God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, AI Chatbot Persuasion, Apple AI, Teenager Trends, Springfield Ohio Haitian Migrants, Pet-Eating Migrants, Thomas Massie, CR Funding, Speaker Johnson, President Trump, Sovereign Wealth Fund, Mark Cuban Trolling, Election Cheating Arrests, Bibi File Allegations Documentary, CA Senator Aide Back Injury, Presidential Debate Strategy, Kamala Harris, 20 Billion Dollar Mexico Bribe, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
We're going to have a show that's, well, better than anything you've ever seen in your life, probably.
Probably.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one can even understand, with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a stand, a stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes Everything better.
It's called the simultaneous zip and that happens now go So good Whoa, are you feeling a little extra this time?
I feel like the simultaneity of the world has gone to new levels.
What could it be?
Oh, here's a news story that explains it all.
Starbucks is getting a new CEO, Brian Nickel.
And he's gonna, it says, the news says he's set to partake in the ceremonial first sip of coffee this morning.
I feel like it happened at the same time.
Could you feel that?
I could feel the will and spirit of every barista around the world, simultaneously sipping.
With CEO Nickel.
Brian Nickel.
You know, I wish I had a nickel for every time I needed to turn around a coffee company.
But I guess one and one might be enough.
Well, let's talk about science, because you know how much I love my science.
A lot of you science deniers.
Yeah, science deniers.
You don't agree with me with my love and appreciation of science.
But let me tell you something.
There's a new study that says that avoiding positivity could be causing anxiety and depression.
That's right.
If you avoid positivity, it could cause some negativity.
Let me tell you how maybe this group of scientific researchers could have saved a little time and a little bit of money.
You could have asked me.
Scott, we're thinking of doing this expensive study to find out if avoiding positivity might let some negativity creep in.
To which I would say, stop!
Stop what you're doing.
You don't need to research that.
You could have just asked me.
And then they'd say, we just asked you, idiot.
And I'd say, I know.
It's a good thing you did.
And the answer is yes.
A decrease in positivity Could have a negative impact on your anxiety and your depression.
Boom!
Saved you another $200,000.
But there's more science coming.
According to ficudot.com, which is totally a real place, they have a captivating discovery.
It's captivating, dammit.
Uh, that, uh, there was a two year investigation and they found out the husbands who kiss their wives before they go to work, uh, live a staggering five years longer.
If you kiss your wife before you go to work, you'll, you'll live five years longer.
In a related study, if you kiss somebody else's wife before you go to work, your life expectancy is much less.
It's much less.
But here again, I don't want to get ahead of myself, but this might have been a place they could have saved a little money again.
When they went to OSA, instead of spending years studying, they could have said, Scott, do you think that the people who kiss their wives in the morning are going to live longer?
And I would say, well, what do we know about the people who kiss their wives?
Well, not much.
They just kiss their wives.
Well, what can we understand, just sort of presume about that category of people?
Well, maybe they have More attractive wives.
Okay, you're getting there.
Getting close.
What kind of husbands do attractive wives attract?
Well, richer.
They get the richer husbands.
And is there any correlation between wealth and longevity?
Yes, there is.
A very strong one.
Huh.
Is there anything else you could say about attractive wives who husbands want to kiss before they go to work?
Well, let's see.
Probably the husbands are more attractive too, because people tend to attract people who are similar.
What do we know about attractive people?
Well, they're not obese, and that should make you live longer, and they might be more symmetrical.
Which is literally a tell for good health.
So yeah, you could have saved a little money.
Just ask me.
Are the people who are willing to kiss their wives before they go to work going to live longer?
Absolutely.
In other news, Sky News says Elon Musk is on track to be the first trillionaire.
Maybe as soon as 2027.
But I'm going to add to this my own opinion.
He's the only person I know who has at least three paths to become a trillionaire.
Tesla by itself could make him a trillionaire.
You have to wait a little longer, but it could get there.
Tesla with robots, if you take the robot component.
Yeah, yeah, definitely a trillionaire.
I can even imagine SpaceX being worth a trillion.
Suppose they find a way to mine one asteroid.
Trillion dollars right there.
And of course a moon, Mars colony, moon colony, those would be kind of valuable.
And then AI, and then X. Now X is nowhere near a trillion dollars, but it's also nowhere near built out.
What happens when he builds it out?
What happens when he has the best satellite communication network that's not terrestrial?
He's got maybe three to five separate ways to become a trillionaire, and that would be if he only just counted the one thing.
So his odds of being a trillionaire if he stays alive for 10 years?
It's approaching 100%.
That's kind of interesting.
Well, according to a publication called Futurism, some shady firms are trying to figure out how to persuade chatbots.
So chatbots are based on AI, but apparently you can influence them to have a better or worse opinion of products and people.
And that's no surprise because the chatbots are going to search the internet for whatever they know.
So if there's more of something on the internet, they're going to pick that up.
Sorry, wrong number.
All right.
So this gives me, A path for the future.
I've already learned persuasion for human beings.
Now I have to learn persuasion for AI.
Which apparently is just a case of repetition and focus.
Just like people.
The way you influence people is make them look at one message more than another.
You just make them focus on it.
That's all it takes, really.
What does it take to make your large language model AI Change its opinion.
Same thing.
You just make it focus on, or see more of, a competing opinion, and it will think, well, that must be the average opinion.
There's more of it.
So we'll lean in that direction.
So part of it is just what you make it pay attention to, but there might be something deeper.
Here's my question.
I see yet another demonstration on the internet of some Chinese company making a robot That looks really amazing.
But mostly it's the robot just, you know, walking and jumping and dancing.
And we've seen quite a few robots jumping and dancing and doing some simple, isolated tasks.
But here's my question.
I've spent a lot of time on AI, just using it as a consumer.
I don't see anything in that that could ever power a robot.
Has anybody had that same realization?
So we're being told that there's this inevitability.
We got this AI that's getting better all the time.
And we got these robot batteries, I'm sorry, robot bodies, plus robot batteries that are much better.
So we're seeing these great, you know, physical demonstrations of robots.
But if the AI they put in the robot is the same AI that's in my app on my phone, and I think it would be, It, to me, doesn't look like it could ever be a robot.
Now, yes, it can talk to you, but it has so much hallucination and variability to it that I don't know that the current technology has a path to be a robot brain.
We all assume that it'll just keep getting better, so whatever I'm looking at now is misleading.
But I don't think so.
I think we may have reached something like the limit of what a large language model could do, and there's no other model.
So I think that the AI for robots is going to have to be some separate field.
And what I think it will be is separate databases for separate skills.
So it's not going to be something general AI.
It's going to have to be like a special robot AI where, you know, there's some module that taught it how to iron a shirt.
And there's another module that teaches it this, but it's not going to be just generally smart.
Yeah.
It's not going to scour the internet and know how to iron a shirt.
So I don't think it's really AI.
Basically.
I think there'll be an AI.
verbal part to your robot, but that the programming below the verbal, you know, just understanding what the human is doing.
Below that, I think it'd just be programmed.
And I'm not sure we're even good enough yet to program a robot that you would have in your home.
Let me put it another way.
I have a rule about pets.
Yeah, we'll talk about pets a little bit more.
I do not want a pet in my home That if it wanted to, could kill me in a fair fight.
So I've owned cats because they can't beat me in a fair fight.
I've got a smallish dog.
I could totally take her in a fight.
I would not get a pair of pit bulls to live in my home as my pet, because if anything went wrong, they could tear me to shreds before I could get to a weapon.
So, I worry about robots.
Those robots look pretty strong and pretty deadly.
And I worry about them having some weird, unpredictable AI and also the muscles to kill me while living in my house.
Can you tell me for sure that nobody can hack my robot and tell it to kill me while I'm sleeping?
You cannot.
You cannot tell me that my robot will never be hacked and somebody won't tell it to kill me in my sleep.
You can't.
Because everything can be hacked.
And how hard it would be to change an instruction in a robot if you could hack it.
It's a problem.
You think hacking is a problem already because they can get to your banking information?
Wait till they can get into your robot that's sitting next to you on the couch.
That's a problem.
Especially if they're going to listen to all your conversations.
You know, you're going to have a completely different feeling About your digital device recording your conversations, which it does, versus a humanoid-looking robot who can remember everything you've ever said and done, and can report it back to law enforcement.
You don't think law enforcement will be able to get a warrant to get your robot?
I feel like we need some legislation that says that law enforcement can never access a robot that's a personal robot.
Right?
Because you've got that with relationships.
You know, you can't force a spouse to testify.
So they carved out this special little legal protection.
I feel like we need a law that says you can't get into my robot.
Because my robot will have a visual record of everything I've done.
You want that?
You want a visual record of everything the robot's ever seen?
You do?
No, you don't.
It might be enough to not have one, actually.
All right, let's see what else is going on.
Tech Explorer says there's a company that made a robot leg that's made of artificial muscles.
So, developed by researchers at ETH Zurich and the Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems.
So, they made this little model and they made some artificial muscle and they used it in the leg and it was stronger and better than the mechanical ones.
Now, do you see the future?
So you got humans who are becoming more like cyborgs, like they'll get a chip in their head, and we've got our phones, and we'll probably have special glasses, and stuff like that.
So humans will become more robots, but robots are becoming more human.
So the robots will get human muscles, because I do think I do think the biological muscles will probably be more efficient if they can figure out how to do it.
It seems like it'll be better than the mechanical ones.
So we're going to have a world with robots that are organic, and organic people that are half robots, and it's going to get real confusing.
Can't wait for the mating.
Apple has a big announcement today.
They're going to introduce their new line of products.
And this is exciting, people.
So the new products that Apple is introducing is, and this is a complete list.
Okay, next story.
No, it's just all the same products.
We've got a phone for you.
What's different?
It's a little bit better.
What else you got?
Well, we've got this new Apple Watch.
All right, cool.
What's better?
It's a little bit better.
Oh, all right.
What about the iPad?
Oh, we got that.
It's a little bit better.
I don't know.
I feel like I'm not being wowed anymore.
But I'm also watching Apple tried to navigate the AI world and they will have, I guess it's not coming today, but soon they promised to add some AI that will interact with all the apps on the phone.
Now, why do you think it's not happening?
And why do you think Apple is not investing in AI on its own to become like a chat GPT competitor?
I have a hypothesis.
And the hypothesis is that Apple is not bullish on AI, meaning that they don't think that the AI companies are going to get their money back for what they invest.
Now, I don't know that.
This is pure speculation.
But it seems to me, given Apple's resources and talent, that if they thought AI as a field was something that they just had to be deeply into, they would already be doing it.
Now, maybe they're doing things we don't know about.
That's also possible.
But I feel like Apple is lukewarm on AI.
They know they have to build it into their product, because it would make their current product way better.
Because right now it barely understands English.
So, if the only thing that changed was it understood what you were saying, much better, and it could interact with the other apps, that would be really big.
You know, it would change completely my experience of using my phone.
But it would also make people talking to their phones too much.
If you had AI on your phone, you'd kind of want to talk to it all the time.
As in, hey, open this app for me.
All right, send this message.
Why would you type when you can just talk to it?
So you're going to have the most annoying world in the world, where everybody who has a phone is talking to it, even if they're not on a phone call, because it's just easier to talk to it.
I do worry about the world where everybody's talking.
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal and lots of other people, the DEI programs are down.
Now Coors and Molson are backing away from DEI, on top of Harley-Davidson and Ford and John Deere and a few others have backed away from DEI.
So DEI is down.
And there was a study of black enrollment in colleges.
So Wall Street Journal looked at that.
And the share of black students fell at several elite colleges.
And here's the post they put on X. This is Wall Street Journal.
It said, quote, the share of black students fell at several elite colleges this fall.
Leaders of those institutions are now trying to figure out why.
No, they're not.
They're not trying to figure out why.
A hundred percent of you know why.
Because the Supreme Court said you have to stop discriminating against white and Asian American applicants.
No, there's no mystery why it went down.
They were literally forced by the courts to stop fucking a certain segment of the public, and when they stopped fucking white people and Asian Americans, turns out that the mix of people who were allowed in changed.
Now, no Wall Street Journal, nobody is fucking confused about why it went down.
There's no mystery here whatsoever.
I'm not saying it's good.
It would be great if admission were up, but if it were up for normal organic reasons.
Teen vaping is down.
Now, this is weird.
It seems like teenagers are being less addicted to all the things.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like I've seen stories that say teenagers are drinking less, Smoking.
Are they smoking less weed?
I'm not sure about that one.
I think they're doing fewer drugs in general.
Now they're vaping less.
And they're also having way less sex.
So, is there one thing driving all these things?
Makes you wonder if there's a testosterone.
Do you think testosterone is part of it?
If you have more testosterone, at least the boys, are more likely to take chances, right?
And all of these things are chances you probably shouldn't take when you're young, but people would.
So I also wonder if it's the pleasure unit theory that I talk about in which if you have alternative sources of pleasure, you don't have to seek out dangerous ones necessarily.
But if you don't have any source of pleasure, you're gonna find it wherever you can, even if it's illegal.
So it could be that the, you know, the permanently having phones that can give you dopamine, Maybe it's just pumping enough dopamine into teenagers that they don't need drugs.
It just makes me wonder what's behind that.
I'm not sure this is all good.
Because you want your teenagers to have a certain amount of rebellion cooked into them.
Because if they don't have a certain amount of rebellion, they're not going to be good citizens.
But I do worry if there's too much happening there.
All right, the big story is Springfield, Ohio.
You all want to talk about it.
A bunch of Haitian migrants or immigrants have been shipped into this town.
I guess it was a town of only 60,000 people, and they got 20,000 Haitians.
Now, that should be illegal.
It should be way illegal to put 20,000 of anybody into a city that didn't ask for it.
It wouldn't matter where they came from.
So I don't know how that's legal.
They should be suing the government or something.
But the big story is that the Haitian immigrants are reportedly eating cats.
As in, grabbing your house cat and skinning it and eating it.
Now, here's my take on this.
This morning, everybody wanted to talk about this.
It was the number one thing that got people's attention.
It's all we wanted to talk about.
I'm aware of one unconfirmed report.
There's one person who says they saw their own cat, you know, strung up and skinned.
Now, that might be true.
Do you believe it?
How many of you believe that there's a cat-eating problem in Ohio?
Well, let me explain it further.
Let's say one of the biggest issues in the campaign was that J.D.
Vance said there was a lot of single cat ladies.
And then the other biggest theme, which there are probably two stories about it just today, headline stories, is that single women are very much going toward Harris and away from Trump.
Single women.
Who owns cats?
A lot of families own cats, of course.
A lot of single people of all types.
But single women do have a lot of cats.
Is it a coincidence That when single women who own a lot of cats are the most problematic group for Trump to get, that how perfectly compatible it is that suddenly the people that Trump would like to deport are eating the cats of, oh, let's say the single woman.
Oh, there's only one thing you love, single woman.
The only thing in your life is your cat.
And your preferred candidate is going to ship in the cat eaters.
I'm going to make a stand on this one and say two on the nose.
Two on the nose.
So I'm going to say it's fake.
I would guess that sometime by tonight you're going to see the left-leaning media say it's another hoax by the people on the right.
There was one unconfirmed report.
And they turned it into a whole state of cat eating.
Now, I don't know what percentage of Haitian immigrants would even be willing to eat a cat.
I don't think it's that high.
But I also say, if you brought in a bunch of people who didn't have access to food, they're going to eat anything they can eat.
Because that's just human.
So, how many think that story is real?
I'm going to say there might be one, and there might be a few.
I think the odds of it being a widespread phenomenon are pretty low.
Pretty low.
So, let's put a pin in this one.
We'll put a pin in it, and we'll say It has all the signals of being fake news.
Would you agree?
The signals are very strong that it's fake news.
That doesn't mean it is.
It's within the realm of possibility.
I'm going to say, if you put a gun to my head, I would bet against it.
But I'm also open to it being possible.
So I'm just going to put a pin in it and say, let's wait a little bit longer.
Let's see if those reports go away or not.
I think they might go away.
But what are the odds that Kamala Harris is bringing in people to the country that are going to grab people by their pussy?
I mean, did the simulation just really serve that up?
That the only person who can help you is Trump if he can grab your pussy and keep it away from the Haitians.
There's something about this.
This is just, it's just too perfect.
And then there's all these memes of Trump grabbing kittens and running through Running through groups of Haitians who are trying to eat him.
I'm seeing the memes going by now in the comments on locals, because they can do pictures in their comments.
There's infinite scenes of Trump being kind to cats.
Now, I've never heard whether he likes cats or not.
He's never had any connection to it.
But when you see a million pictures of Trump saving kittens, it might actually change votes.
I don't think the left are seeing any of these memes.
They're probably limited to the right.
But there's so many of them, and they're all hilarious because they have kittens in them.
There's something about Trump and cats that's just a wonderful connection, an unexpected pairing of things.
So entertainment-wise, it's really good.
Well, according to James O'Keefe, Harris has flown 400,000 Venezuelans into the U.S.
And that would represent, at least in New York City, 400 members of the Venezuelan gang Trinidad and Tobago.
Do you think that we have 400 gang members from the same violent gang that are in one city?
I feel like we might.
That doesn't sound impossible.
I'm not sure it's confirmed, but it doesn't sound impossible.
So, we'll see.
That's pretty bad.
There's another report about the Biden-Afghanistan withdrawal, and apparently he did not take advice from his many, many military advisors who told him not to do it the way he's doing it, to take longer, etc.
Biden apparently was fixated, they say, and I think this might be a political spin on this, but they say he was fixated on his legacy and making sure he got it done before the 9-11 anniversary.
He wasn't being driven by, you know, data and safety and all the things he should have been driven by.
He was driven by the pure political level without any practicality or planning to get it done.
I expect that this is the sort of story that I don't 100% trust the narrative.
Because remember, everything's fake.
You know, why would this be the one thing that isn't?
All right.
So we'll see.
There's another story that says that apparently the U.S.
created some kind of a special Iraqi bank system where they can move funds around.
Because once Iraq got, you know, torn down by the war, they didn't have a banking system that worked, I guess.
So the U.S.
sort of overlaid one.
And a lot of money has been going through that banking system for years, and now we find out that it didn't have safeguards or money laundering controls, and that some immense amount of money may have been funneled to terrorists in Iran.
That's right.
That's right.
We set up a really efficient way to fund Iran's terrorist ambitions.
So the war in Iraq probably Cause a lot more secondary damage than we're aware of.
So good job, United States.
Literally every fucking thing you touched, you destroyed.
Destroyed Iraq, destroyed Afghanistan.
You have fixed nothing.
Thomas Massey is opposed to the new continuing resolution.
That would be a short-term budget agreement that would allow them to keep running up the debt to ruinous levels.
And not have to deal with any tax cutting.
So here I thought that Speaker Johnson did a smart thing, because he included in the funding bill that the Democrats would have to vote for the SAVE Act, S-A-V-E.
And the SAVE Act was to make sure that you were a citizen before you voted.
That seems like an obvious thing everybody would agree with, but it's fairly obvious now that the Democrats intend to cheat, because there's no legitimate other reason that you would be against election integrity.
It's not like there's a second reason.
There's no second reason.
There's one reason.
It's because you plan to cheat.
So they're signaling it as hard as they can.
So here's the wrinkle that I did not know about, and this is why Thomas Massey continues to be a national treasure, because he says the following.
Did you know this?
That if they approved the six-month deal, that would, of course, they'd have to eat the SAVE Act, and they probably won't approve it.
But if they approved it, then that would go into action, and We'd keep the lights on, but we'd be running up our debt to ruinous levels.
But did you know this, according to Thomas Massey, if the Speaker, instead of making it a six-year continuing resolution, which again is just a short-term agreement not to agree on anything about the budget basically, just to keep running up the debt, if you made that one year instead of six months, according to Massey, there's some kind of trigger that's already built into law
That if we get to April with a continuing resolution, that would lead to a 1% automatic cut to spending on April 30th.
Hey, now this is interesting.
It could be that the one and the one only way we will ever cut the budget is if somebody sneaks in some kind of a trigger that says if you keep behaving badly and doing continuing resolutions, which are basically just not doing your job.
Right?
Creating a budget that the country could survive would be called doing your job.
A continuing resolution is an agreement by both sides to not do their job and to not create a budget which is survivable.
Let me say that again.
Our current budget is not survivable.
Like actually we're all gonna die.
I mean that literally.
Fuckin' dead.
But!
You know, we're pretty good at changing things when it becomes super emergency, which is where we're getting close to.
So I think we'll figure it out with, you know, massive pain, but we'll figure it out.
We're not going to, probably not going to starve to death.
However, the fact that our Congress literally chooses doom, doom right in front of us.
Hey, instead of doing our job and cutting the budget, I think we'll do... How about Doom?
Do you guys okay with Doom?
Democrats?
Doom okay with you?
They say yes.
Yes, we have an agreement on Doom.
That's literally what's happening.
The people we elected are voting for fucking Doom.
Except for Thomas Massey.
There's one guy.
One guy.
And so all Speaker Johnson has to do is turn the six-month thing into a one-year thing, and it will trigger this automatic 1% spending cut.
I think the only way that our budget could ever be cut is to put a 1% per year reduction in it and let inflation do the rest, and then you still have to grow like a motherfucker.
Sorry about all the swearing.
You still have to grow like crazy to even be survivable at this point.
We could do it.
It's doable.
But the window is getting pretty narrow at this point.
The opportunity for actual survival is getting much smaller.
But I think we'll do it.
So, yes, I am now completely opposed to the continuing resolution.
Now that I know that extending it to one year would give me that valuable 1% cut.
Because you know what's valuable about cutting everything 1%?
Every single department will complain that they can't operate.
No.
I need 10% more.
If you cut me 1%, I'm 11% away from being able to do my basic job.
But then they'll do it.
They'll figure it out.
It's sort of like Elon Musk cutting 80% of the staff of Twitter.
It doesn't make sense on paper.
And everybody complained and said it wouldn't work.
Seems to be working fine.
And a 1% cut across the board, same thing.
Everybody would say it's the end of the world.
And a year later, everything would be fine.
So it is the one and only way to do it, because you don't have to vote on specific things being cut.
So it's the only thing you'll ever get anybody to agree on is, how about a little bit, 1% per year?
Just 1% across the board?
It's the only thing that'll ever work.
Well, Trump came out in favor of, I'm going to characterize it as decriminalizing marijuana, but Florida has an amendment three coming up for a vote that would apparently decriminalize marijuana to some extent.
I don't know the exact details, but Trump came out in favor of it.
So one of the advantages that Harris had was this decriminalizing marijuana, or at least you think Democrats are going to do that, but here it is.
Trump is on board with the populist opinion on this.
It's a popular thing.
I would like to reiterate that I don't recommend marijuana for anybody, in case you never heard me say that.
I do think there are some special cases, and I might be one of them, where if I don't have to commute to work and, you know, I've got a medical benefit from it, which is tremendous, that, you know, it's a special case.
But, no, I don't recommend it.
So, listen to the people who tell you not to do it.
They're giving you better advice.
But, personally, I would never move to a state that had illegal weed.
So this would put Florida in play for me.
This was the one of the two things I was waiting for.
And Florida, Texas is still out of, Texas is not on my list because of, because of weed being illegal there.
You know that Trump suggested a sovereign wealth fund and Mark Cuban weighed in and said, that is stupid.
You don't do a sovereign wealth fund, which would be like an investment fund for the country to do really big projects.
He said, you don't do that if you're running a debt.
Now, I understand the debt point, but it turns out that we learned today that according to Bloomberg, that the Biden administration has been working on a proposal to create a sovereign wealth fund.
So poor Mark Cuban, he's out there trying to do the best he can, defending some of the worst ideas in the world, and he decides to go hard at the sovereign wealth fund, because it's Trump.
And at the same time, Biden's working on the same plan.
Now, I do understand his argument that you don't create an investment fund if you have an emergency in your debt situation.
That makes sense.
But if the sovereign wealth fund wasn't going to make a dent whatsoever, if it wasn't enough to make any dent in the debt, but it might have some big strategic benefits, there's an argument for it.
Maybe there's a better way to handle the debt.
Speaking of Mark Cuban, We learned today that he's not a donator to politics.
I like that.
I like the fact that he doesn't have a record of donating to Democrats or Republicans.
I respect that, actually.
But if you see him online, he appears to be trying to exhaust Trump supporters with endless biased questions, which he's fooling people into responding to.
He's creating this infinite amount of wasted energy by pushing people to support Trump's various policies.
So the questions will be, you know, kind of Kind of good, but academic, trolling kind of questions, where to answer the question, you'd have to put in a lot of work.
But if you don't answer the question, it looks like you can't answer the question, so it's a bad policy.
So it's total troll behavior.
I mean, I wouldn't characterize it as anything but trolling, but he's really good at it.
He is really good at trolling.
So he's getting a lot of prominent people to spend a lot of time responding to his questions, which honestly are dumbfuck questions.
They're just troll questions, in my opinion.
And what I mean by that is that they're brilliant.
Because if you looked at the paper, or if you looked at his questions about Trump, On the surface, you'd say, huh, that's actually a good question.
I'd sort of like to know the answer to that myself.
But if you see how many of them he's asking, you can tell it's more of a strategy than any curiosity.
So don't let him suck up all your energy.
So my only caution is he's not moving the needle.
You know, it's not like the Democrats are looking at him and saying, hmm, Mark Cuban's got some good ideas.
I think I'll vote for Biden.
Sorry, vote for Harris.
I think he's just draining the energy out of Republicans so they don't have energy for other stuff.
I don't know what he's doing, but it looks like pure trolling to me.
That's my take.
Well, Morning Joe is trying to turn Trump's statement that he would go hard against election cheaters, should he get elected, As a more evidence of his dictatorship.
He is totally a dictator because he, uh, he wants to jail his opponents.
They call it.
Now, Trump says, if you cheat in the election, as in break the law, that the law will be used to its maximum, uh, impact to put you in jail.
Now, was there a part of that where Trump said, Even if you don't break any laws, we're going to put you in jail because we don't like you because you're my critic.
I don't remember that.
I don't remember that.
And of course, we've seen January 6th where people were put in jail for much less.
But they're doing a good job.
So they had a guest on there that It creates a dangerous situation for Trump to say he's going to deport a bunch of illegals, and that could cause some violence, and that he would be arresting these alleged election cheaters, if any of them exist, and that those are too dangerous and totalitarian.
Do you know how hard you have to work to make it a bad idea to deport Venezuelan gangs Because obviously he's going to do the violent ones first, don't you think?
Let me give you a prediction.
Number one, is Trump serious about deporting whatever it would be, 20 million people?
I'm going to say yes.
I'm going to say yes.
If he could snap his fingers and they would just all disappear back to their home country, you know, safely and well fed and everything, I think he would do it.
If he could just snap his fingers and they all leave and, you know, they're still alive and they're happy and they're fed and everything.
They're just back in their original country.
Yes.
So yes, he's serious.
He wants every single 20 million or whatever the number is to be gone tomorrow if he could do it.
But should he get elected, he will be part of the real world.
You remember the first time he got elected, he said he would deport 25 million people.
But as soon as he got elected, he was like, well, you know what?
If we just tighten up the border, we'll be fine.
And honestly, most people sort of got okay with that.
Even the ones who were, you got to deport everybody now.
They just sort of got over it.
It wasn't really a big deal.
So what do you, what do you predict if Trump gets elected again?
Well, here's my prediction.
Any deportation would be prioritized by deporting the dangerous people first.
That is such a big job that it should take all of their resources for years.
Because so many, so many gang members, etc.
have been let in.
I mean, it would take forever just to get the bad ones.
Now, let's say a few years have gone by and they're deporting as fast as they can.
But really they're starting with the criminals.
So now let's say you succeed.
Let's say three years in, you've really gotten rid of most of the criminals, but you've also tightened up the border.
So there's not much coming in.
So now if you deport somebody after three years, hypothetically, it would be somebody who's probably working and adding to the economy and not a criminal.
And it's three years in and he doesn't have to run for election again.
Is that guy getting deported?
Would you want to make a bet on it?
I'll bet you that in three years, somebody who's been working for a few years and not breaking any laws probably won't be deported.
Now there might be some limitation on becoming a citizen.
I could see that happening.
You know, we don't need to solve a problem that's sort of solved itself.
And the fact is that the United States is really, really good at assimilating Spanish-speaking neighbors.
There was a time when you probably wondered, can we do that?
Are the cultures too different and all that?
And there is a challenge.
I mean, it's a big challenge.
But it is the most successful non-English speaking Well, no, let me take that back.
There have been quite a few groups that are totally successful in integrating.
Asian Americans, totally successful.
Black Americans did it the hard way, but completely successful, of course.
Anyway, that's what I think.
I think we'll get rid of the worst criminals and at some point the country will be like, you know, that's fine.
You know, my neighbor who's been there for two years, he's a good guy.
I think it'll just turn into that.
Meanwhile, there's something called the Bibi files, and then there's a, I guess it's a documentary coming out that's gonna allegedly show that Netanyahu of Israel had a bunch of bribery, corruption-related allegations.
Here's what I need to tell you about that.
It's a documentary.
Don't trust any documentaries.
This is what I call the documentary effect.
Now, it doesn't mean it's untrue.
I don't know one way or the other.
I don't have any special information.
I'm just saying that if something looks really, really true, because you saw it on a documentary, you're going to have to learn to force your brain to reduce the credibility of that to zero.
A really, really convincing documentary that proves to your brain beyond a shadow of a doubt, these allegations must be true because I can't even imagine how all these accounts could be fake.
But I will tell you, if it's a documentary, you would be convinced, that convinced, whether the allegations were true or false.
So being completely convinced by a documentary that's full of credible looking people, Your brain should adjust that to zero.
It has no evidentiary value.
And if you don't believe me, I always recommend this little test.
Watch the documentaries that accuse Michael Jackson of horrendous crimes, and then watch immediately after, watch the documentary that says all the crimes were made up and it's fake.
They are equally persuasive.
And they're opposites.
If you had only watched one, you would absolutely come away with the belief that that one was, there's no way this is wrong.
I mean, it's just so well documented and proof and you got witnesses and I mean, you see all the parts, everything's transparent.
It's obviously fake.
And then you watch the opposite and you think, oh my God, he's a monster.
I actually don't know what's true.
Having watched both documentaries, I no longer have an opinion on Michael Jackson's innocence or guilt.
I've actually had to remove my opinion.
I just treat it like innocent until proven guilty and I don't believe he was.
It does mean he's innocent.
But I'm not gonna treat him as a presumptively guilty person because the only evidence that I've seen is the least credible kind.
Documentaries and people making claims and People who had money riding on it and that sort of thing.
So, again, I'm not defending him, because I know this is where you fall into a trap.
It sounds like, well, Scott, you're kind of defending somebody of terrible crimes.
No, I'm not.
I'm offending documentaries.
I'm not defending anybody.
I'm aggressively saying documentaries are shit, if you want to know the truth.
Anyway, there's a story about a California state senator, a woman, who allegedly was forcing her former male staffer to perform oral sex on her whenever they went on business trips.
He was not a big fan of this, but he went along with it.
But eventually, he was performing such act, allegedly, in a car, and he had an injury. So, this is the New York Post. On their final encounter, Conda alleges, so this is the senior staffer who was performing the oral sex on his boss, so Conda alleges he suffered a debilitating back injury
while performing oral sex on the senator in a car, leaving him with three herniated discs and a collapsed hip. Now, this raises many questions.
questions.
I'm going to go ahead and close the webinar.
I once spent 10 minutes looking at something called, I don't know if you've heard of it, it's called pornography.
Has anybody heard of that?
It shows people doing sexual things on video, and apparently it's all over the internet.
So I spent 10 minutes looking at it once, and that's all I needed.
10 minutes and I'm out.
I mean, you know, once I got my fill, I was like, whoa, I'll never have to look at it again.
I got an idea what this is all about.
So I've watched it and I've watched videos in which there were men performing this very act.
And correct me if I'm wrong, I felt like some parts of their Mouth and tongue might have been moving, some business with the hands perhaps, but I've never really gotten my back too involved in such a thing.
And when I watch the pornography, I'm not sure how to pronounce that, but I never see them get their back involved.
Is there a way to do it that I'm not aware of?
In other words, should you be undulating?
Sort of like a... You know how a porpoise swims?
You know, they're just sort of moving their back legs.
Is it sort of like that?
Where, you know, no matter what you're doing with your facial part, you're... Are you also lunging?
Sort of like that?
I mean, I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like that would be additive.
Anyway, I don't believe anything about this story.
It could be true, but I don't believe this story.
I'm sorry.
Nope.
I'm not going to believe the back injury from performing oral sex.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Not buying it.
Well, Trump allegedly, according to Bloomberg, said he would put a 100% tariff on countries that shun the U.S.
dollar.
So that'd be countries like China and India.
Russia, I guess.
I don't think we import a lot of Russian stuff.
Is that a good idea or a bad idea?
Here's what I think.
If what he means is every country that's trying to shun the dollar, which is a growing number of countries, that they'll have a 100% tariff, I don't think that could be a good idea in any world.
But let me remind you who's doing the talking here.
This is Trump.
What he needs to do is make people think he might do it.
That's the game.
The game is not whether he does it.
The last thing he wants to do is do this.
He just has to make it look to other people like it's the first thing he wants to do.
If they believe he might do this, they're going to put a percentage likelihood on it.
And they'd be like, hmm, let's see, I don't think he'll do this.
But there's a 20% chance he will.
Can we take a 20% chance that he'll do this?
It's a negotiating position.
Is there a chance he'll do this?
Probably.
Probably.
Does it look like a good idea?
No, not to me.
It looks too extreme.
But if you're negotiating, it doesn't look too extreme at all.
Let me say this more clearly.
If you're negotiating, which is what this is, when you say publicly, if you do this, we're going to do this, that's negotiating.
He's just doing it in advance so that should he get in office, half of his work is done.
Well, you heard me talk for the last year what I was going to do to you guys if you shun the dollar.
So what's it look like?
Are you going to shun the dollar?
Oh, you are.
Oh, you are.
After everything I said, what I would do.
Okay.
Game on.
100% tariff.
So, yeah, if you see it as negotiating, negotiating, it's perfect.
If you assume that it literally is what he's going to do on day one to everybody who shuns the dollar, well, that's not ideal.
There will be a big presidential debate tomorrow.
Question.
Given that it's going to be broadcast on all the networks, I believe, so ABC will host it, but everybody has rights to broadcast it because it's a public good.
I can stream that, right?
There's nothing to prevent me from streaming it on the platforms.
Can you confirm that?
So in other words, I can do my show, but behind me can be the debate that I'm watching.
Cause it's public public domain.
I want to make sure I'm not violating anybody's IP rights accidentally.
Cause I'm not the guy who should be doing that.
I mean, if your whole, if your whole business in my case is based on intellectual property, you don't want to be like the big asshole about it.
I feel like I want to stay legal and appropriate.
You're not just legal beyond legal.
I want to do what?
It's ethical.
So that's more than legal.
So I think that's okay, though, right?
Because it's a public good.
All right, I'm going to proceed on that assumption.
There is, according to the Amuse account on X, which is a great account you should be following, Amuse, there's some leaks from the preparation for Kamala Harris for the debates.
And they're saying that they're trying to get her to act more like a prosecutor so that she can frame the situation as like she's a prosecutor and Trump's a criminal and she's just prosecuting things.
Now, my take on that is, do they not know how bad an idea that is?
Because let me make a list of the things that I would least like to hear.
The thing I would least like to hear Is a bunch of lawfare-sounding prosecutor talk from a potential president.
That's the last thing I want to hear.
So if she thinks that that's a good look, I would ask her to whom?
Now, I'm not going to be the one who says that Trump will be more popular with black voters because he has a mugshot and he had legal problems.
No, I'm joking.
I am going to say that.
Trump probably is going to be more popular to black voters because he has legal problems.
Because everybody can relate to legal problems.
Everybody can relate to being unfairly treated.
So I don't think it's just the black community.
So I'm not going to say that, you know, extra special way the black community loves criminals.
I don't think that's the case.
But I think everybody sees what's happening and sees him as a victim of lawfare, but they also put themselves in his position.
If you watch somebody being railroaded by the legal system, I don't know about you, maybe I'm too close to it, so I'm different.
But I immediately translate that into my own experience.
And I say, wait a minute, if they can do that to him, how hard is it for them to do it to you and me?
So to me, this would be the number one worst approach.
If she comes off as a prosecutor, and then Morning Joe starts praising her for acting like a prosecutor, she loses.
You lose.
I don't even think you can recover from that.
That would be the end of the campaign, in my opinion.
Now, I'm not sure that this report is true, because if I were as clever as the people are who seem to be advising Kamala Harris, here's what I'd do.
I would do a fake leak and say that she's planning to be a prosecutor, so that Trump would prepare for that.
But I would be advising her, don't be a prosecutor.
Nobody wants to see that.
Be a leader.
Does a leader sound like a prosecutor?
Never.
Nope.
Nope.
You can't make the prosecutor sound like a leader.
You cannot do that.
Those are just two different.
So I think there's a strong chance this is a fake leak.
Meaning that they wanted Trump to think he should prepare for this prosecutor personality and it won't show up.
So, but I could.
So I'm not going to rule it out completely.
I'm simply introducing the idea that her current advisors are definitely smart enough to plant a fake leak.
That is well within their brain capability and, you know, their method of work.
So just be careful of that one.
I'd love to see her do it though, because it would be the end of her.
There's a story also from the Amuse account that apparently the Biden administration bribed Mexico with $20 billion to help shut down the border because the election is coming.
And they did.
Now, the background of that is that Mexico said, we'd love to help you, you know, securing the border, but we don't have the money to do it.
So the U.S.
said, well, it's important to us, so we'll give you the money.
And then they got the money and then they did it.
Now that's the official story.
Here's my version of it.
Of course we could do it anytime we want.
We did it under Trump.
But, we're not going to do it this time unless you give us 20 billion dollars that we can spend any way we want.
Alright, here's your check.
So, it's also hard to ignore that 20 billion dollars is exactly the cost of the entire wall.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly the number that people estimated that the wall would cost, right?
So now we just wrote a check to Mexico to buy literally nothing.
Literally nothing.
Because they would have done it for free for Trump.
Because they did before.
So I think they would again.
You know, Trump would just threaten them instead of bribing them.
Instead of saying, we'll give you $20 billion, he'd say, we'll take $20 billion.
And then they would just do it on their own.
So when you look at the difference in negotiating and capability, there's a mile of difference.
The Democrats just don't have the goods.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't heard already.
The 2025 Dilbert calendar is now available for presale, but only at go to the Dilbert.com and you'll see the sales link.
Get more than one, and the shipping costs will seem far more reasonable.
And everybody you know wants one for a gift.
Somebody asked me on the site, they said, we used to buy multiple copies to give to our customers.
But now that you have the Dilbert Reborn, we're worried that maybe this isn't good as a giveaway to customers.
Let me assure you, it's not good as a giveaway to your customers.
I'd love to tell you that that was safe, but we don't live in a safe world.
Is it safe for you to buy one and put it on your desk?
You're going to have to decide that on your own.
Now, there's nothing in there that's more than PG-13, right?
It's not profane that way.
And the issues that it touches on, it does it in a Comic way, not a in-your-face way.
So, although I do deal with, you know, DEI and all of that stuff, I don't do it in a way that I would be ashamed of at any time in my life.
So, I do handle it in the comic way, not in the, I don't know, the provocative way, I guess.
In my opinion, an ordinary person would not be offended by anything on the calendar.
But, Could somebody who didn't like you use it as an excuse?
They might.
So you be the judge.
Decide how much you want it displayed and whether you want it at your home office or in the real office.
But I wouldn't buy 20 copies for your customers.
Honestly.
I mean, I'd love you to buy it, but I wouldn't do it.
I would buy it for individual use and then even then I'd use your judgment.
