Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive July 1, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2611 Segments
MainContent Politics as Persuasion

Back to episode — Episode 2611 CWSA 09/28/24

Context —

issiles and there's a bunch of assassin teams coming through the border. And there are tens of thousands of Chinese military-looking people coming through the border. We let everybody in. It's the biggest failure in American politics. Yeah, let me say that with a little bit of confidence. In the history of American government, opening the border the way it was done is the biggest mistake in Ameri…

← Previous segment →

coming in. And at the same time Harris has called for a pathway to citizenship for millions of the migrants she led into the country. I don't know how you could be worse to create the biggest blunder in American history and then to top it by saying let's give them citizenship so they can also vote. The level of incompetence is way beyond anything I could call accidental. It doesn't look accidental. Nobody could be this dumb. I mean, nobody could really.

So she gives a speech after she went to the border. And I would like to say as far as I could tell when she gave her speech she was not inebriated. And I thought she did a great job. So it was a teleprompter speech. At first I thought maybe it was impromptu and I was more impressed, but then when I looked, oh it's teleprompter. But the teleprompter she does really well now. So I guess she's been doing a lot of practice on the campaign trail. But man, she read that teleprompter. She did not cackle. She had all the right motions and everything. But I did note a few problems.

Oh, number one, if you'd like to know when she's inebriated and when she's not, there's a tell that is guaranteed. Right now I think you can tell by just the way she talks and everything, but there's one tell for whether she's inebriated. And she definitely wasn't. She was in full control and did a good job in her speech. Here's her hand gestures when she's not inebriated. They're crisp and they're smallish. So she'd be like, dupe, dupe, crisp, tight, controlled. So when she's talking, her hands are very much part of a good presenter's hands.

Now I'm going to give you the impression of when she's inebriated. Shoulders moving and hands are not tight. They're all over the place. Let me tell you what we're going to do. You watch for it. Tight hands. Tight versus loose hands. If you wonder if she's sometimes inebriated in public, you only have to watch her speech where she's not. Once you see her operating at 100% as she was during her speech, there's no doubt that the other thing is inebriated. There's no doubt at all. And you can even see that she's picking her spots. When she does a national speech or a debate, definitely not inebriated. Not a suggestion, not a hint, nothing. But when she's talking to a friendly, a friendly like students or a little group of people who love her, she's drunk as a... we've seen it so many times. There's no doubt about it. Or inebriated in some fashion.

The other thing I haven't heard anybody say yet, but let me be the first to point it out. So she gives a speech that was largely about her getting serious about the border. Did anybody notice that the speech was all about her? Here's what I expect when you've got a massive border problem and somebody's running for president. Here's what I'm going to do about the border. I'm going to build a wall. I'm going to reverse the executive orders. I'm going to get rid of this fake asylum thing. So that's what you would say if you came there to tell people how you're going to fix something.

But she's got a little problem because any of those ideas, if they sound good, somebody's going to say, so why didn't you do that already? Joe Biden says you're in charge of everything. So she can't really come out and say here's a bunch of stuff I'm going to do. The only thing she said specifically she's going to do is she wants to create a path to citizenship, which is making the problem better or worse? Worse. The only concrete suggestion is something that whether you're on the left or the right you'd say, well that's creating an incentive to come here. That's worse. That's not better. That's worse.

But here's the part that once you hear it, if you listen to it again, listen for this. She only talked about herself. The only time she talked about somebody else, she talked about the poor migrants, the non-citizens. What she didn't talk about is the pain and destruction so much that's coming on the American citizens. So here's her talking about the border. "I was a prosecutor." Okay, we're not hiring you to be a prosecutor. "I have toured the tunnels." Okay, I mean we all know there are tunnels. Does that make you a little extra qualified because you've been in one? "You wouldn't believe how smooth the walls are of the tunnels under the border." Okay, well you know maybe it could be true that Trump is not aware how smooth the walls are on the tunnels under the border. That's not much of a selling point for you. Well, Trump doesn't even know how smooth the walls are. It's not like he's in favor of the tunnels.

So she had... she just went on forever. The entire time I listened, I didn't hear it all, but the entire time I did listen she only talked about herself and none of it was relevant. You're a prosecutor, got it. So because you're a prosecutor and your entity prosecuted some people in this context, what do you know that I don't know? Do I not know that fentanyl is coming across the border and probably killed my stepson? Everybody knows that. Do you not know that the cartels are in charge at the border? Do you not know that millions of people will come? What is it we don't know that we're now educated because we know you were once a prosecutor and that the walls of the tunnels were shiny? You got nothing. You got nothing, lady.

Meanwhile the border patrol said yet another lie. As with all things border-related, she was nowhere to be found when we needed her. She ignored the border problems until she... that she created over three years and admitted that the immigration system under her and Biden was broken. So she said she was going to fix the problem, but isn't that really admitting that she's the source of the problem too? Because it didn't happen under Trump. He had it fixed.

Well, the amuse account on X says that Kamala Harris did some election interference by creating some campaign ads in which they had two people saying that they used to be Trump supporters but now they were in Pennsylvania and now they're not. Well it turns out that was fake. They were not real voters. Well they might vote, but there were actors who have always been lifelong Democrats. So they got two lifelong Democrat actors to pretend that they switched.

Here's my question for you. How hard would it be for Trump to find some prominent Democrats who switched to him? Well not too hard. RFK Jr., Elon Musk, Scott Adams, Sachs. There's a pretty long list. He wouldn't have to hire an actor. Trump would not have to hire an actor to say I used to be a Democrat but now I can't, I just can't do it anymore. But she had to hire actors. They couldn't find any real people.

I should tell you something. All right, so here's my summary for today. I mean I'm not ending, but this will capture my thoughts. I think it's kind of stunning the degree to which Democrats have legalized crime while turning the Department of Justice, who should be fighting the crime, into the criminals. In other words, lawfare, etc.

So let me just give you some examples. So here's examples of Democrats who are basically legalizing crime. Now that's a little hyperbole when I say legalizing crime, but I'll give you the examples and you'll see why the hyperbole fits. They wanted to defund the police. They wanted to stop arresting shoplifters up to a certain dollar amount, which caused stores to close and massive crime. They're letting the homeless control the sidewalks with everything that brings with it. They're creating an asylum path for migrants who are willing to lie. The migrant process is a legal process but not if you lie. If you lie and say that you're coming for asylum but you're really not coming for asylum, they have legalized that crime. They've essentially made it legal to lie that you're here for asylum because nobody's going to get punished for it and it's the obvious way to go if you're coming in.

They created the sanctuary cities to thwart any legal processes about the immigrants. Lie about the amount of crime incoming. So they lied about how much crime is coming across the border. They allowed teams of assassins and terrorists into the country. They are pushing DEI which is literally legalized discrimination against white people, white males. That's illegal. They censor Americans via proxy. This is the Mike Benz stuff where we know that the State Department and the Democrats get European and other entities, Brazilian, to do the things that they couldn't legally do to citizens. So they just use external entities to put the pressure on X and other platforms, etc.

So they're censoring. They want to take your guns away of course. There's the rhetoric that engages assassinations in my opinion. They've got elections that can't be fully audited which supports criminal acts during the elections. And in Manhattan apparently 60% of felonies are reduced to misdemeanors. So that's Alvin Bragg. 60% of felonies are reduced to misdemeanors. Now some are always... I mean that's not the first time that's ever happened but 60% feels like a lot to me. And the lesser charges are just released.

All right, so that's a cas

Context —

e of the Democrats making, effectively, legal, not technically legal in every case but effectively legalizing crime across a whole broad range of important topics. What did that do? It made the entire country unsafe and inner cities extra, extra unsafe. But at the same time that they were making criminals legal, they were making the people whose job it is to fight crime, they turned them into crim…

Next segment → →