with the hoaxes is stop saying this is a
hoax because that gets him nothing
instead he needs to do the
following number one build a hoax debunk
website I know they exist I know the
fans have built them he needs his own he
needs a trump
campaign H hoax debunking site
but here's the key part and if you leave
this out it's nothing so I I don't think
I can emphasize this enough because I
don't want you to hear well if he had a
website debunking the H hoaxes is in
good shape no it would be useless that
would be
useless it has to
describe how it how they made the
hoaxes that's the magic sauce the magic
sauce is showing the
technique so let me give you an example
um let's say the fine people hoax comes
up if Trump says that's a hoax everybody
knows it's debunk yeah nothing but if he
says you know what you really need to
know you voters about how the system
works is that it's almost entirely hoax
based at this point and I'd love to
teach you how the hoaxes are created so
that you can spot them on your own for
example the find people hoax is created
just by a simple edit if you don't
believe that and I wouldn't believe it
if I've been watching the mainstream
news either you can go to our hoax
debunking website here's the URL and you
can see for yourself the method they
used the method that's the secret sauce
if you want a journalist to cover it on
both sides you talk about the method the
method not the reality the method the
method was to take off the take off the
end of it and then the media that's fake
would keep repeating it as a real thing
and then you say here's another
one the uh Covington kids the
overfeeding the
koi the I I would argue that you find
the the drinking bleach one but I know
that's that's more complicated it was
about light they cut out the light part
Etc it's a little harder sell but for
each of the hoaxes you could say okay
this one was done by mind reading they
pretend they know what I'm thinking and
they've pretended that when I said I
would be a dictator for a day which was
clearly just a hyperbole to to make a
case about closing the Border they read
my mind and acted like that was a real
thing so you do you know there's the
mind reading ones the fake EIC ones and
instead of organizing The hoax list by
hoaxes wait for it wait for it you
organize the hoax list
by
Method here are the ones that are fake
edits here are the ones that are mind
reading here are the ones that are
quotes taken in a context or whatever
the categories are if you turn it into a
how to do it and how they did it both
sides are going to report
it and if you can get a Democrat to look
at even one of them and some somebody
said to me that debunking the fine
people hoax wouldn't change any votes
what most of the Democrats who have
changed sides have said that figuring
out that the fine people hoax was fake
was a deciding factor you've heard it
right I mean this is anecdotal but have
you all heard public figures say once I
found out about the fine people hoax I
was done with Democrats you've heard
that haven't you some some high-profile
people have said that recently so no
that one is the that's the Rosetta Stone
the fine people hoax more than all the
other hoaxes is the one that's so simple
to explain because they just clipped off
the part where he said he
clarified if you can get people to
realize that they've been that duped by
their own people they will be pissed and
that causes action anger causes action
and they will and they were the people
who have switched sides they say I was
angry when I found out what they did to
me and I'd been out there repeating this
hoax
forever
um
next um you need to the all the
supporters of trump need to refer to the
same page now there are some uh hoax
debunk sites but they're not organized
the way I just described and therefore
they have no value right and let me say
it again a list of hoaxes has no value
one it has to be
a page that tells you how they did it
how they did it is inescapable everybody
wants to know
how
um so let me let me give you the the the
talk that would do it the wrong answer
is well the fine people uh hoax has been
debunked it's been widely debunked
that's wrong doesn't work here's the
right if you want to lose all remaining
faith in the media now you have my
attention right
if the first thing I say is if you want
to lose all remaining faith in the media
that's so interesting that you're going
to listen to whatever comes next that's
a writing trick make your first sentence
like too interesting to to skip the
second sentence so you say if you want
to lose all remaining faith in the media
go to the hoax site give the URL to see
how how that hoax was created with a
fake edit you can see the unedited video
to see for yourself and when you're
there
look at how the other hoaxes were
created too it's appalling that we have
to live like this we need honest media
to have a great
country that would have ended the debate
by the
way if Trump had done that when the fine
people hoax came up he would have been
the winner of the debate and you
wouldn't have remembered anything
else and then further I would say that
we need a QR code that goes to the uh
the debunk page and it could be included
very easily on any other messaging that
has an image you know so just in the
corner of anything else you say just put
the QR code and you know hoax debunk
site something like that and uh then
then is sporters could take the QR code
we just take a picture of it ourselves
and every time somebody in the comments
or on X or anywhere on social media says
blah blah blah hoax you just say h check
this out
you either put the URL for a click or uh
put the QR
code and then
uh I would also preemptively predict how
the Democrats are going to respond with
more hoaxes and fake factchecking so you
might say you know if you got to check
this the the uh press is going to
respond we're just more new hoaxes but
now you know how they're made when you
see the new one check this page and
you'll see which C it fits in it's
either a mind reading or fake edit or
something out a context and you just
teach people to be experts as spotting
it and what's that's
called does does anybody understand the
technique I'm teaching you it has
another
name you've heard it
before oh come on you know this
one tell me what technique I'm using the
persuasion technique it's one Trum uses
all the time he just hasn't used it in
this
context all right I think the the
comments are a little delayed I think
you know this one it's called thinking
past the
sale the sale is that these are hoaxes
thinking past is let me show you how
they were done if you can make them
think about how they were done they have
uncritically accepted that these most be
hoaxes if they're worrying about how
they were done and that is a very strong
person persuasion trick it's one that
Trump uses all the time in other
contexts so he knows how to use it it's
one of his
best um meanwhile World War III is
kicking off save that for
last so apparently there the news is
saying that uh blinken Secretary of
State blinkin uh may have given Ukraine
the green light to send some
americanmade missiles uh deep into Russ
Russia as Putin has pointed out there is
no way that Ukraine could send these
missiles deep into Russia unless they
used NATO satellites which would make it
a NATO operation and unless the NATO
operators are the ones who
actually sort of set up the missiles and
probably push the button because it
isn't so easy just to hand these
missiles to somebody and say hey Point
them to Russia
doesn't work like that apparently
there's quite a bit that goes in to
making sure your your missile goes to
the right place and it's unlikely that
anybody except NATO people would be
firing
them so says Putin I'm not sure that's
true but that's what Putin says and that
would make it as Putin is trying to warn
us that would make it a NATO attack on
Moscow which would be a red line which
would allow him to use nuclear weapons
and you know I'd still bet against him
using nuclear weapons because he would
die right if Putin uses nuclear weapons
Putin's going to be dead there's no
question about that but so would a few
billion other people
so I think it's the last thing he wants
to do because he is
rational
um but
man here's what I would expect as a
response I think if an American missile
hits Moscow and they already have but
but if it becomes more of a major attack
on Moscow I think he's just going to
bulldoze ke Kev
Kev so obviously he's you know made
major attacks on ke the capital before
but I don't think he's really
concentrated on it I mean he could send
his entire Army his entire Air Force
just to turn it into Rebel and he might
and he wouldn't be wrong to do it in the
context of War nothing's good in war but
in the context of War if they do a
strong attack on Moscow and he has the
stronger
military if he wants to he can just
destroy the capital of Ukraine and with
no
remorse so I think that's more likely so
I think KF has to worry about what
they're getting um I
suppose I did hear an opinion the other
day that maybe uh you Ukraine and maybe
Israel would like to start more of a war
perhaps with Iran or Hezbollah which is
also Iran in a sense um but that it
might be the very best time to start a
war is right away because the United
States is so distracted and disjointed
at the moment that if you don't want a
strong response from America this would
be the time to do it now I don't know I
do not Embrace that to be
true so I'd like to give a message to
both uh Israel and Ukraine cuz I know
you're
watching if you take advantage of the
United States when we're temporarily
weakened you better finish us off
because if you take advantage just
because we don't have our together
for a few months whoever gets in power
is going to make that
right and we're not going to be happy
about it so my warning to anybody who
wants to take advantage of a little bit
of unrest in the United States is we're
not going to be
unstaffed right and we're not going to
be happy about it
so so uh I wouldn't I wouldn't mess with
us when we've got some
problems that that's going to come back
10 times stronger ER than you think and
I think that's just human nature I'm not
really saying anything that's some kind
of brilliant strategy or geopolitical
opinion I'm just saying human nature if
you with us when we're confused and
down we're going to be way matter way
matter when we get right and we're going
to get right pretty quickly especially
if you with us so if you want the
United States to organize and be United
for once just with us when we got
some trouble like during the election
season yeah you're going to pay for that
that that's going to be the most
expensive thing you've ever
done so just want you to know that
meanwhile Russia has their own thermite
spewing Dragon drones so you saw that
the Ukraine has these thermite it's
basically fire uh fire breathing drones
now when you imagine how bad that would
be um you think to yourself well it's a
little drone
how far can it throw fire anyway I mean
it seems like itd have to get pretty
close and it can't be that powerful oh
yeah it can because it turns out that
the way they're doing it is they're
having the fire just use gravity so in
other words they just fly over something
and there's something about this
thermite that makes it basically almost
like a solid so the fire falls like a
solid
and it's some bad stuff so really bad
stuff
so I'm seeing a comment you suffer from
the same idiot mindset most western
people do you look at other people as if
they like you they are not Russia is not
susceptible to your big mouth never was
never will
be well you sound like a
idiot all
right see you are somebody who doesn't
understand how anything in the world
works you don't think that Russia and
China are watching public opinion in the
United
States you don't know how risk
management works either if I increase
the risk profile of any
action it changes Behavior maybe not in
the end but it changes the likelihood of
behavior so does Russia care about what
Americans think
yes they do you idiot does
Israel care about what Americans think
yes they do you idiot they do
because our actions will determine a lot
to them do we care about how they think
yes we do because it matters to us to
imagine that other countries don't give
a what the United States thinks
about vaporizing them with nuclear
weapons is the dumbest thing
I've seen all day so great comment there
you're doing
great anyway I feel a little spicy today
because I may have gotten enough sleep
for the first time so ladies and
gentlemen this
concludes my uh my prepared
remarks and I'm going to go talk to the
locals people except that one uh
privately and uh I'll see you
tomorrow and maybe in the man cave
toight if you're part of locals so it
takes a while for us this uh to be
active it's going to be about 30 seconds
before I'm talking to locals
privately
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e for
