Plot

Scott discusses Kamala's interview with CNN, the controversy over Telegram's CEO, Trump's opposition to Florida's abortion laws, the potential consequences of the national debt, Elon Musk's warning about government spending, and more.

Scott discusses a tragic news story about a Wells Fargo employee found dead in her cubicle. He shares advice on calming nerves before public speaking. He then covers recent developments in energy and battery technology. Adams addresses the controversy surrounding Telegram's CEO and secure communications in warfare. He discusses a poll on Black voter support for Trump and Trump's support for in vitro fertilization and opposition to Florida's abortion laws. Adams explores the long-term economic consequences of Florida's abortion restrictions. He analyzes Kamala Harris's interview with CNN and Vivek Ramaswamy's comments on weak candidates. Adams critiques Harris's responses and body language during the interview, her strategy of avoiding identity politics, and her tax proposals, particularly the controversy over taxing unrealized gains. He discusses the potential consequences of the national debt and Elon Musk's warning about government spending. Adams also covers Kamala Harris's tax plan and the lack of economist support, the situation in Brazil with a judge targeting Elon Musk, U.S. involvement in Brazil's election and the use of voting machines, AI safety and regulation, a new ultrasound device for pain relief, and thoughts on regret and the "portfolio" mindset. Finally, he mentions a new disease-detecting mask developed by researchers.—J. Spurlin

Scott Adams begins the video by humorously acknowledging a delay in the live stream and interacting with his audience. He introduces the show as "the highlight of human civilization" and invites viewers to join him in the "simultaneous sip," a ritual where everyone drinks their favorite beverage together, which he claims makes everything better.

Adams then discusses a recent interview with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, hinting that he will cover it in more detail later. Before diving into that, he mentions a tragic news story about a Wells Fargo employee, Denise Prudhomme, who was found dead in her cubicle after several days. Adams draws a connection to his Dilbert comic, which once featured a similar scenario, noting the dark irony that Dilbert was "born in a cubicle at a bank that was bought by Wells Fargo."

In a lighter vein, Adams shares a surprising piece of advice he came across: an expert suggests that masturbating before a public speaking event can help calm nerves and boost cognition. He jokes about the idea, playfully suggesting that if he seems particularly smart today, it's not because he followed this advice, as he didn't have time for it. Adams humorously reflects on the idea that masturbation could replace most daily activities due to its purported benefits.

Scott Adams transitions into a discussion about recent developments in energy, particularly focusing on the Biden Administration's progress with solar projects and battery technology. He mentions that he has no complaints about the administration's efforts in these areas, especially considering the significant advancements being reported in battery technology. Adams highlights three independent stories, all from the same day, discussing breakthroughs in battery research and development. These include studies from MIT and other research projects that promise to revolutionize battery life cycles, energy density, and stability. He humorously summarizes the technical jargon, emphasizing the rapid progress in the battery technology field and its potential impact on industries like robotics.

Adams shifts his focus to the Telegram app and the controversy surrounding its CEO. He explains that the importance of secure communication in warfare, such as in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, has made Telegram a critical tool for the Russian military. Adams reveals that the Russian military relied on Telegram for secure communications, believing it to be safer than other apps like WhatsApp. He speculates that if NATO could gain backdoor access to Telegram without Russia knowing, it could significantly impact the war by allowing Ukraine to intercept Russian military communications. Adams predicts that the CEO of Telegram will eventually be released, with the public being led to believe that no concessions were made, allowing NATO to maintain its covert access if it exists.

Scott Adams continues to explore the potential consequences of NATO gaining access to Telegram, speculating that this could lead to a string of defeats for the Russian military if Ukrainian forces can anticipate their moves. He discusses a recent poll by Quinac, which found that 20% of likely Black voters would vote for Trump. Adams expresses skepticism about this figure, noting that it seems low based on his observations from interviews on TV. He questions whether these interviews are truly representative and suggests that direct observation should sometimes lead to skepticism about poll results.

Adams then shifts to Donald Trump's strong support for in vitro fertilization (IVF), highlighting that Trump believes either the government or insurance companies should cover the costs because America needs more citizens. Adams praises this stance as a brilliant move, arguing that it counters criticisms about bodily autonomy. He believes Trump's support for IVF is genuine and that he would follow through with it if given the chance. Adams also touches on Trump's opposition to Florida's six-week abortion limit, suggesting that such restrictive laws could deter young people from moving to or staying in the state, which could harm Florida's long-term demographics and tech industry.

Scott Adams continues to discuss the potential long-term economic consequences of Florida's restrictive abortion laws, especially concerning the state's ability to retain and attract tech workers. He suggests that discouraging a significant portion of young, tech-savvy workers from living in Florida could have disastrous effects on the state's economy over time. Adams then shifts focus to the recent CNN interview with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, offering his takeaways. He criticizes Harris for appearing uncomfortable and unintelligent, calling her possibly the "dumbest candidate" the Democrats have ever run for president. Adams compares her to previous Democratic candidates like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, all of whom he considers to have been smart, regardless of their policies.

Adams refers to a comment made by Vivek Ramaswamy, who suggested that the current system requires weak candidates like Biden and Harris who can be easily controlled, contrasting them with the stronger, more intelligent candidates of the past. Adams agrees with this hypothesis, proposing that the system either needs candidates who are not very smart or those who can be easily blackmailed. He reflects on how Harris's performance in the interview made her seem lightweight and unpresidential, noting her reliance on word salad and her struggle to deliver coherent responses.

Adams then points out a particular moment in the interview where Harris used her fingers to count off points, leading him to suspect that she had the questions in advance. He suggests that this behavior indicates she was trying to recall memorized responses rather than speaking naturally or confidently about her views. Adams further criticizes Harris for not appearing to have her own opinions, instead relying on pre-prepared answers, which he argues is not a good look for someone in her position. He uses an example of a question about a photo involving Harris's grand niece, which should have been an easy, heartfelt response but instead came across as rehearsed.

Scott Adams continues by dissecting Kamala Harris's responses during the interview, noting how she began one of her answers with a polished line about running to be president for all people. He finds this response suspiciously perfect, as it effectively preempted any criticism before addressing the specific issue at hand. Adams speculates whether Harris was given the questions in advance, although he concedes that she might have just been well-prepared for likely questions. He criticizes her for dodging a question about Donald Trump's comments on her racial identity, noting her uncomfortable smile and refusal to engage with the topic.

Adams further analyzes Harris's body language and behavior during the interview. He observes that she often looked down while speaking, suggesting she might have been reading from notes, despite the wide shots showing an empty table. Adams also comments on an odd moment where Harris gestured for Tim Walz to remain silent, despite him not being in the frame or seemingly attempting to speak, leading Adams to speculate about possible edits in the interview. He also points out what he calls Harris's "liar eyes," where her eyes would widen unnaturally during certain responses, indicating she might not believe what she was saying.

Adams moves on to discuss the physical setup of the interview, highlighting how the positioning of Harris and Walz at the table affected the perception of the discussion. He notes that Walz, being physically larger and placed at the opposite end of the table from Dana Bash, appeared dominant in the frame, making Harris seem small and unimportant by comparison. Adams suggests that this visual dynamic could influence viewers' perceptions, making it look like Walz was in charge while Harris was merely an assistant.

Scott Adams discusses how Kamala Harris avoided answering questions about her racial identity during the interview. He acknowledges that avoiding this topic might have been a good strategy, as addressing it could lead to more scrutiny from Black voters who might question her authenticity. Adams suggests that the issue of racial identity in politics is complex and that while some voters may care deeply about it, others might not. He proposes that Harris could have reframed the conversation by asserting that she is unique, rather than focusing on her racial background. Adams believes that by avoiding identity politics, Harris might present herself as a more legitimate candidate for president, although this approach also means she missed the opportunity to strongly counter Donald Trump's narrative on identity.

Adams continues by analyzing how Harris's decision to avoid identity politics could be seen as a positive move, especially given the current political climate. He theorizes that Donald Trump may have inadvertently undermined the effectiveness of identity politics as a campaign strategy by bringing it into question. Adams appreciates Harris's restraint in not playing the identity card, viewing it as a sign that she might be evolving into a more serious and legitimate candidate. He speculates that the public may be growing weary of identity politics, and Harris's avoidance of the topic could resonate well with voters who prefer candidates who focus on broader issues rather than personal identity.

Scott Adams continues his critique of Kamala Harris's interview, noting that her strategy of avoiding discussions about identity issues, such as race, was likely her best option. He suggests that Donald Trump's comments on these topics were designed to provoke conversation, which would allow him to control the narrative. By not engaging, Harris avoided playing into Trump's hands. Adams also mentions that during the interview, there were no questions about Harris's tax proposals, particularly her controversial idea of taxing unrealized gains. He speculates that if such questions were asked, they might have been edited out because Harris likely had no good answers, especially if there were follow-up questions.

Adams reflects on Harris's response to a question about her changing stances on various topics. She stated that her values have not changed, which Adams sees as a major mistake. He argues that this response gives Trump a powerful tool to attack her by suggesting that her old, more socialist views are still in play. By repeatedly showing clips of her past positions followed by her claim that her values haven't changed, Trump could undermine her credibility. Adams describes this as a "kill shot" that could severely damage her campaign, as it suggests she is hiding her true intentions.

Adams then discusses why Harris might be avoiding debates and interviews, concluding that her poor performance in the recent interview likely indicates that she struggles with these formats. He suspects that the reason she hasn't been more visible is that she is simply not very good at presenting herself as a presidential candidate. Adams believes that this interview revealed why she has been kept out of the public eye, as her performance was poor and unconvincing.

Adams also comments on Harris's response to a question about the Obama administration, where she said it did "good work." He criticizes this as another example of a pre-prepared answer that lacked substance. He suggests that her responses seemed rehearsed, as if she knew the questions in advance. Adams further discusses how CNN's Daniel Dale fact-checked Harris's claims about fracking, showing that she had misled viewers by suggesting she supported fracking in 2020, when in reality, she only mentioned Biden's stance.

Adams concludes this segment by questioning what was missing from the interview. He implies that certain topics, which should have been addressed, were conspicuously absent. Adams alludes to how, during the Democratic National Convention, various hoaxes and misleading claims were prominently featured, but in this interview, critical issues like Harris's tax proposals were either not discussed or edited out, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture.

Scott Adams criticizes how CNN avoided asking Kamala Harris about the major hoaxes that were central to the Democratic National Convention, such as Trump allegedly calling soldiers "losers" and "suckers" or telling people to drink bleach. He points out that these claims were so pervasive during the convention that they seemed like the primary message. Adams argues that if any of these accusations were true, CNN would have asked Harris about them in the interview. He suggests that CNN knows these are hoaxes but avoids discussing them because they would have to admit that they have been spreading falsehoods.

Adams notes that instead of addressing these hoaxes, CNN focused on less significant topics like fracking, highlighting the fact that Harris's statements on this issue were fact-checked by CNN's Daniel Dale. He speculates that CNN deliberately avoided the hoaxes to protect their credibility and to avoid having to confront the reality that these narratives are false. Adams concludes that CNN's omission of these questions during the interview is evidence that they are aware of the falsehoods but choose to keep them off the air to maintain their narrative.

Adams then turns his attention to Kamala Harris's recent social media post where she claimed that Donald Trump intends to end the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and take the country backward. He dismisses this claim as another hoax, explaining that Trump has consistently said he would only replace the ACA if he could come up with something better. Adams emphasizes that this is common sense, arguing that any leader, regardless of political affiliation, would follow the same approach. He criticizes Harris for spreading fear about an issue that Trump has already clarified.

Adams references a report from The Blaze, where Trump discussed border security at a Wisconsin Town Hall with Tulsi Gabbard. Trump described a group of Venezuelan people with weapons taking over a building in the U.S., using vivid imagery to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. Adams praises Trump for his mastery of "visual persuasion," explaining that by painting a clear and frightening picture, Trump makes the issue of border security more real and urgent for his audience. Adams contrasts this with generic statements about crime, which he argues would not have the same impact.

Scott Adams continues by discussing Kamala Harris's strategy during the interview, where she attempted to make the conversation about the country rather than focusing on herself. He questions whether this was genuinely effective, suggesting that it sounded more like her typical stump speech. Adams sarcastically critiques the commentary from MSNBC, particularly a statement by Jeremy Peters, who claimed Harris was wisely making the discussion about uniting the country. Adams disputes this, pointing out that he didn't recall any part of the interview that actually focused on bringing the country together.

Adams further critiques MSNBC's coverage, particularly Ellie Velli's defense of Harris's policy switches. Velli claimed that Harris was smart to explain her policy shifts as situational rather than a change in her core values. Adams mocks this explanation, describing it as "word salad" layered upon Harris's own "word salad," comparing it humorously to an endless salad bar. He argues that such explanations don't actually clarify anything, as everything is situational and involves taking in new information.

Adams then addresses polling, expressing skepticism about its accuracy at this point in time. He mentions a Wall Street Journal poll showing Harris ahead by one point, but within the margin of error, making it essentially a tie. He notes that when third-party candidates are included, Harris's lead is slightly larger, but still within the margin of error. Adams references Nate Silver's analysis, which currently gives Trump a 52% chance of winning the Electoral College, compared to Harris's 47%, but acknowledges that these numbers will likely change as the election approaches.

Shifting gears, Adams discusses Mark Zuckerberg's recent comments about his $400 million expenditure on get-out-the-vote efforts in the 2020 election. Zuckerberg claimed he didn't realize that this money primarily benefited one political party. Adams is skeptical of Zuckerberg's surprise, noting that the funds, administered through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative led by Zuckerberg's wife, were directed toward groups with clear left-leaning biases. He suggests that Zuckerberg should have easily known the impact this spending would have on the election outcome.

Adams takes a moment to imagine an alternative scenario where Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg had never gotten married. He hypothesizes that if Jobs hadn't married, his fortune wouldn't have gone to his widow, Laurene Powell Jobs, who bought The Atlantic and turned it into a platform for Democratic activism. Similarly, he speculates that if Bezos had never married, his ex-wife wouldn't have used her billions to support Democratic causes. As for Zuckerberg, Adams doubts he would have allocated $400 million in the same way his wife did, suggesting that Zuckerberg's personal views might lean more toward free speech and business interests than Democratic activism.

Scott Adams continues discussing the influence of billionaires on political campaigns, noting how the system designed hundreds of years ago now seems to allow billionaire interests to dominate decisions about who becomes president. He humorously describes this dynamic as "billionaire cocks" determining our political leaders, likening it to a process that even a grade-school child would find confusing and absurd. Adams then shifts to a warning from Elon Musk, who stated that America's current government spending is leading the country rapidly toward bankruptcy. Musk criticizes government overspending as a primary cause of inflation, and Adams imagines what government efficiency might look like if it were engineered by Musk. He suggests that Musk's approach would dramatically reduce government spending, though he acknowledges the challenges in implementing such changes.

Adams argues that all government borrowing is effectively theft once it becomes clear that the debt cannot be repaid. He explains that when the government borrows money with no realistic plan for repayment, it amounts to robbing the public through inflation. Adams criticizes the current system, where the government spends recklessly, resulting in a loss of buying power for citizens without their explicit consent. He suggests that whenever the government passes a budget that adds to the debt, it should inform citizens of the personal financial impact, such as how much their buying power will be reduced.

Adams goes on to discuss the massive national debt, currently at $36 trillion, asserting that it will never be paid back. He references Adolf Hitler's decision to renounce Germany's debt as a historical precedent, questioning whether a similar approach could work for the United States. Adams clarifies that he is not praising Hitler but is instead examining the economic impact of debt renunciation in Germany, which led to rapid economic improvement at the time. He speculates on whether the U.S. could adopt a similar strategy, acknowledging the complexities and potential risks of defaulting on national debt.

Scott Adams continues his discussion on the U.S. national debt, comparing it to the situation in Germany before World War II, where the country renounced its debt. He acknowledges that while Germany's decision to renounce its debt was followed by disastrous actions like starting a war and the Holocaust, it initially gave the country a chance to rebuild its economy. Adams speculates on what might happen if a U.S. politician openly admits that the national debt will never be paid back, leading to significant consequences. He imagines a scenario where the government could simply decide not to pay back its debt, questioning the impact this would have on investors and the economy.

Adams discusses the potential consequences of such a decision, noting that most investors do not put their most important money into government debt, viewing it as a relatively safe, short-term investment. He speculates that if California, for example, decided not to pay back its bonds, many investors would be upset but would not experience life-altering financial consequences. Adams suggests that people should start thinking about what might happen if the U.S. government reaches a point where it cannot afford to pay even the interest on its debt, leading to a choice between defaulting on the debt or becoming a third-world country. He warns that whatever happens with the national debt will be a significant event, possibly the biggest economic crisis in history.

Adams shifts to criticizing Kamala Harris's tax plan, noting that no economist has endorsed it publicly. He sarcastically points out that there are likely 20,000 professional economists in the U.S., yet not one has appeared on MSNBC to defend Harris's tax plan. Adams argues that the real story is not the tax plan itself but the fact that no economist is willing to support it, suggesting that this lack of endorsement should be more widely reported.

Adams then discusses the situation in Brazil, where a judge is targeting Elon Musk in an attempt to gain control of X (formerly Twitter) to ensure it can be censored according to the Brazilian government's wishes. Musk is resisting this pressure, and the Brazilian government has retaliated by going after SpaceX's financial accounts in the country. Despite this, Musk has decided to keep Starlink services active in Brazil for free, demonstrating his commitment to maintaining communication services even under government pressure. Adams praises Musk's decision, noting that it shows Musk's belief that better communication is beneficial for the public and detrimental to corrupt governments.

Scott Adams criticizes the U.S. government's response to the situation involving Elon Musk and the Brazilian judge targeting his companies. He argues that this is a clear attack on an American citizen and American businesses by a foreign government, and the U.S. government should be taking a strong stance against it. Adams is frustrated by the lack of response from the Biden administration, stating that this issue transcends political parties and is a matter of protecting U.S. citizens from external threats. He calls for a president who would publicly demand that Brazil back off, leveraging all available diplomatic and economic pressures.

Adams continues by revealing that the U.S. State Department was involved in ensuring Brazil had access to voting machines, highlighting a report that shows the U.S. helped secure microchips for these machines. He mentions that the CIA warned the former Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, not to cast doubt on the integrity of these voting machines. Adams questions the U.S. government's motivation for being so deeply involved in Brazil's election process, particularly in pushing for the use of voting machines. He speculates that the U.S. might have preferred a specific outcome in Brazil's elections, although he admits there is no hard evidence to support this theory.

Adams raises a broader question about the use of voting machines in general, asking why the U.S. would go to such lengths to ensure their use in another country. He lists potential reasons - such as credibility, cost savings, ease of use, and speed of results - but dismisses each, concluding that none seem to justify the effort. Adams suggests that the most plausible explanation is that the U.S. had a vested interest in the outcome of Brazil's election, possibly involving some form of manipulation through the voting machines, though he emphasizes that this is purely speculative without concrete evidence.

Scott Adams continues to explore the topic of U.S. involvement in Brazil's election process, particularly the role of voting machines. He speculates on the reasons behind the U.S. government's insistence on using American-made voting machines in Brazil, expressing doubt about the official explanations. Adams suggests that the real reason might be more aligned with the U.S. government's interest in influencing the election outcome, although he acknowledges that this is purely speculative.

Adams then shifts to a discussion about AI safety and regulation, mentioning that two AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, have reached an agreement with the U.S. government to ensure AI safety. This agreement involves the government gaining access to AI models before they are released to the public, ostensibly to test them for safety issues. Adams expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of such regulation, suggesting that the AI industry could easily influence regulators. He imagines a scenario where government regulators are subtly pressured by AI companies, who offer them the potential for higher-paying jobs in the private sector if they go easy on regulations.

Adams elaborates on the idea that regulation often fails because the regulated industries can easily corrupt the regulators. He describes how AI regulators might be tempted to prioritize their future career prospects over strict enforcement of safety standards. Adams concludes that AI regulation is unlikely to be effective and may simply become another way for people to make money rather than a genuine effort to ensure public safety.

Adams then shares some positive news from the field of science, discussing a new ultrasound device developed by the University of Utah that can apparently relieve pain almost instantly. He describes this as a miraculous development and notes that the device uses specific sound frequencies to turn off pain. Adams had previously been skeptical of claims that sound frequencies could cancel pain, but he acknowledges that this new study seems to confirm that such technology is possible.

Scott Adams shares his thoughts on regret, explaining that he doesn't experience it as an adult despite having made decisions that didn't work out. He reflects on how he felt regret as a younger person but has since adopted a "portfolio" mindset, where life is viewed as a series of decisions - some good, some bad. By considering life in this way, he avoids regret, much like how an investor views the performance of an index fund. Adams suggests that if one's average decisions have led to overall improvement, there's no need for regret. He encourages others to reframe their thinking similarly, focusing on the overall success of their decisions rather than fixating on individual failures.

Adams then mentions a new technological development reported by The Guardian - a mask that can detect a wide range of diseases from a person's breath, developed by researchers at the California Institute of Technology. He questions the practicality of wearing such a mask all day and suggests that a breathalyzer-type device might be a more convenient alternative. Despite his skepticism about the mask's practicality, he acknowledges that the ability to diagnose diseases from breath is a fascinating and promising advancement.

Scott Adams concludes the episode by thanking his viewers and informing them that he will continue speaking to his subscribers on Locals in a private session. He expresses his gratitude to those who joined the live stream and signs off, reminding everyone that he will be back the next day at the same time and place.