Episode 3012 CWSA 11/08/25

come on in.

It took me uh a few minutes to find the cursor.

I literally couldn't find the cursor to go live.

Uh I was complaining before the show when I was talking to the uh to the uh locals people separately and privately.

Um I was complaining about somebody designing a black interface, which is what the Rumble Studio is.

It's like a black interface.

The background is mostly black and the cursor is black.

So the whole time I'm like, "Where's the freaking cursor?

Where's the freaking cursor?

It's time for my show.

I need a cursor." So if you're listening, Rumble, people with old eyes cannot tell the difference between the cursor color and the background color, which makes the interface really hard to use.

If you're over a certain age, I think it's age.

I don't know what else it would be.

All right, comments are working.

We got everything now.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance of lifting this situation to the highest elevation, something that humans can't even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, if you want that, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shells or Stein canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure dopamine here of the day.

The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.

And happens now go.

Ah, very good.

Very good.

Well, I don't know about you, but all morning I've been sitting here thinking, what is today's date?

If only I had some kind of a calendar device that I could keep on my desk at all times and entertain me and also tell me valuable information about what today is.

It's called the Dilbert calendar.

It's available now only on Amazon and you got to be in America.

I'm sorry if you're in Kazakhstan.

You cannot buy this.

You'd want it.

Oh man, you'd want it.

But you can't buy it.

No, you cannot go to Amazon Kazakhstan and buy this.

only America.

It's made in America, too.

And uh has a comic on both sides this year.

The Dilbert Reborn.

The spicy ones are on the back so you don't alarm your co-workers.

And then also we're going to start out as tradition requires with a reframe from my book Reframe Your Brain, the best most important book in your whole life.

Um, here's one of the best reframes for me.

I just love this one.

All right.

Um, the usual frame is that whatever you think of as your ego is you.

You are not your ego.

Because if you're protecting your ego, you're actually protecting your enemy.

Your ego is your enemy.

Elon Musk said this recently in a podcast.

uh he basically said ego is the enemy.

Your ego is the enemy.

If you won't do a thing because you think, "Oh, that's beneath me, but it needs to get done." Well, that's not a good strategy.

So, if you can learn to eliminate your ego, you can you can hire people who are better at a job than you are.

Have you ever worked with somebody who refused to hire somebody who was smarter than them?

I have.

I I've worked with somebody who wouldn't hire somebody who was smarter than they were.

How do you think that worked out?

I mean, just take a guess.

How did that work out?

Yeah, exactly like you think.

So, get rid of your ego first, whatever that takes.

I recommend things like the Dale Carnegie course or anything that gets you in an embarrassing situation.

So, embarrassment is not something you should avoid.

It's something you should practice.

I learned that from Dale Carnegie.

Well, let me say that again because that's that's the key point.

You ready?

Your ego is something you you should look to destroy and you should look to embarrass yourself as often as possible because that's how you build that superpower.

The more you embarrass yourself, the more you get used to it until you realize, wow, I didn't I didn't die any of those times.

All right.

After this show today, Owen Gregorian will be hosting his afterparty on spaces.

All you need to do to find that is go to Owen Gregorian.

Just uh do a search on his name and you'll see the link.

So, it'll be on spaces.

That's the audio only feature on X.

I wonder if there's any science that they uh didn't need to do because they could have just asked Scott H.

Oh, here's some.

Eric Nolan writing for the Cypost.

I love Eric.

I wonder if anybody has ever told Eric Dolan that I mention him almost every live stream.

I do like his I do like his uh uh his content.

Um but it's just funny that he's always on the list of things you could have asked me.

All right, here's the latest.

Uh there's a study that says that higher fluid intelligence is associated with more structured cognitive maps.

Let me explain what that means.

In nerd talk, fluid intelligence and cognitive maps are two kind of things that are important to your brain function and how smart you are.

I can simplify this.

You want a simplification?

Smart people are smart.

No, really.

If you find somebody who's really smart in one domain, the odds of them being dumb in the other domains rather low.

Now, it's possible that you could be a, you know, genius in, I don't know, math but bad at something else.

It could happen.

But generally speaking, if you're just looking for the averages, yeah, generally speaking, smart people are smart in general.

All right, here's another one.

This is also from Cypost.

Vladimir Hedria is writing that women, this has been tested now.

Women can read age, adiposity, and testosterone levels from a man's face.

Now, adiposity is fat.

Basically, they can tell if you're overweight by your face.

Did you know that you could tell somebody's overweight by looking at their face?

Yes, you did.

You You didn't even have to ask Scott.

Did you know that uh women can identify more testosterone?

Maybe they don't think of it as more testosterone, but when asked to identify it that they're way above average.

Yes, you knew that because the the men with high testosterone look like me, don't they?

I I have the I have the classic high testosterone chin.

If you want to if you want to know what it looks like, it's that.

Now, uh I also have the high testosterone uh male pattern and baldness.

So, basically I have every every sign you could have uh for I have sort of an angular face.

You know, it's all it's all obviously testosterone.

Now, at the moment, I have no testosterone at all because I'm on the testosterone blockers, but you know, I had already been fully formed by then.

So yes, anybody, women or men, we can all tell who has the most testosterone.

Um, the government government of Denmark has announced what they call an agreement.

I don't even know what this means.

Why is it an agreement as opposed to a law or something?

They they announced an agreement uh to ban access to social media for anyone under 15 in Denmark.

Uh, I assume that just means the the uh residents, not if you're passing through.

I don't know.

Maybe if you're passing through, too.

Um, but they're concerned that young people are getting too caught up in the online world.

What do you think of that?

Do you do you think that first of all that will work or will they just do VPNs?

Can't the kids just do a VPN and suddenly nobody knows who's what?

Well, it feels like the kids will get around that, but maybe it'll reduce it.

I I like it directionally, but it's worth testing.

So, I won't criticize the details because this is definitely the sort of thing that we should be looking at testing.

If they're going to test it in Denmark, good.

Do that first.

So, I I saw a headline that uh Starbucks was having some some problems because they introduced a new very cool looking cup for coffee.

And the coffee cup looks like a cute little bear, a little bear.

And apparently, it's so popular that people are arguing about it, you know, to get the last one.

And they're semifighting in line.

and uh and uh Starbucks actually had to release an apology because their product was so good that it caused trouble.

Now that's pretty good.

Whoever designed that stupid little bear into a cup.

I said to myself, "Well, there's no way you'd get in a fight over a cup that looks like a bear.

That's not going to happen." And then I looked at the story and clicked on it and I saw the little bear.

And as soon as I saw the little bear, I said, "Oh, oh, now I totally get it.

I would fight over that little bear.

I probably wouldn't have a fist fight over it, but I might, you know, if if one of my young kids really absolutely had to have that bear and it was the last one and there was something I could do to make it happen, maybe I'd fight over it.

It's actually a really good cup.

Like crazy good cup.

You should see it.

It's just really good.

So, whoever designed that, A+.

I saw this on a Colin Rug uh post.

It's their most successful piece of merchandise.

Well, Jesse Waters has a I'll call it a scoop.

He says his sources, I think he said this yesterday, that his sources in the Senate say the moderate Democrats are about to cave on keeping the government open and that they might vote to open it.

However, at the same time, at the same time, Minority Leader Schumer um has a counter offer.

He says, "Democrats are ready to clear the way to quickly pass a government funding bill that includes healthcare affordability." Now, I think in this context, what he wants to do is just extend the Obamacare tax credits for a year while the Republicans and Democrats work out, you know, how to improve it.

Isn't that reasonable?

Doesn't that seem to you like a completely reasonable compromise?

because they didn't want to open the government at all unless they got something in return.

So if you want to give them something in return, the best thing you can give somebody in a negotiation is what?

If you're negotiating and you're going to give somebody something so that you know you've compromised, what's the best thing to give them?

The answer is nothing.

The best thing to give them is nothing.

Do you know what this is?

It's nothing.

>> >> It's nothing because you wouldn't be able to fix Obamacare in 7 weeks or whatever we have before we have we have to have a real law.

It's going to take a year to fix it.

Whatever the problem is, you think that the government can get it fixed in less than a year?

So, my take on this is all he's offering is what was going to happen anyway, no matter what no matter what anybody wanted to happen.

In the real world, this takes a year.

Am I wrong?

So really what he's offering is what was going to happen anyway.

Hey, this is going to take longer than you thought.

Why don't we do it right instead of slapping it together?

Now if your take is no, I'm not going to spend one more dime.

You were going to spend the dime anyway.

You just didn't know it.

If if I could prevent you from having to spend one more dime on Obamacare, I'd help you.

I'd do it.

But there's no path to that.

There's definitely a path to spending more than we want to spend for one more year, but getting serious about fixing it.

I don't even know how you would lower the cost, but smarter people would be involved than me.

So, uh, so I'm looking at your comments because I'm I'm actually very interested.

Sorry, I'm in such pain in my one arm.

Uh, nope.

I'm on the wrong page here.

I thought I was looking at your comments, but they were the old ones.

Here we go.

Now we're go.

Damn it.

Um, just looking at your comments.

One next crisis brings us to the next crisis.

Your geek bar just kicked in.

You do two years.

One year is reasonable.

Uh, makes it makes us look bad at midterms.

When are we once again going to say no to subsidies?

Does it do you think there's a clever midterm play that the the Democrats are doing?

I don't know.

The COVID subsidies which don't apply.

All right.

All right.

Well, the so my my current take is that the Democrats are finding trying to find a egof-ree we didn't really lose weight to get past the government closure.

This looks reasonable to me.

It looks reasonable.

You know, if if Trump negotiated it down to 9 months or six months or something, also reasonable.

But we now have entered the what I would call the common sense zone where what the Democrats are offering sounds like but you know there's a lot of nuance and all this stuff.

I could be wrong about the where the details are going.

It sounds like they're at least creeping into something that would be reasonable.

You know giving somebody a little extra time to do something that's really complicated.

That's just a reasonable ask.

I don't know how you argue against that, but we will.

Apparently, 30 subpoenas have gone out in Florida to some of the people who were involved in the Russia gate hoax.

People such as Adam Schiff and John Brennan and Lisa Page and Peter Stro, I guess 20ome other people.

Do you think any of those subpoenas are going to turn into anything like jail time?

How many of you believe that based on everything you've lived through, everything you've seen, everything you know about the government, that the logical end end state here is that these people who clearly were doing something inappropriate, I don't know what's legal and what's not legal?

I'm not good at that.

But clearly something monstrously inappropriate.

Just monstrously.

Overthrowing the government, that's that's pretty bad.

Uh, but you think they'll be I I just don't feel like they're going to be punished.

It just doesn't feel like that's where it's going.

It might go there.

It might doesn't feel like it.

I don't know why.

I think it's just pattern recognition, right?

I've seen too many times we've been disappointed.

So, it just feels like, you know, Charlie Brown in the football every day.

All right.

We'll we'll watch that one.

All right.

Here's uh here's one we're going to do a little factchecking on.

Okay, I want you to we're going to do is this real or not real?

So, you all know that Nancy Pelosi got very rich uh trading stocks during her time in office and uh her percentage gains were way better than other people.

Now, when she's challenged about that, and obviously it looks like insider trading, um, which is legal, completely legal for people in Congress.

They're the only ones that can do it.

They can actually do insider trading, uh, and it's legal.

So, some say that's what she was doing, but she denies it.

Now, the reason I haven't been much on this story, you've probably noticed, I know you've been asking me to cover this more or forever, and I don't, is because I don't treat things that are legal the same way I treat things that are illegal.

So, so for the same reason that there are other things I say, well, it's legal, such as pardons.

We're going to talk about a pardon in a little bit.

I don't like pardons, but they're designed such that nobody is supposed to like them and they're totally legal and they're transparent mostly.

Even if they're not, it's still legal.

So, if something is totally legal, I just don't feel like bitching about is worth worth the time.

So, but I've got a question about what's real, what's true.

Um, so apparently her, let's say, her current death worth is close to 300 million, but uh in 2024 it was yeah in it was over 300 million in 2024.

Went down a little bit it looks like.

But uh she beat the averages by a million miles.

But here's the part I wanted to suggest.

When when asked to explain why she did so well, she says she's not the one who does the trading.

She says her husband is the one who does the stock trades.

Now, is that what you would say?

H how is that a good alibi?

Don't we just assume that all she'd have to do is tell her husband what to buy?

That's no alibi at all.

Why would you go with such a weak alibi?

Oh, my husband does the trading.

Who would do that?

In In what world would you give the weakest the weakest alibi?

There's only one world that you would do that.

You didn't have a better alibi.

If you had a better one, you'd use it, right?

As in, oh, I'll give you an example.

Uh, let's say that most of her gains was in one or two stocks and she said, you know what, I was watching the same news you were, and to me it looked like AI was going to be big.

So, I bought a bunch of Nvidia early, and that's about, you know, that's about 30% of all my gains.

But then I also got lucky.

and then then tell a story basically of how she did in fact make ordinary investments and they just happened to be good and they did unusually well.

Now I'm not saying that's really what happened.

I'm saying if that is what happened, why wouldn't you go with that?

That would be that would be an entirely at least believable.

I mean, she could prove when she bought something and when she sold it and you could look at the headlines and you could say, "Didn't we all know that that was going to be good or did she have some special access?" Now, it does seem guilty as hell when she just says, "My husband does the trading." Now, he's professional, so if he does trading, he should do better than other people, right?

Maybe not that better.

not that much better.

So, yeah, that looks like it's exactly what it looks like.

It's just a mass of a bunch of insider trading or she's very bad at alibis.

One of the one of the two.

Apparently, Trump has reached some kind of hundred billion dollar trade deal with Usbekiststan.

Thank God.

We've all been waiting for this one.

It's the big one.

Use Beckistan.

Finally.

Finally.

Um, do you believe that it's a hundred billion dollar deal?

Well, first of all, it's over 10 years, so more like 10 billion.

But it's a small place.

36 million people live there.

However, every single day, as I've been telling you for a long time, every day that Trump can make one of these trade deals, and there are a lot of countries left, it makes it look like progress, doesn't it?

I mean, it looks like something good happened.

And if he just keeps rolling these up, like today is Usuzbekistan, maybe tomorrow is Kazakhstan, day after that is Albonia, it's just going to look like he's getting a lot done, which he is.

All right.

Um, the name of the USB president is Shave Cat.

S H A V K A T.

Shave the Cat.

All right.

I like them already.

All right, here's a story you all want me to talk about.

Blaze Media has a a pretty big breaking news scoop.

So, uh, they're investigative journalist Steve Baker of Blaze Media.

Um, apparently he worked with some entities that can do gate analysis, which is the gate is how you walk.

You know, the specific way you walk.

And the claim is that using this gate analysis that they've identified a woman who planted the pipe bomb on January 6.

Remember the pipe bomb planter was on video, but you couldn't see any face, but you see the body and you can see him walk.

We thought it was a man probably, but it's a woman.

And uh the claim is that the odds if you add if you add together the fact that the gate analysis is usually in the 90% accuracy and you add to that some human intelligence they they pop the odds that he has identified the correct person at around 98%.

That's a high number.

Now, do you believe that the the other thing that sort of, you know, raises your eyebrow is that the person named was a US Capitol police officer?

Uh-oh.

Shaunie Kirkoff.

Where do you think she works now?

Let's see.

She's accused, just accused, this is an allegation only, of planting that pipe bomb under the role of being a US Capital Police officer.

Where does she work now?

Take a guess.

Where did she get promoted to?

Uh, it's a place called the CIA.

That's right.

If she had moved to anywhere on the whole planet except the CIA, I think I would have just missed this.

But really, really?

All right.

But now I'm going to give you my uh BS filter tests.

Remember, I've given you lots of uh ways to find out if something is is or real.

What would you expect to see if this were real?

Meaning that it was a real thing and you could you could tell by somebody's walk that it was them.

What would you expect that you, the public, would be shown?

I would expect I would see two videos.

one video of the person walking on January 6, which is available, but then secondly, I would expect that the public would have seen by now a video of her walking in her daily life, so that you and I can look at it and say, "Yeah, that looks that looks like the same walk." Now, we don't have to be computers to recognize that somebody has a distinctive walk, right?

But what would happen if the entire claim is based on comparing two videos and the best that you can get is you know that somebody talked to somebody who talked to somebody who saw the videos and says that they're the same person.

And secondly, how did they know even who to look for?

How in the world do you find that one person?

If what you're doing is searching all the people in the world that you have some kind of gate analysis for, I don't know how they collected it.

Maybe they collected it from public cameras or something.

Uh, how in the world would you know who the person was to even check their walk?

So, I'm going to put this down as the not credible.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Uh, I do think Glenn Beck is credible and I'm I'm sure that this uh investigative journalist has a good reputation, Steve Baker.

But if you can't cross the bar to show me the only thing I care about, which is the two videos next to each other, and how the hell did you get the one of them that wasn't from January 6?

Like, why would you even have any of that?

So, the questions are bigger than the answers.

Um, so I'm not buying this one.

I'm I'm going to say this does not make the sale.

Now, if you're new to me, you think I just said it wasn't true, right?

Is that right?

Did anybody hear me say it wasn't true?

I didn't say that.

I use the word credible very carefully.

Credible means, you know, maybe the lawyer made the case.

It doesn't mean it's true.

It doesn't mean it's false.

But this is not credible as presented.

Do you remember when uh uh Desh Duza uh made some claims about the people dropping things off in dropboxes?

And you remember what I said about that?

If you can't show me at least a video or two of the same person dropping multiple things in these boxes, I don't think you really have anything because that's the only thing that would have convinced me.

And then I think in the end we did not get those videos.

So this is sort of reminding me of that.

There's one thing that matters.

Show me the video.

It's the one thing we don't have.

Sketchy.

So it could be true.

It could be true.

So let me say that as clearly as possible.

It could be true.

It's just not hitting the credibility level that I would expect.

Anyway, um but we'll wait to hear more about that.

Some of it just might be I'm not as up to date on it as I should be.

So, but the people the people involved uh are all credible as far as I know.

Um, are you would you be surprised to know that some people are questioning some of the election results from last week, the special election, the three governors?

Well, it turns out according to PJ Media and Matt Morgololis who's writing about this, there's a uh pollster who's looking at the numbers and apparently one of the it was the New Jersey race.

The winner won by a surprising margin.

A margin that nobody nobody predicted.

Just suddenly the polls stopped working for that one race.

They worked for the other races, but the polls just didn't work for that New Jersey one.

Do you know why the polls didn't work for the New Jersey race?

Well, the claim, and again, I who knows is a claim.

The claim is that 500,000 Democrats suddenly materialized after not voting in the last three gubanatorial elections.

Is there anything else you need to know that half a million people suddenly were Democrats and suddenly voted whereas they hadn't voted in the last three elections and there was nothing really that.

But then you say, "But Scott, maybe they just registered a lot of Democrats." No.

No, that didn't happen.

Just half a million people disappeared and it turns out that they mostly voted in the same direction.

So now we watched so many claims being made about 2020 and none of them, as far as I know, none of them panned out.

At least in terms of a, you know, the court, there's no court that ruled that, you know, something went wrong at a big at a big level.

Anyway, uh this feels a lot like that, doesn't it?

If you had to predict, what do you think is more likely to happen?

That we will learn that the half a million number is just bad data and that really there's not half a million more and they just cared more because of I don't know if they wanted to defeat Trump or something.

So, do you think it's going to be that this really is or in the end is it going to disappear like so many other claims about elections when somebody says, "Ah, you just counted the numbers wrong or you were looking at the wrong list.

It's not 500,000." Which which which way do you think this will go?

I don't know about this one.

It it feels to me like it this would be way too much thumb on way too much scale that anybody thought they could get away with it.

So, I'm going to go with this will never be proven.

This is what I call a category problem for for credibility.

It's in the category of things that tend not to get proven.

It doesn't mean it's not true.

Again, difference between credibility and what's true or not true.

There's a difference, but it feels to me just like all those other Kraken kind of stories where somebody's got a claim that's so big.

It's such a big claim that it feels like if it were true, you wouldn't you get to the bottom of it kind of quickly because it's just out there sm slapping you in the face.

It's so big.

But I'll bet we don't.

I'll bet this just disappears.

We'll see.

Well, Trump's going after the meat packers, so to speak.

The meat packers, if you know what I mean.

Wink wink.

Uh, no, it's actually people who actually pack meat, real meat, the real kind.

And, uh, he thinks that the meat packers, especially some some number of them are foreign u foreign companies that operate in the US.

Uh, and they're allegedly manipulating prices to keep the price high.

And Trump is going to have the DOJ look into their meat packing business.

See if they're cheating.

Those cheating, they're cheating or eating.

Stop it.

Be nice.

Be nice in the comments.

All right.

>> >> Uh uh and uh Trump is still pushing for the filibuster under the theory that the Democrats would do it if they were in charge, which I think they will.

Uh so James Carville has already warned that the Democrats are absolutely definitely going to get rid of the filibuster if they get in charge and he thinks that they will in 2028.

So, if it's going to happen anyway, does it make sense that Trump would want it to happen under his term?

If you know it's going to happen anyway, it's a strong argument for doing it first.

So, I think that's where Carville up.

Carville should have said there's no way.

There's no way the Democrats are going to get rid of that filibuster while simultaneously believing, "Oh, we're totally going to get rid of that filibuster.

We're going to get rid of that so hard.

we'll just claim or not so that they could, you know, get past a Republican administration and then get all their own goodies.

So, I think Trump is smart enough to know that they're definitely going to do this because they're, as he would say, cruel, evil, bad people.

But he listed the things that he could get done uh if uh if he gets rid of the filibuster.

So he'd be able to get rid of u he'd be able to install voter ID as a requirement.

No mail in voting, no cash bill, no men and women sports, no welfare for illegals.

I'm sure the list is longer than that, but those do seem like kind of bigish things.

The there are a lot of people who would say this the number one thing you want him to fix.

The number one thing is the voter ID mail and voting situation.

If he only did that, would there ever be another Democrat president?

Because the play here is kind of interesting.

The only way it makes sense to get rid of the filibuster is if you have some confidence that your team will be in there next time and maybe the time after, which is not normal.

You know, normal normally there's going to be a Democrat and then a Republican, you know, sooner or later.

So, if Trump knows for sure that they're going to do it, and he knows for sure that if he fixes the voter ID and the mailing, basically the election integrity, if he fixes the election integrity before 2028, can a Democrat ever get elected?

The only way this makes sense is if he thinks that he can prevent Democrats from being elected by getting rid of cheating in the election.

Is that a good assumption?

It's not bad.

I don't know.

I don't know if it'll make a difference.

I don't know because I don't know how much anybody has or will cheat.

I don't know.

But if you assume, and I assume that Trump knows more than we do about, you know, what bad behavior people are doing, if he's pretty sure that these changes would lock in a Republican or at least, when I say Republican, I'm going to say at least a Federman level Democrat.

You know what I mean?

So, like the furthest it could go would be to a Federman type of Democrat, not a not a crazy ass Democrat.

Maybe there's something to this filibuster.

Well, meanwhile, the US and Hungary trying to be best friends.

Trump loves the the head of Hungary, Orban, and he's visiting, I guess, now.

And Orban says it's the golden age of US-Hungry relationships.

This is in the European conservative.

Now, what do you think of that?

If you are a Democrat, you say, "Oh my god, they all the foreign leaders have learned that you can just flatter Trump by saying, you know, using his words and his framing and if you flatter him enough, you know, then you can influence him and you can get what you want." Is that how you take that?

That is true in the sense that flattery is a component of persuasion, but it's not not a strong part.

is sort of a weak part.

Here's the part that nobody sees coming.

If Trump can make everybody think that if they talk the way he talks, frame things the way he frames them, and give him a king's crown when he visits, for example, uh that they can influence him.

That's exactly the opposite of what's happening.

if he can make other foreign leaders essentially wear the clothes he wants to wants them to wear, say the things he wants them to say, and do the things he wants to do on a small scale, small scale, such as using his framing of the golden age, very small, but it's his.

And every time he can get a foreign leader to act the way he acts, even if the foreign leader is thinking, "Haha, he's falling for my persuasion.

I'm just talking the way he does and it's going to work.

No, if it was about one thing, then maybe it would just be flattery and it would work.

But if you fall into his larger his larger frame for everything, you sort of become his subordinate, not in a technical way, but in a persuasion way because you you just sort of fall into the frame.

So he is has such a strong frame meaning the way he looks at things and you know what he includ what what he says is important what isn't important that's the frame it's such a strong frame and consistent he doesn't change his frame too much if ever uh it's easier for people to fall in and thinking that they're influencing him and the next thing you know they've effectively hypnotized themselves to think that what he says is the common sense smart thing for the ne for whatever the next thing is.

So I don't know that most of you would have spotted that would you would you have known that you know in the surface level flattery is what they're getting what what they're giving him and it works but as soon as you get to the next level of falling into the larger frames like immigration and crime because you notice a lot of foreign leaders are falling into his immigration crime NATO NATO is another one uh rare earth minerals you you could just go right down the line and you'd find things that Trump created the frame and then the foreign leaders fell into it.

You see it everywhere and it starts with the small stuff that other people think is flattery.

You probably saw because it made a lot of news, not very important but everybody's talking about it is that Ben Shapiro and Megan Kelly got into it a little bit on some event.

they're on stage and uh I don't know what's true here.

I can tell you that Grock had one version and I've heard now two different versions of what's true.

But the the basic idea is that uh Ben claims Ben Shapiro claimed that Candace Owens is implicating Charlie Kirk's widow in his assassination.

And Megan Kelly said, "What?

I never heard of that.

that that he's that Candace is blaming uh Charlie Kirk's widow for being part of a murder plot.

And so Ben basically, you know, sort of suggested that she's not up to date.

Um I was not aware of that.

I was not aware that there's a claim of that.

I don't think it's true.

Obviously, I don't think it's true.

So, so I'm starting with obviously there's nothing to it and I don't think that TPUSA had anything to do with anything.

I think this is Candace content.

She's very good at connecting dots even when the dots shouldn't be connected.

It's a Bible code problem.

Um, yeah.

So, the first thing I would say is Ben Shapiro, why do you think that the rest of us would be so invested in that conversation that we would know that?

And then secondly, I look to see if it's true.

And I don't even know if it's true.

It It doesn't seem true that Candace directly accused her of murder, right?

I I think it's more like, hm, I have questions.

This thing happened at the same time as this thing.

Why did this thing happen right after that thing?

Now, I find that interesting content.

Um, it gets a little creepy when it involves somebody, you know, who died recently.

So that's that's a separate thing.

But I do like hearing the conspiracy theories.

I do like when somebody can back it up with some, you know, details, even if I don't think it's true.

It's kind of fun.

So I So as of this morning, I still don't know what is true.

I don't believe that I would ever find a quote where Candace was directly accusing either TPUSA or or Erica for being part of the murder.

But but Ben Shapiro thinks that that that's an indisputable fact and he's smarter than me and he's paying attention to this more than I am.

So I don't know what's going on here.

Do you?

But but the main thing I wanted to tell you actually it's the only thing I want to say is I didn't know it.

So I'm in the same business as Megan Kelly.

I just don't do it as well.

I'm in the same business.

I wake up every morning and I read all the, you know, the political gossip and everything.

I didn't know this.

Why would I know it?

And I feel a little insulted that that's a problem that she wouldn't know it or it was a problem that I didn't know it.

and we're both in the business of watching the news.

I think it's because it's not true, right?

I feel like I'd know it if it were true that she had really said that directly.

Now, if she had she if she'd been creeping around the edges, uh I wouldn't be delighted with that, but it'd be entertaining.

So, I don't know.

I just wondered what you thought about that.

I I do think that this whole thing of conservatives fighting with conservatives, it really has everything to do with the fact that they're winning.

You the conservatives are winning so hard that they're running out of things to complain about, so they just turn their guns on each other.

Doesn't it feel like that?

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way, but it just feel feels like we ran out of things to do, so we have to go after each other.

I I just don't like to be part of that.

So, I love uh I love Ben Shapiro, one of the most skilled people in the game.

Megan Kelly, one of the most skilled people in the game, probably the best podcaster in my opinion.

Um I don't need to go after either one of them.

Well, it's Saturday, so that means that yesterday was Bill Maher becoming more of a Republican every day.

On every Friday, he becomes a little bit more Republican, but not really.

He's not he's not going to become a Republican.

But here's the latest.

uh he's weighing in on the Trump ballroom.

So, Bill Maher said, when he first mentioned it, it was all about, oh my god, he's desecrating the White House.

And then I finally read, oh well, they've done this to the White House before.

It's just a building, I think.

Um and then Mara is pointing out, we don't have a place where they have state dinners.

They're doing it in a tent.

This is America.

So, do I give a that he's doing this to the White House?

I really don't.

And it's private money.

Save your eye for things that matter.

There you go.

Now, what would you call that?

Is that a Republican opinion, a Democrat opinion, or a common sense opinion?

That's a common sense opinion.

Every time somebody goes into the common sense zone, they're sort of in the MAGA zone.

Not entirely, but you got one foot in there.

If you're if you're arguing common sense and you're arguing it well as he is, then also uh Bill Maher uh was in favor of Trump's Golden Dome, the the missile protection system that we're trying to build.

Uh Maher said, "I have a problem." He's responding to one of his guests.

He goes, "I have a problem if we don't build it.

Just because Trump thought of it, I'm not against it." something that would stop the increasing number of rogue missiles in this world from maybe coming over here and incinerating me.

Yeah, mark me down as pro for that.

I'm pro having now.

Can we do it?

I don't know.

He says it'll take three years and $180 billion and they the Democrats say, "Well, that's BS, but that's to be a worthy investment." Yeah, maybe it'll have cost overruns, he he went on to say, but that's everything.

Everything has a cost overrun.

Now, is this opinion Democrat or Republican or just common sense?

It's just common sense.

So, doesn't it feel to you as if he's got that one foot in MAGA?

He's not going to have the religious foot, right?

Don't ever expect him to, you know, pick up his Bible and say, "Finally, I've decided." No, but in the common sense domain, he's completely in.

and he actually recognesly, but uh he knows what common sense looks like and he's willing to call it out despite what trouble it brings him.

I like that.

Well, there are two court decisions.

The Supreme Court and uh I'm going to confess that these are so boring that I didn't want to look into them and they're going to change 10 times before before tomorrow.

But the Supreme Court apparently uh temporary pause snap payments which is denying the pause of the denial of the pause of the pause from the lower courts.

Pause of the snap of the payments of the pause.

All these stories are so filled with with negatives that you don't know exactly what got paused.

Wait, you pause the blocking of it.

Okay, the blocking of it means you don't get it, but you pause the blocking, but now another court says you have to unpause the blocking.

These are impenetrable stories.

I I hope every everybody gets fed and they don't starve to death because of paperwork, but it looks like that's coming.

Also, a federal judge ruled that So, there's something about SNAP.

You can read up on it if you care.

Uh there's a federal job judge ruled that u Trump illegally ordered troops to Oregon.

And then the judge permanently barred Trump administration from deploying the National Guard troops in Portland permanently.

How can he do that permanently?

Is that even an option?

The judge can say it's permanent.

Can't the next judge unpermanent to permanent?

Permanent seems like the wrong word.

Anyway, that's happening.

There will be more court cases.

Expect the the barring to be unbared and the barring of the barring to be unbared by the barring.

Meanwhile, you remember Katie Porter, that horrible human being who was screaming at her assistant and being kind of a bad person on video.

And at one point, she was leading in the polls to be the next governor of California.

Uh but apparently she got so much push back from that you know terrible hit on on video that uh her polling has gone from 17% which would have been a leading leading in a big field down to 11%.

Guess who's guess who's number one in the California poll.

Now, this won't last, but the number one uh person in the current governor of California poll, now it's not Newsome, of course, he's not running.

The answer is a Republican.

There's a Republican in the lead for California governor.

There's no way that's going to last.

But there's a Republican.

So, it's a Riverside County Sheriff Chad Biano.

He now leads the field with 13%.

So 13 I I think that's actually what Trump had when he entered the race around 13%.

Right.

So is there any is there any possibility any possibility that a Republican could win in California?

I'm going to go out on a limb.

Yes.

There there is a there is a genuine chance.

And and Steve Hilton's still in the game, too.

Steve Hilton seems to, you know, I believe he would have a set of policies that at least the right would like lot.

I don't know anything about Riverside County Sheriff Chad Biano, but it's nice that we got options, isn't it?

All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you're just joining late, you probably didn't hear that today is November 8th, a very special day for reasons that you don't know, but I do.

And uh if you don't have your Dilbert calendar for 2026, now I would rush because we really didn't print enough.

So, somebody's going to be really mad at me in December.

Hey, I went to order my calendar and you're all sold out, which we might be because we did intentionally go low on the printing because it's expensive.

So, we'll see.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers, as awesome as they are.

And the rest of you, I hope to see tomorrow, same time, same place.

And uh right after the show, make sure you check in with Owen Gregorian on his spaces event where he'll talk about this sort of stuff maybe and some other stuff too which will be fun.

And uh so just search for Owen Gregorian and you'll see a link to his uh his spaceless event that'll happen not very long from now.

He'll fire it up after we're done.

All right, let's see.

Oh.

Oh god, that hurts.

I can't lift one arm.

I've got half an arm.

My hand doesn't work on this one, but my arm doesn't work on the other one.

And then the cursor is disappeared.

All right, cursor.

me.

I can't find the cursor again.

All right, we're going to have to move the computer to another space so I can mess around with it in less pain.

Oh, okay.

That doesn't hurt.

All right, cursor.

There you are.

Found you.

come on in. It took me uh a few minutes

to find the cursor.

I literally couldn't find the cursor to

go live. Uh I was complaining before the

show when I was talking to the uh to the

uh locals people separately

and privately.

Um I was complaining about somebody

designing a black interface, which is

what the Rumble Studio is. It's like a

black interface. The background

[clears throat] is mostly black and the

cursor is black.

So the whole time I'm like, "Where's the

freaking cursor? Where's the freaking

cursor? [sighs]

It's time for my show. I need a cursor."

So if you're listening, Rumble, people

with old eyes cannot tell the difference

between the cursor color and the

background color, which makes the

interface really hard to use.

If you're over a certain age, I think

it's age. I don't know what else it

would be. All right, comments are

working.

We got everything now.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance of lifting

this situation to the highest elevation,

something that humans can't even

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains. Well, if you want that, all you

need for that is a copper mug or a glass

of tanker shells or Stein canteen jugger

flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure dopamine here of

the day. The thing that makes everything

better is called the simultaneous sip.

And happens now go.

Ah, very good. Very good.

Well, I don't know about you, but all

morning I've been sitting here thinking,

what is today's date? If only I had some

kind of a calendar device that I could

keep on my desk at all times and

entertain me and also tell me valuable

information about what today is. It's

called the Dilbert calendar. It's

available now only on Amazon and you got

to be in America. I'm sorry if you're in

Kazakhstan. You cannot buy this. You'd

want it. Oh man, you'd want it. But you

can't buy it. No, you cannot go to

Amazon Kazakhstan and buy this. only

America.

It's made in America, too. And uh has a

comic on both sides this year. The

Dilbert Reborn. The spicy ones are on

the back so you don't

alarm your co-workers. And then also

we're going to start out as tradition

requires with a reframe from my book

Reframe Your Brain, the best most

important book in your whole life. Um,

here's one of the best reframes for me.

I just love this one.

All right. Um, the usual frame is that

whatever you think of as your ego

is you.

You are not your ego. Because if you're

protecting your ego, you're actually

protecting your enemy. Your ego is your

enemy.

Elon Musk said this recently in a

podcast. uh he basically said ego is the

enemy. Your ego is the enemy. If you

won't do a thing because you think, "Oh,

that's beneath me, but it needs to get

done." Well, that's not a good strategy.

So, if you can learn to eliminate your

ego, you can you can hire people who are

better at a job than you are.

Have you ever worked with somebody who

refused to hire somebody who was smarter

than them? I have. I I've

[clears throat] worked with somebody who

wouldn't hire somebody who was smarter

than they were. How do you think that

worked out? I mean, just take a guess.

How did that work out? Yeah, exactly

like you think. So, get rid of your ego

first, whatever that takes. I recommend

things like the Dale Carnegie course or

anything that gets you in an

embarrassing situation. So,

embarrassment is not something you

should avoid. It's something you should

practice. I learned that from Dale

Carnegie.

Well, let me say that again because

that's that's the key point.

You ready?

Your ego is something you you should

look to destroy and you should look to

embarrass yourself as often as possible

because that's how you build that

superpower. The more you embarrass

yourself, the more you get used to it

until you realize, wow, I didn't I

didn't die any of those times. All

right. After this show today, Owen

Gregorian will be hosting his afterparty

on spaces. All you need to do to find

that is go to Owen Gregorian.

Just uh do a search on his name and

you'll see the link. So, it'll be on

spaces. That's the audio only feature on

X. I wonder if there's any science

that they uh didn't need to do because

they could have just asked Scott H. Oh,

here's some. Eric Nolan writing for the

Cypost.

[laughter] I love Eric. I wonder if

anybody has ever told Eric Dolan that I

mention him almost every live stream.

[laughter]

[clears throat] I do like his I do like

his uh uh his content. Um but it's just

funny that he's always on the list of

things you could have asked me. All

right, here's the latest. Uh there's a

study that says that higher fluid

intelligence is associated with more

structured cognitive maps.

Let me explain what that means. In nerd

talk, fluid intelligence and cognitive

maps are two kind of things that are

important to your brain function and how

smart you are. I can simplify this. You

want a simplification?

Smart people are smart.

No, really. If you find somebody who's

really smart in one domain, the odds of

them being dumb in the other domains

rather low.

Now, it's possible that you could be a,

you know, genius in, I don't know, math

but bad at something else. It could

happen. But generally speaking, if

you're just looking for the averages,

yeah, generally speaking, smart people

are smart in general.

All right, here's another one. This is

also from Cypost. Vladimir Hedria is

writing that women, this has been tested

now. Women can read age, adiposity, and

testosterone levels from a man's face.

Now, adiposity is fat. Basically, they

can tell if you're overweight by your

face. Did you know that you could tell

somebody's overweight by looking at

their face? Yes, you did. You You didn't

even have to ask Scott. Did you know

that uh women can identify more

testosterone? Maybe they don't think of

it as more testosterone, but when asked

to identify it that they're way above

average. Yes, you knew that because the

the men with high testosterone look like

me, don't they? I I have the I have the

classic high testosterone chin. If you

want to if you want to know what it

looks like, it's that. Now, uh I also

have the high testosterone uh male

pattern and baldness. So, basically I

have every every sign you could have uh

for I have sort of an angular face. You

know, it's all it's all obviously

testosterone. Now, at the moment, I have

no testosterone at all because I'm on

the testosterone blockers, but you know,

I had already been fully formed by then.

So yes, anybody, women or men, we can

all tell who has the most testosterone.

Um, the government government of Denmark

has announced what they call an

agreement. I don't even know what this

means. Why is it an agreement as opposed

to a law or something? They they

announced an agreement

uh to ban access to social media for

anyone under 15 in Denmark. Uh, I assume

that just means the the uh residents,

not if you're passing through. I don't

know. Maybe if you're passing through,

too. Um, but they're concerned that

young people are getting too caught up

in the online world. What do you think

of that? Do you do you think that first

of all that will work or will they just

do VPNs?

Can't the kids just do a VPN and

suddenly nobody knows who's what? Well,

it feels like the kids will get around

that, but maybe it'll reduce it. I I

like it directionally, but it's worth

testing. So, I won't criticize the

details because this is definitely the

sort of thing that we should be looking

at testing. If they're going to test it

in Denmark, good. Do that first.

So, I I saw a headline that uh Starbucks

was having some some problems because

they introduced a new very cool looking

cup for coffee. And the coffee cup looks

like a cute little bear, a little bear.

And apparently, it's so popular that

people are arguing about it, you know,

to get the last one. And they're

semifighting in line. and uh and uh

Starbucks actually had to release an

apology because their product was so

good that it caused trouble.

Now that's pretty good. Whoever designed

that stupid little bear into a cup. I

said to myself, "Well, there's no way

you'd get in a fight over a cup that

looks like a bear. That's not going to

happen." And then I looked at the story

and clicked on it and I saw the little

bear. And as soon as I saw the little

bear, I said, "Oh,

oh, now I totally get it. I would fight

over that little bear. [laughter]

I probably wouldn't have a fist fight

over it, but I might, you know, if if

one of my young kids

really absolutely had to have that bear

and it was the last one and there was

something I could do to make it happen,

maybe I'd fight over it. It's actually a

really good cup. Like crazy good cup.

You should see it. It's just really

good. So, whoever designed that, A+. I

saw this on a Colin Rug uh post.

It's their most successful piece of

merchandise.

Well, Jesse Waters has a

I'll call it a scoop. He says his

sources, I think he said this yesterday,

that his sources in the Senate say the

moderate Democrats are about to cave on

keeping the government open and that

they might vote to open it. However, at

the same time,

at the same time,

Minority Leader Schumer [snorts] um has

a counter offer. He says, "Democrats are

ready to clear the way to quickly pass a

government funding bill that includes

healthcare affordability."

Now, I think in this context, what he

wants to do is just extend the Obamacare

tax credits for a year while the

Republicans and Democrats work out, you

know, how to improve it. Isn't that

reasonable? Doesn't that seem to you

like a completely reasonable compromise?

because they didn't want to open the

government at all unless they got

something in return. So if you want to

give them something in return, the best

thing you can give somebody in a

negotiation is what?

If you're negotiating and you're going

to give somebody something so that you

know you've compromised, what's the best

thing to give them?

The answer is nothing. The best thing to

give them is nothing. Do you know what

this is? It's nothing.

>> [laughter]

>> It's nothing because you wouldn't be

able to fix Obamacare in 7 weeks or

whatever we have before we have we have

to have a real law. It's going to take a

year to fix it. Whatever the problem is,

you think that the government can get it

fixed in less than a year? So, my take

on this is all he's offering is what was

going to happen anyway, no matter what

no matter what anybody wanted to happen.

In the real world, this takes a year. Am

I wrong?

So really what he's offering is what was

going to happen anyway. Hey, this is

going to take longer than you thought.

Why don't we do it right instead of

slapping it together? Now if your take

is no, I'm not going to spend one more

dime. You were going to spend the dime

anyway. You just didn't know it. If if I

could prevent you from having to spend

one more dime on Obamacare, I'd help

you. I'd do it. But there's no path to

that. There's definitely a path to

spending more than we want to spend for

one more year, but getting serious about

fixing it. I don't even know how you

would lower the cost, but smarter people

would be involved than me. So,

uh, so I'm looking at your comments

because I'm I'm actually very

interested. [clears throat] Sorry, I'm

in such pain in my one arm. Uh, nope.

I'm on the wrong page here.

I thought I was looking at your

comments, but they were the old ones.

Here we go. Now we're go. Damn it.

Um,

just looking at your comments. One next

crisis brings us to the next crisis.

Your geek bar just kicked in. You do two

years.

One year is reasonable.

Uh, makes it makes us look bad at

midterms.

When are we once again going to say no

to subsidies? Does it do you think

there's a clever midterm play that the

the Democrats are doing? I don't know.

The COVID subsidies which don't apply.

All right. All right. Well, the so my my

current take is that the Democrats are

finding trying to find a egof-ree

we didn't really lose weight to get past

the government closure.

This looks reasonable to me. It looks

reasonable. You know, if if Trump

negotiated it down to 9 months or six

months or something, also reasonable.

But we now have entered the what I would

call the common sense zone where what

the Democrats are offering sounds like

but you know there's a lot of nuance and

all this stuff. I could be wrong about

the where the details are going. It

sounds like they're at least creeping

into something that would be reasonable.

You know giving somebody a little extra

time to do something that's really

complicated. That's just a reasonable

ask. I don't know how you argue against

that, but we will. Apparently, 30

subpoenas have gone out in Florida to

some of the people who were involved in

the Russia gate hoax. People such as

Adam Schiff and John Brennan and Lisa

Page and Peter Stro, I guess 20ome other

people. Do you think any of those

subpoenas are going to turn into

anything like jail time? How many of you

believe that based on everything you've

lived through, everything you've seen,

everything you know about the

government, that the logical end end

state here is that these people who

clearly were doing something

inappropriate, I don't know what's legal

and what's not legal? I'm not good at

that. But clearly something monstrously

inappropriate. Just monstrously.

Overthrowing the government, that's

that's pretty bad. Uh, but you think

they'll be I I just don't feel like

they're going to be punished.

It just doesn't feel like that's where

it's going. It might go there. It might

doesn't feel like it. I don't know why.

I think it's just pattern recognition,

right? I've seen too many times we've

been disappointed. So, it just feels

like, you know, Charlie Brown in the

football every day. All right. We'll

we'll watch that one. All right. Here's

uh here's one we're going to do a little

factchecking on. Okay, I want you to

we're going to do is this real or not

real? So, you all know that Nancy Pelosi

got very rich uh trading stocks during

her time in office and uh her percentage

gains were way better than other people.

Now, when she's challenged about that,

and obviously it looks like insider

trading,

um, which is legal, completely legal for

people in Congress. They're the only

ones that can do it. They can actually

do insider trading, uh, and it's legal.

So, some say that's what she was doing,

but she denies it. Now, the reason I

haven't been much on this story, you've

probably noticed, I know you've been

asking me to cover this more or forever,

and I don't, is because I don't treat

things that are legal the same way I

treat things that are illegal. So,

so for the same reason that there are

other things I say, well, it's legal,

such as pardons. We're going to talk

about a pardon in a little bit. I don't

like pardons,

but they're designed such that nobody is

supposed to like them and they're

totally legal and they're transparent

mostly. Even if they're not, it's still

legal. So, if something is totally

legal, I just don't feel like bitching

about is worth worth the time. So, but

I've got a question about what's real,

what's true. Um, so apparently her,

let's say, her current death worth

is close to 300 million, but uh in 2024

it was yeah in it was over 300 million

in 2024. Went down a little bit it looks

like. But uh she beat the averages by a

million miles. But here's the part I

wanted to suggest.

When when asked to explain why she did

so well, she says she's not the one who

does the trading. She says her husband

is the one who does the stock trades.

Now, is that what you would say?

[clears throat] H how is that a good

alibi?

Don't we just assume that all she'd have

to do is tell her husband what to buy?

That's no alibi at all. Why would you go

with such a weak alibi? Oh, my husband

does the trading. Who would do that? In

In what world would you give the weakest

the weakest alibi?

There's only one world that you would do

that. You didn't have a better alibi.

If you had a better one, you'd use it,

right? As in, oh, I'll give you an

example. Uh, let's say that most of her

gains was in one or two stocks and she

said, you know what, I was watching the

same news you were, and to me it looked

like AI was going to be big. So, I

bought a bunch of Nvidia early, and

that's about, you know, that's about 30%

of all my gains. But then I also got

lucky. and then then tell a story

basically of how she did in fact make

ordinary investments and they just

happened to be good and they did

unusually well. Now I'm not saying

that's really what happened. I'm saying

if that is what happened, why wouldn't

you go with that? [laughter]

That would be that would be an entirely

at least believable. I mean, she could

prove when she bought something and when

she sold it and you could look at the

headlines and you could say, "Didn't we

all know that that was going to be good

or did she have some special access?"

Now, it does seem guilty as hell when

she just says, "My husband does the

trading." Now, he's professional,

so if he does trading, he should do

better than other people, right? Maybe

not that better.

not that much better. So, yeah, that

looks like it's exactly what it looks

like. It's just a mass of a bunch of

insider trading or she's very bad at

alibis. One of the one of the two.

Apparently, Trump has reached some kind

of hundred billion dollar trade deal

with Usbekiststan. Thank God. We've all

been waiting for this one. It's the big

one. Use Beckistan. Finally. Finally.

Um, do you believe that it's a hundred

billion dollar deal? Well, first of all,

it's over 10 years, so more like 10

billion. But it's a small place. 36

million people live there. However,

every single day, as I've been telling

you for a long time, every day that

Trump can make one of these trade deals,

and there are a lot of countries left,

it makes it look like progress, doesn't

it? I mean, it looks like something good

happened. And if he just keeps rolling

these up, like today is Usuzbekistan,

maybe tomorrow is Kazakhstan,

day after that is Albonia, it's just

going to look like he's getting a lot

done, which he is.

All right. Um,

the name of the USB president is Shave

Cat. S H A V K A T. Shave the Cat. All

right. I like them already. All

right, here's a story you all want me to

talk about. Blaze Media has a a pretty

big breaking news scoop.

So, uh, they're investigative journalist

Steve Baker of Blaze Media. Um,

apparently he worked with some entities

that can do gate analysis, which is the

gate is how you walk. You know, the

specific way you walk. And the claim is

that using this gate analysis that

they've identified a woman who planted

the pipe bomb on January 6. Remember the

pipe bomb planter was on video, but you

couldn't see any face, but you see the

body and you can see him walk. We

thought it was a man probably, but it's

a woman.

And uh the claim is that the odds if you

add if you add together the fact that

the gate analysis is usually in the 90%

accuracy and you add to that some human

intelligence they they pop the odds that

he has identified the correct person at

around 98%.

That's a high number. Now, do you

believe that the the other thing that

sort of, you know, raises your eyebrow

is that the person named was a US

Capitol police officer? Uh-oh. Shaunie

Kirkoff. Where do you think she works

now? Let's see. She's accused,

just accused, this is an allegation

only, of planting that pipe bomb under

the role of being a US Capital Police

officer. Where does she work now? Take a

guess.

Where did she get promoted to?

Uh, it's a place called the CIA.

That's right. If she had moved to

anywhere on the whole planet

except the CIA, I think I would have

just missed this.

But really, really?

All right. But now I'm going to give you

my uh BS filter tests. Remember, I've

given you lots of uh ways to find out if

something is is or real. What

would you expect to see if this were

real? Meaning that it was a real thing

and you could you could tell by

somebody's walk that it was them. What

would you expect that you, the public,

would be shown?

I would expect I would see two videos.

one video of the person walking on

January 6, which is available, but then

secondly, I would expect that the public

would have seen by now a video of her

walking in her daily life, so that you

and I can look at it and say, "Yeah,

that looks that looks like the same

walk." Now, we don't have to be

computers to recognize that somebody has

a distinctive walk, right? But what

would happen if the entire claim is

based on comparing two videos and the

best that you can get is you know that

somebody talked to somebody who talked

to somebody who saw the videos and says

that they're the same person. And

secondly, how did they know even who to

look for? How in the world do you find

that one person? If what you're doing is

searching all the people in the world

that you have some kind of gate analysis

for, I don't know how they collected it.

Maybe they collected it from public

cameras or something. Uh, how in the

world would you know who the person was

to even check their walk? So, I'm going

to put this down as the not credible.

Sorry.

Sorry. [clears throat] Uh, I do think

Glenn Beck is credible and I'm I'm sure

that this uh investigative journalist

has a good reputation, Steve Baker. But

if you can't cross the bar to show me

the only thing I care about, which is

the two videos next to each other, and

how the hell did you get the one of them

that wasn't from January 6? Like, why

would you even have any of that? So, the

questions are bigger than the answers.

Um, so I'm not buying this one. I'm I'm

going to say this does not make the

sale. Now, if you're new to me, you

think I just said it wasn't true, right?

Is that right?

Did anybody hear me say it wasn't true?

I didn't say that. I use the word

credible very carefully. Credible means,

you know, maybe the lawyer made the

case. It doesn't mean it's true. It

doesn't mean it's false. But this is not

credible as presented. Do you remember

when uh uh Desh Duza

uh made some claims about the people

dropping things off in dropboxes? And

you remember what I said about that? If

you can't show me at least a video or

two of the same person dropping multiple

things in these boxes, I don't think you

really have anything because that's the

only thing that would have convinced me.

And then I think in the end we did not

get those videos. So this is sort of

reminding me of that. There's one thing

that matters. Show me the video. It's

the one thing we don't have.

Sketchy.

So it could be true. It could be true.

So let me say that as clearly as

possible. It could be true. It's just

not hitting the credibility level that I

would expect. [gasps]

Anyway, um

but we'll wait to hear more about that.

Some of it just might be I'm not as up

to date on it as I should be. So, but

the people the people involved uh are

all credible as far as I know.

Um, are you would you be surprised to

know that some people are questioning

some of the election results from last

week, the special election, the three

governors? Well, it turns out according

to PJ Media and Matt Morgololis who's

writing about this, there's a uh

pollster who's looking at the numbers

and apparently one of the it was the New

Jersey race. The winner won by a

surprising margin. A margin that nobody

nobody predicted. Just suddenly the

polls stopped working for that one race.

They worked for the other races, but the

polls just didn't work for that New

Jersey one. Do you know why the polls

didn't work for the New Jersey race?

Well,

the [clears throat] claim, and again, I

who knows is a claim. The claim is that

500,000 Democrats suddenly materialized

after not voting in the last three

gubanatorial elections.

Is there [clears throat] anything else

you need to know that half a million

people suddenly were Democrats and

suddenly voted whereas they hadn't voted

in the last three elections and there

was nothing really that. But then you

say, "But Scott, maybe they just

registered a lot of Democrats." No.

[laughter]

No, that didn't happen. Just half a

million people disappeared and it turns

out that they mostly voted in the same

direction.

So

now we watched so many claims being made

about 2020 and none of them, as far as I

know, none of them panned out. At least

in terms of a, you know, the court,

there's no court that ruled that, you

know, something went wrong at a big at a

big level. Anyway, uh this feels a lot

like that, doesn't it? If you had to

predict, what do you think is more

likely to happen? That we will learn

that the half a million number is just

bad data and that really there's not

half a million more and they just cared

more because of I don't know if they

wanted to defeat Trump or something. So,

do you think it's going to be that this

really is

or in the end is it going to

disappear like so many other claims

about elections when somebody says, "Ah,

you just counted the numbers wrong or

you were looking at the wrong list. It's

not 500,000." Which which which way do

you think this will go?

I don't know about this one. It it feels

to me like it this would be way too much

thumb on way too much scale that anybody

thought they could get away with it. So,

I'm going to go with this will never be

proven.

This is what I call a category problem

for for credibility. It's in the

category of things that tend not to get

proven. It doesn't mean it's not true.

Again, difference between credibility

and what's true or not true. There's a

difference, but it feels to me just like

all those other Kraken kind of stories

where somebody's got a claim that's so

big. It's such a big claim

that it feels like if it were true, you

wouldn't you get to the bottom of it

kind of quickly because it's just out

there sm slapping you in the face. It's

so big. But I'll bet we don't. I'll bet

this just disappears. We'll see.

Well, Trump's going after the

[clears throat] meat packers, so to

speak. The meat packers, if you know

what I mean. Wink wink. Uh, no, it's

actually people who actually pack meat,

real meat, the real kind. And, uh, he

thinks that the meat packers, especially

some some number of them are foreign u

foreign companies that operate in the

US. Uh, and they're allegedly

manipulating prices to keep the price

high. And Trump is going to have the DOJ

look into their meat packing business.

See if they're cheating. Those cheating,

they're cheating or eating.

Stop it. Be nice.

Be nice in the comments. All right.

>> [snorts]

>> Uh uh

and uh Trump is still pushing for the

filibuster

under the theory that the Democrats

would do it if they were in charge,

which I think they will. Uh so James

Carville has already warned that the

Democrats are absolutely definitely

going to get rid of the filibuster if

they get in charge and he thinks that

they will in 2028.

So, if it's going to happen anyway,

does it make sense that Trump would want

it to happen under his term? If you know

it's going to happen anyway, it's a

strong argument for doing it first. So,

I think that's where Carville up.

Carville should have said there's no

way. There's no way the Democrats are

going to get rid of that filibuster

while simultaneously believing, "Oh,

we're totally going to get rid of that

filibuster. We're going to get rid of

that so hard. we'll just claim or not so

that they could, you know, get past a

Republican administration and then get

all their own goodies. So, I think Trump

is smart enough to know that they're

definitely going to do this because

they're, as he would say, cruel, evil,

bad people. [laughter]

But he listed the things that he could

get done

uh if uh if he gets rid of the

filibuster. So he'd be able to get rid

of u he'd be able to install voter ID as

a requirement. No mail in voting, no

cash bill, no men and women sports, no

welfare for illegals. I'm sure the list

is longer than that, but those do seem

like kind of bigish things. The there

are a lot of people who would say this

the number one thing you want him to

fix. The number one thing is the voter

ID mail and voting situation.

If he only did that, would there ever be

another Democrat president? Because the

play here is kind of interesting. The

only way it makes sense to get rid of

the filibuster is if you have some

confidence that your team will be in

there next time and maybe the time

after,

which is not normal. You know, normal

normally there's going to be a Democrat

and then a Republican, you know, sooner

or later.

So,

if Trump knows for sure that they're

going to do it, and he knows for sure

that if he fixes the voter ID and the

mailing, basically the election

integrity, if he fixes the election

integrity before 2028,

can a Democrat ever get elected? The

only way this makes sense is if he

thinks that he can prevent Democrats

from being elected by getting rid of

cheating in the election.

Is that a good assumption?

It's not bad. [laughter]

I don't know. I don't know if it'll make

a difference. I don't know because I

don't know how much anybody has or will

cheat. I don't know. But if you assume,

and I assume that Trump knows more than

we do about, you know, what bad behavior

people are doing, if he's pretty sure

that these changes would lock in a

Republican or at least, when I say

Republican, I'm going to say at least a

Federman level Democrat. You know what I

mean? So, like the furthest it could go

would be to a Federman type of Democrat,

not a not a crazy ass Democrat.

Maybe there's something to this

filibuster.

Well, meanwhile, the US and Hungary

trying to be best friends. Trump loves

the the head of Hungary, Orban, and he's

visiting, I guess, now. And Orban says

it's the golden age of US-Hungry

relationships. This is in the European

conservative. Now, what do you think of

that? If you are a Democrat, you say,

"Oh my god, they all the foreign leaders

have learned that you can just flatter

Trump by saying, you know, using his

words and his framing and if you flatter

him enough, you know, then you can

influence him and you can get what you

want." Is that how you take that? That

is true in the sense that flattery is a

component of persuasion, but it's not

not a strong part. is sort of a weak

part. Here's the part that nobody sees

coming.

If Trump can make everybody think that

if they talk the way he talks, frame

things the way he frames them, and give

him a king's crown when he visits, for

example, uh that they can influence him.

That's exactly the opposite of what's

happening. if he can make other foreign

leaders

essentially wear the clothes he wants to

wants them to wear, say the things he

wants them to say, and do the things he

wants to do on a small scale, small

scale, such as using his framing of the

golden age, very small, but it's his.

And every time he can get a foreign

leader to act the way he acts, even if

the foreign leader is thinking, "Haha,

he's falling for my persuasion. I'm just

talking the way he does and it's going

to work. No, if it was about one thing,

then maybe it would just be flattery and

it would work. But if you fall into his

larger his larger frame for everything,

you sort of become his subordinate,

not in a technical way, but in a

persuasion way because you you just sort

of fall into the frame. So he is has

such a strong frame meaning the way he

looks at things and you know what he

includ what what he says is important

what isn't important that's the frame

it's such a strong frame and consistent

he doesn't change his frame too much if

ever uh it's easier for people to fall

in and thinking that they're influencing

him and the next thing you know they've

effectively hypnotized themselves to

think that what he says is the common

sense smart thing for the ne for

whatever the next thing is. So

I don't know that most of you would have

spotted that would you would you have

known that you know in the surface level

flattery is what they're getting what

what they're giving him and it works but

as soon as you get to the next level of

falling into the larger frames like

immigration and crime because you notice

a lot of foreign leaders are falling

into his immigration crime NATO NATO is

another one uh rare earth minerals you

you could just go right down the line

and you'd find things that Trump created

the frame and then the foreign leaders

fell into it. You see it everywhere and

it starts with the small stuff that

other people think is flattery.

You probably saw because it made a lot

of news, not very important but

everybody's talking about it is that Ben

Shapiro and Megan Kelly got into it a

little bit on some event. they're on

stage and uh

I don't know what's true here. I can

tell you that Grock had one version and

I've heard now two different versions of

what's true. But the the basic idea is

that uh Ben claims Ben Shapiro claimed

that Candace Owens is implicating

Charlie Kirk's widow in his

assassination.

And Megan Kelly said, "What? [laughter]

I never heard of that.

that that he's that Candace is blaming

uh Charlie Kirk's widow for being part

of a murder plot. And so Ben basically,

you know, sort of suggested that she's

not up to date.

Um I was not aware of that. I was not

aware that there's a claim of that. I

don't think it's true. Obviously, I

don't think it's true.

So, so I'm starting with obviously

there's nothing to it and I don't think

that TPUSA had anything to do with

anything. I think this is Candace

content. She's very good at connecting

dots even when the dots shouldn't be

connected. It's a Bible code problem.

Um, yeah. So, the first thing I would

say is Ben Shapiro, why do you think

that the rest of us would be so invested

in that conversation that we would know

that? And then secondly, I look to see

if it's true. And I don't even know if

it's true. It It doesn't seem true that

Candace directly

accused her of murder, right? I I think

it's more like, hm, I have questions.

This thing happened at the same time as

this thing. Why did this thing happen

right after that thing? Now, I find that

interesting content.

Um, it gets a little creepy when it

involves somebody, you know, who died

recently. So that's that's a separate

thing. But I do like hearing the

conspiracy theories. I do like when

somebody can back it up with some, you

know, details, even if I don't think

it's true. It's kind of fun. So

I So as of this morning, I still don't

know what is true.

I don't believe that I would ever find a

quote where Candace was directly

accusing either TPUSA

or

or Erica

for being part of the murder.

But but Ben Shapiro thinks that that

that's an indisputable fact and he's

smarter than me and he's paying

attention to this more than I am. So I

don't know what's going on here. Do you?

But

but the main thing I wanted to tell you

actually it's the only thing I want to

say is I didn't know it. So I'm in the

same business as Megan Kelly. I just

don't do it as well. I'm in the same

business. I wake up every morning and I

read all the, you know, the political

gossip and everything. I didn't know

this. Why would I know it? And I feel a

little insulted

that that's a problem that she wouldn't

know it or it was a problem that I

didn't know it. and we're both in the

business of watching the news. I think

it's because it's not true, right? I

feel like I'd know it if it were true

that she had really said that directly.

Now, if she had she if she'd been

creeping around the edges,

uh I wouldn't be delighted with that,

but it'd be entertaining.

So, I don't know. I just wondered what

you thought about that.

I I do think that this whole thing of

conservatives fighting with

conservatives, it really has everything

to do with the fact that they're

winning. You the conservatives are

winning so hard that they're running out

of things to complain about, so they

just turn their guns on each other.

Doesn't it feel like that? Maybe I'm the

only one who thinks that way, but it

just feel feels like we ran out of

things to do, so we have to go after

each other. I I just don't like to be

part of that. So, I love uh I love Ben

Shapiro, one of the most skilled people

in the game. Megan Kelly, one of the

most skilled people in the game,

probably the best podcaster in my

opinion. Um I don't need to go after

either one of them.

Well, it's Saturday, so that means that

yesterday was Bill Maher becoming more

of a Republican every day. On every

Friday, he becomes a little bit more

Republican, but not really. He's not

he's not going to become a Republican.

But here's the latest. uh he's weighing

in on the Trump ballroom. So, Bill Maher

said, when he first mentioned it, it was

all about, oh my god, he's desecrating

the White House. And then I finally

read, oh well, they've done this to

the White House before. It's just a

building, I think.

Um and then Mara is pointing out, we

don't have a place where they have state

dinners. They're doing it in a tent.

This is America. [clears throat]

So, do I give a that he's doing

this to the White House? I really don't.

And it's private money. Save your eye

for things that matter.

There you go. Now, what would you call

that? Is that a Republican opinion, a

Democrat opinion, or a common sense

opinion? That's a common sense opinion.

Every time somebody goes into the common

sense zone, they're sort of in the MAGA

zone.

Not entirely, but you got one foot in

there. If you're if you're arguing

common sense and you're arguing it well

as he is, then also uh Bill Maher uh was

in favor of Trump's Golden Dome, the the

missile protection system that we're

trying to build. Uh Maher said, "I have

a problem." He's responding to one of

his guests. He goes, "I have a problem

if we don't build it. Just because Trump

thought of it, I'm not against it."

something that would stop the increasing

number of rogue missiles in this world

from maybe coming over here and

incinerating me. Yeah, mark me down as

pro for that. I'm pro having now. Can we

do it? I don't know. He says it'll take

three years and $180 billion and they

the Democrats say, "Well, that's BS, but

that's to be a worthy investment." Yeah,

maybe it'll have cost overruns, he he

went on to say, but that's everything.

Everything has a cost overrun.

Now, is this opinion Democrat or

Republican or just common sense? It's

just common sense. So, doesn't it feel

to you as if he's got that one foot in

MAGA? He's not going to have the

religious foot, right? Don't ever expect

him to, you know, pick up his Bible and

say, "Finally, I've decided." No, but in

the common sense domain, he's completely

in. and he actually recognesly,

but uh he knows what common sense looks

like and he's willing to call it out

despite what trouble it brings him. I

like that. Well, there are two court

decisions. The Supreme Court and uh I'm

going to confess that these are so

boring that I didn't want to look into

them and they're going to change 10

times before before tomorrow. But the

Supreme Court apparently uh temporary

pause snap payments which is denying the

pause of the denial of the pause of the

pause from the lower courts. Pause of

the snap of the payments of the pause.

All these stories are so filled with

with negatives that you don't know

exactly what got paused. Wait, you pause

the blocking of it. Okay, the blocking

of it means you don't get it, but you

pause the blocking, but now another

court says you have to unpause the

blocking.

These are impenetrable stories. I I hope

every everybody gets fed and they don't

starve to death because of paperwork,

but it looks like that's coming. Also, a

federal judge ruled that So, there's

something about SNAP. You can read up on

it if you care. Uh there's a federal job

judge ruled that u Trump illegally

ordered troops to Oregon.

And then the judge permanently barred

Trump administration from deploying the

National Guard troops in Portland

permanently. How can he do that

permanently? Is that even an option? The

judge can say it's permanent.

Can't the next judge unpermanent to

permanent? Permanent seems like the

wrong word. Anyway, that's happening.

There will be more court cases. Expect

the the barring to be unbared and the

barring of the barring to be unbared by

the barring.

Meanwhile, you remember Katie Porter,

that horrible human being who was

screaming at her assistant and being

kind of a bad person on video. And at

one point, she was leading in the polls

to be the next governor of California.

Uh but apparently she got so much push

back from that you know terrible hit on

on video that uh her polling has gone

from 17% which would have been a leading

leading in a big field down to 11%.

Guess who's guess who's number one in

the California poll.

Now, this won't last, but the number one

uh person in the current governor of

California poll, now it's not Newsome,

of course, he's not running.

The answer is a Republican.

There's a Republican in the lead for

California governor.

There's no way that's going to last. But

there's a Republican. So, it's a

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Biano. He

now leads the field with 13%. So 13 I I

think that's actually what Trump had

when he entered the race around 13%.

Right.

So is [clears throat] there any is there

any possibility any possibility that a

Republican could win in California? I'm

going to go out on a limb. Yes. There

there is a there is a genuine chance.

And and Steve Hilton's still in the

game, too. Steve Hilton seems to, you

know, I believe he would have a set of

policies that at least the right would

like lot. I don't know anything about

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Biano,

but

it's nice that we got options, isn't it?

All right, ladies and gentlemen, if

you're just joining late, you probably

didn't hear that today is November 8th,

a very special day for reasons that you

don't know, but I do. And uh if you

don't have your Dilbert calendar for

2026, now I would rush because we really

didn't print enough.

So, somebody's [clears throat] going to

be really mad at me in December. Hey, I

went to order my calendar and you're all

sold out, which we might be because we

did intentionally go low on the printing

because it's expensive.

So, we'll see. All right, ladies and

gentlemen, I'm going to say a few words

privately to the local subscribers, as

awesome as they are. And the rest of

you, I hope to see tomorrow, same time,

same place. And uh right after the show,

make sure you check in with Owen

Gregorian on his spaces event where

he'll talk about this sort of stuff

maybe and some other stuff too which

will be fun. And uh so just search for

Owen Gregorian and you'll see a link to

his uh his spaceless event that'll

happen not very long from now. He'll

fire it up after we're done. All right,

let's see. Oh. Oh god, that hurts.

[laughter]

I can't lift one arm. I've got half an

arm. My hand doesn't work on this one,

but my arm doesn't work on the other

one.

And then the cursor is disappeared.

All right, cursor.

me. I can't find the cursor again.

All right, we're going to have to move

the computer to another space

so I can mess around with it in less

pain.

Oh, okay. That doesn't hurt. All right,

cursor. There you are. Found you.