Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Self-Fertilizing Crops, Anti-Trump Governors, Governor Newsom, Democrat Identity Politics, President Trump, Bill Maher, Anti-Trump Iran Plot, Van Jones Election Analysis, Scott Jennings, RFK Jr. Critics, US Founders Energy Returns, Elon Musk, President Putin, Trump Negotiating Skill, Mike Davis, Dr. Paul Offit, Fed Chair Powell Removal, Trump Policy Videos, General Flynn, John Brennan, Daniel Penny Trial, 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
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 this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sign.
The 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.
The dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called...
That's right.
The simultaneous sip.
Go.
Now I know what you're thinking.
The question on all of your minds is...
Is Scott losing his hair?
He can't tell, can you?
That's right.
I'm wearing the Coffee with Scott Adams official beanie.
And you're saying to yourself, but, but...
I thought you were Tim Pool.
No, I'm not.
I'm not.
I'm not Tim Pool.
See the glasses?
That's how you can tell us apart.
But also, I'm rocking this Coffee with Scott Adams beanie hat, and it's the best thing ever.
If you're wondering where you can get one, I never remember the URL, but if you just look for Coffee with Scott Adams merchandise, it'll pop right up.
With coffee mugs and shirts and stuff like that.
Now, as soon as I put this on, I thought to myself, hey, maybe I should sign up for a dating site now that I got my cover story there.
And somebody would say, I might be interested in you, but are you going bald?
And I'd say, there's no evidence of that.
So get your beanie and Get Dayton, men.
Women do.
According to SciPost, did you know that science is determined in a study, small study, but using negative words predicts depression and anxiety severity over time?
Huh.
Yes, you could have saved a little bit of time simply by asking Scott, Scott, do sad people use sad words?
And I would say, yes.
And then they say, all right, okay, makes sense.
How about people with anxiety?
Do people with anxiety use happy words or maybe some negative words?
And I would look at them and I'd say, more negative words.
And they would say, oh God, you just saved us a lot of money.
We were going to study that.
No, don't study it.
Just ask Scott.
I can save science so much money.
So much.
And you're going to need that money for eggs.
Here's another one according to Medical Express, a story in Medical Express.
There's a study that says that a dog owner...
And the dog, they end up sinking their emotional state.
Yeah, it's true.
That if you get all excited, your dog will get excited.
And if you're calm, your dog will be calm.
I wonder how much they spent on that.
Because you know what else they could have done.
Yeah, they could have just asked me.
Or they could have just watched a TV show called The Dog Whisperer.
The entire show was based on the fact that humans are the ones who control how the dogs feel.
So if the human controls themselves, the dog is better.
And by the way, 100% of people who own dogs knew this a long time ago.
I'm going to tell you something that I do that uses this concept.
Do you ever wake up, it's like 3 in the morning, and for whatever reason, your body is overclocking?
It's usually your mind, but you feel like your body is overclocked?
Like your heart's a little too fast and you don't think you can go back to sleep?
Here's what I do.
I get out of bed, I go find my dog, who by then is sound asleep.
I pick her up.
She wakes up a little bit, but not completely.
And then I lay her down on the couch and I snuggle her.
Do you know why I do that?
That the moment I snuggle my dog, My heart rate goes, and it matches the dog.
Now, I've known this for years, and I use this very specifically to lower my heart rate and go back to sleep.
And it works every time.
Because the dog isn't going to get more excited because she's so asleep.
So I use her as my pacing mechanism.
So I just become whatever the dog's point of view is, and then I can fall right back to sleep.
Works perfectly.
So you didn't need to study it.
Did you know that there's some, according to Utah State University, they've got some biochemists who have a breakthrough where they could make some crops.
They haven't done it yet, but it looks like they could make crops that can fertilize itself with sunlight.
What?
So the biggest breakthroughs in feeding the world, probably besides water, is fertilizer.
If we did not have modern fertilizers, we would not be anywhere near able to feed the world as easily as we do anyway.
So there's also a fertilizer shortage, and it's also hard to get fertilizer to some rural poor places like the middle of Africa, for example.
So if they can build plants that somehow can convert sunlight into their own source of fertilizer, And anyway, so that might happen.
That would be a big deal, especially for home farming.
All right.
As you know, you've heard that some of the Democrat...
Governors are trying to do what they call Trump-proof their state.
In other words, they're trying to make laws or regulations that are hard to unwind if they believe that Trump will try to unwind them for them.
So Newsom is one of these people.
He called it an emergency session in my state here in California.
And that he's going to prepare for potential attacks on the Golden State's civil rights, on abortion protections, climate actions, and who knows what else.
Now, here's my take on that.
I could not be more entertained by how much Democrats don't understand what's happening.
Are you having that same experience?
Now, to be fair, it caught me off guard, too.
I wasn't expecting as big a win and as comprehensive a win across the Senate and maybe the House.
I was predicting that Trump would win on votes.
So I did actually predict he would win on the popular vote.
But I didn't think it would be as conclusive and as obvious as it is.
But now that it is, Correct me if I'm wrong.
It makes everything look different, doesn't it?
So let me give you an example.
If Trump had won the minority of votes, in other words, lost the popular vote, but he had squeaked by in the electoral college and everybody would say, ah, electoral college, it's not a perfect system.
I'm not sure he's the most credible leader because he got in through that weird little system that some of us want to get rid of.
But if you win the popular vote, and then your governor says, we're going to try to thwart the will of the majority?
Wait, why is my state trying to thwart the will of the majority?
Now, I guess states' rights and states get to do their own thing to some degree.
But does it feel right?
It doesn't feel right, does it?
And if Trump had only won the electoral college but not the popular vote, I would have said, well, you know, you've got a little bit of backing for that.
Because you could say, well, we don't all want that.
But when the majority picks somebody and gives them a mandate, That's not when you say, we're all going to get on the other side.
So it just seems, I don't know, stupid or pathetic or tone deaf.
And also the things that they think they're going to protect, I don't even think it's real.
Do you think that they need to protect the state from anything that Trump would do about abortion?
No.
Trump is so done with abortion.
If there's one thing that Trump doesn't want to ever do again, it's get anywhere near an abortion law.
That would be crazy for him.
It's just pure loss.
He wants to stay out of it completely.
And yet the state of California is like, oh, he's coming for us.
They can't even figure out where their biggest problems are.
Like everything's identity.
We must stop Trump from what?
He has no interest in this topic whatsoever.
At least interest in terms of making the state change what they're doing.
What was the other one?
Climate change.
Well, that might be just sort of a made-up problem.
I don't know what Trump would do specifically that would affect California and climate change, but he could.
So at least it seems like there's a real thing there.
But he's not going to affect it in a way that's going to destroy the planet.
I don't think that's going to happen.
What's he going to do?
Tell California that maybe they should turn their nuclear power plants back on?
How exactly is it going to hurt California?
So anyway, the majority makes a difference.
Bill Maher makes news again.
It is interesting how much of a signpost Bill Maher's show is.
Really, I feel like we have to talk about it after every show.
Because he does have this weird...
He's got this weird real estate he's carved out where he can actually talk about both sides.
Now he's still biased and anti-Trump to the point of being ridiculous.
But when he's not talking about Trump specifically, where the bias is concentrated, he can see the whole field.
And so watching him navigate that while he has an audience of largely Democrats is kind of fascinating because it's part of their awakening.
But here's the perfect story.
He told this story last night.
Apparently, Bill Maher and Woody Harrelson have partnered in owning a weed store in California.
So they own a store that sells marijuana.
It's all legal, of course.
And his weed store got broken into.
It got robbed this week.
It's in California.
So...
If there's anything that can turn an old hippie into a conservative, it's having your weed store robbed.
Now, I don't want anybody's store to get robbed.
And I'm sure they had insurance and they can afford it and all that.
But what could be a more perfect story to fit this moment in time when the entire Democrat philosophy as well as the party itself just disappeared?
I mean, they just collapsed.
At the same time, Bill Maher's pot store gets robbed.
There's nothing funny about crime.
Said other people.
He also said that, this is also from Bill Maher, he said that Kamala underperformed in every demographic group, although she is still polling well among illegal immigrants who want sex change operations.
And then he said, make no mistake, this election was about the countries had enough of the anti-common sense woke bullshit.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The trouble is that he still thinks, you know, Trump is the devil.
So seeing him half awake, you know, the woke stuff, he's always been on that page, so I'll give him full credit for being anti-overwokeness.
He's so close.
He's so close.
He's not pro-Trump.
Never will be, I think, but I would say that he is, well, let me put it this way.
Let me give it a golden age spin, if I can.
I think there might have been a time when Bill Maher's messaging and opinions were a negative for the country.
In other words, they were a little bit Adding to the divisiveness, you know, sort of an anti-Trump, which made Trump lovers be a little anti-Bill Maher and wasn't really working in the right direction.
I would say at the moment, even despite him not being personally a Trump fan, that his take on the topics and where the country is and where the Democrats went wrong is now solidly in the positive.
Meaning that he's adding to the benefit of the country.
He's using his free speech, as he was before.
But I think now, simply de-emphasizing Trump as the devil And simply saying, hey, Democrats, look what you got wrong.
Maybe you ought to get right on this stuff.
That's pure positive.
So every time I see something tip Trump's way, it's starting to look like a landslide within a landslide.
Because there's something happens that's bigger than the election.
You see it internationally.
We'll talk about that.
You see it domestically.
There's a big mental change that's happening.
And I think Bill Maher is part of the positive part of that right now.
I saw a post from Zuby.
This is another example of how it helps to know the people.
If you don't know who Zuby is, this might be interesting or funny to you.
If you do know who he is, it helps it.
It just helps it because you can imagine the person saying it.
Like that just makes things funnier.
So this is what Zuby posted today.
It's just one sentence.
People can stop pretending to like Kamala Harris now.
That feels like that just got through all the noise, right?
There's all the noise of politics.
But somewhere at the bottom of all that noise, didn't you suspect that people were only pretending to like Kamalares?
Weren't you strongly suspecting that people sort of like Trump, but they can't say it?
And they sort of didn't like Harris, but maybe they couldn't say it?
Now Zuby has given you permission.
Permission granted.
You may now stop pretending you like Kamala Harris.
According to the Wall Street Journal, here's a story I don't trust.
Advisors to President Trump, President-elect Trump, are drawing a plan.
Hey, can I make a deal with you?
Can I make a deal with all of you?
I think it's weird to call him president-elect, because he has been president.
Very soon he will be president.
He'll be a double president.
He is a president-elect, and I get that, and we respect Biden's term, and we respect the office of the presidency.
But I'm just going to call him President Trump.
Is that okay?
Because it feels like he's already exerting his energy over the country, and I feel like it's an extra word.
We don't need it.
So if you don't mind, he's just President Trump, and we'll drop the elect.
Anyway, so the Wall Street Journal says that his supporters, or his advisors, they call him.
See, here's where the trick is.
How many people do you think would call themselves Trump's advisors?
And if the media says that you're his advisor, does that make you his advisor?
Because here's my take.
President Trump does not have advisors.
That's my take.
And I'm going to develop that over the course of my live stream here.
He doesn't have advisors.
He has a whole country.
And the thing that he does better than I think I've ever seen it done, maybe by far and maybe nobody's even been in the game, he reads the room, he takes his lead from the people.
He is genuinely a populist.
He's a populist in the sense that he says, what do you think?
What does everybody else think?
What's the best idea?
Who has a good idea to do something about it?
So, To call somebody President Trump's advisor is a complete misunderstanding of what's happening in the moment.
Here's the moment.
Every one of you is his advisor.
The election was his advisor.
Right?
Every pundit on every channel, everywhere, every podcaster, every guest of a podcast, they are his advisors.
And he treats them that way.
So if you've got a better idea, it's going to bubble up through social media.
Maybe some big account will give you a boost.
Somebody on his team is going to see it.
If they think it's a good idea, right over to the Oval Office or wherever he is, and he's going to hear it.
So we have never seen this before.
And by the way, I think I'm the only person who ever talks about it.
To me, it's one of the biggest, most phenomenally impressive parts about the country, is that we could create, or not create, I mean, he created himself, but that there's this character who's the perfect moment for the perfect time, and he's plugged into the public and their collective intelligence in a way we've never seen.
Never seen it.
So anyway, but the point is that Wall Street Journal says his advisors are drawing up plans to carry out a mass deportation pledge, including discussing how to pay for it.
Now, I'm sure that the details of this story are true, meaning that somewhere there are Trump supporters and they're drawing up plans for mass deportation.
This does not mean there will be a mass deportation or that you know what it would look like or that Trump is even aware that his advisors are working on it.
So-called advisors.
Because I'm also an advisor.
Because I say so.
I just declared myself an advisor.
And let me give some advice.
We have a gigantic national debt and an open border.
If you simply work on President Trump, if you simply work on the most important things first, everything else is going to work out.
And you're good at that, working at the important things first.
Seal the border and stop the bleeding.
You've got to put the tourniquet on.
We know you're going to do that.
Perfect.
Then focus all of your resources on the criminals and deporting them.
We want zero Venezuelan gangs.
It's going to take all of your resources.
Yes, you might ask for some more funding for the border, but it's all going to go toward crime.
You've got to really get rid of the criminals.
Now, maybe you could throw into the mix people who came in in the last 30 days.
You know, they're the easy ones.
Like, you just got here.
Get out of here.
But by the time you're done with the biggest priorities, closing that border, Get rid of the criminals.
You're not going to have any resources left.
And you know what?
Might not make much difference.
Because if you close the border, you stop the problem, the country will begin to absorb the excess migrants, as we always have.
And let's be honest.
If Republicans are being honest, We've always said we're...
And here I'm caucusing with Republicans.
I'm technically a Democrat.
But we've always said we're pro-immigration.
Most people.
Some are not.
But almost all Republicans are pro-immigration if you do it right.
If you do it right.
Now, it's not right that a bunch of people came in illegally and then they get to establish themselves.
But if they got jobs and they're paying taxes and they're not breaking the law, And they've been here five or ten years.
I'm not sure I would support increasing the funding for the Department of Homeland Security to get rid of them.
You're going to need all your resources just to keep people out and get rid of the criminals.
So that's my advice.
So Wall Street Journal, if you'd like to update your article.
One of his advisors just said, if you do all the top important things first, the rest is going to work out.
And we don't really have to scare the world.
Now, I don't think I need Trump to say what I said.
Because if he says he's going to deport everyone, that's going to be a big part of stopping people from coming in.
Because why would you come in if you're just going to be deported in a month?
There's no point.
So I don't think he needs to change his messaging.
But Wall Street Journal, you really need to update your thinking.
There is no such thing as Donald Trump's advisors.
We're all his advisors.
And he actually is listening to the public.
All right.
Also from the Wall Street Journal, I saw a headline that said that Trump's election win made the difference between the White House and potentially going to prison.
Now, I think we agree with that, factually, that if he had not been elected, he might have been put in prison.
And some say that other people would have been put in prison.
Maybe.
But there's a good chance that he would have been.
However, I'm going to quibble with the Wall Street Journal headline.
So here's their headline.
Donald Trump's election win made the difference between going to the White House and potentially going to prison.
Now, if you read that, that sounds like he's a bad guy who found a technical way around the law to thwart the will of the people and the Department of Justice.
Here's what the headline could have been.
And you tell me if this would not be a fairly factual...
By the way, can we get rid of IslandBoy699?
If my engineer has power where he lives, I don't know if he's just being a troll or whatever.
But it looks like on the Rumble platform, just somebody's spamming us right now.
Anyway, so here's what the headline could have been.
Lawfare failed.
The charges against Trump, in my opinion, were completely lawfare.
Just 100% lawfare.
So the Wall Street Journal could have said that the illegitimate lawfare attempts to take on a candidate failed.
Wouldn't that be the same story?
Why would you put it this way that makes it sound like he's a criminal and he found a clever way to avoid jail?
That's not the world I lived in.
I did not live in the world where he was a criminal avoiding jail.
I lived in the world in which the government were the criminals and they were trying to put somebody in jail that maybe technically did some crimes, but We're all aware that nobody would have pursued them because there were no victims.
You know, these are completely victimless, ridiculous.
You know, even the banks said, no, we don't care.
We'd love to do business with them.
So, headline fail, Wall Street Journal.
So Iran has said that they were not behind the assassination attempt.
So our government has told us that they have thwarted a so-called Iranian plot to assassinate Trump, as well as a number of other prominent people and some Iranian critics, I guess.
So we've got the United States government saying that Iran was plotting to kill Trump, and we've got the Ayatollah saying, no, we were not behind it.
Whose side are you going to take?
Do you trust the U.S. government on a question of Trump assassination?
Or would you trust the leader of basically the main funder of terrorists in the world, our mortal enemies?
No, not really our mortal enemies.
But who do you trust?
I got to go with Iran.
You know, good work.
Good work, intelligence people.
Great work.
Can you believe I have to be in this position?
That I have to be in a position where I'm going to doubt my own government's intelligence because they have a bad track record.
And the thing that they're claiming is fucking ridiculous.
At what point did Iran ever start acting crazy?
Well, you know, they have a religious belief that's not your religious belief, but, you know, that's sort of baseline differences between people.
But when did they start acting like they wanted their whole country to be destroyed in a nuclear fireball?
Never.
Never.
They're dangerous.
They're very dangerous.
But they're not crazy.
Do you know what would have been crazy?
For them to authorize an assassination of Trump.
There's nothing that would be more dangerous for Iran and for their own lives, they would die for sure, than doing that.
So I don't think there's really any chance that it came from leadership in Iran.
There is a chance that it was an Iranian guy Maybe he had a backer.
But it didn't sound at all like an Iranian plot to kill Trump.
And then the other tell is that the so-called plotter had a kill list.
So it was like a list of people he would kill.
That doesn't sound like a plot to kill the president.
At all.
And I don't believe that they had sort of a generic plot to kill whoever was easiest one to kill.
You know, which is what the kill list would look like.
It's like, well, if you can get one of these guys, that's not what the crack assassin going after your head of state does.
He doesn't have a kill list.
There's just one person on that list, if it's real.
So...
Sorry, you know, United States intelligence people, FBI, whatever, if you want to be credible, you're going to have to be credible for a few years.
If you come off of the least credible era in your entire existence and you give me some bullshit about Iran wants to destroy its own country, why would I believe that?
I don't believe that at all.
And let me be as clear as possible.
I'm not trying to back Iran.
I think Iran needs to be somehow neutralized, ideally, in a way that doesn't require any violence.
All right.
I'm going to surprise you again by agreeing with Van Jones on his take on what happened in the election.
So I'll paraphrase.
So Van Jones on CNN. Says that the Democrats had a, basically they had a plan or a proposal of policies to help every group except black men.
And that's a good take.
Because he pointed out, for example, if you're a woman, even if you're a black woman, abortion's on the menu, so you know that your interests are being looked after.
And a number of other groups could say the same, you know, the illegal migrants, etc.
There were specific things that were being done for their benefit.
And then Van Jones asked this question, and he says, what did Kamala Harris promise to do that would be good for black men?
The answer is nothing.
And it came closer to disrespecting them.
Because by the time Obama was telling me, hey, it's black men, it's your fault.
It was literally disrespect.
And that's what I saw.
To me, it looked like disrespect.
So how do you feel if you're a black man and you hear that your own party says you can't get ID to vote?
And then you look at the Republicans and Republicans say, every black person can get ID to vote.
What kind of racist thinks you can't get an ID? There's no evidence of that.
So who's showing you respect?
The people who think you can't figure out how to get an ID when everybody can figure out how to get an ID? Or the Republicans who say, well, you're exactly like us.
We get IDs, you get IDs.
How about we treat everybody the same?
Who is respecting you?
Obviously.
Obviously the Republicans.
And the Republicans, what about DEI and ESG? The way the Republicans treat those things is, why are you disrespecting groups that could do fine in this country if they do the same things that other people do to do fine?
If they stay in trouble, go to jail, don't get on drugs, they do fine.
So why are you acting like one group can't do that?
So the Republicans have always been respectful.
Weirdly.
You know, it's framed a different way, but the Republicans always start with respect for the individual, and then they work from there.
You are a citizen of the United States.
Therefore, you're on my team, and then we'll work from there.
That's the Republican way to go.
But the identity politics was guaranteed to fail because it would tell you who's left out.
The Republican policies don't tell you who's left out, because it's not supposed to.
But the whole point of the Democrat identity politics is like, well, we've got this little sliver of people who are yelling really hard.
We'll give them a little extra, but it's going to have to come out of this little group over here.
Oh, stop yelling that we're taking things from you and moving it to the other group.
It couldn't possibly work in the long run.
So And then Van Jones said that, quote, when you don't give people respect, they don't stick around.
And sure enough, Trump goes to the black barbershop.
Did it look like he was pandering?
Now, it was a campaign, so you wouldn't be wrong if you said, well, it's a campaign, so everybody's pandering.
But did it look like he was pandering?
Not really.
It looked like he wanted to make sure that black men were fully respected.
In other words, you know, I see you, you're one of us, same problems.
Hey, you're doing a good job with your barbershop, right?
But when Kamala Harris does her little drop-in at the black barbershop, it just looked awkward, didn't it?
Because she didn't have what Trump had to offer, which is, I'm one of you.
You're one of me.
Because she's the identity person.
She's the not one of you who happened to stop by.
Trump is the one of you who happened to stop by.
Because he's an American, you're an American.
He's one of you.
She's a black woman with some Indian background.
So she's not a black man.
She's a stranger who stopped by.
And you could tell.
You could feel that.
Anyway, and then the ads were terrible, according to Van.
So I agree with him totally.
I think his is so far...
The most penetrating, accurate analysis.
You know, there's a lot more to the whole story.
But watching the CNN and MSNBC pundit crowd get everything wrong has been my entertainment for days.
Like, I can't get enough of it.
Just watching them have no idea why they lost because they are the problem.
The people doing the talking about, I don't know what happened.
It must...
Can we blame some black men or something?
Is there somebody we can blame for this who's not sitting at this panel right now on TV? No, it's the panel on TV. Because if the people on TV got their act together, the people watching them would correspond.
The politicians would say, ooh, the way they're talking about us on TV means we should maybe change our messaging.
So, no, the people trying to figure out what went wrong are completely missing the fact that it's 100% them.
The media tells everybody how to think.
And they're like, why did everybody think wrong?
It was you.
You determined how they think.
You were the person who tells your people who watch how to think.
You didn't do it right.
You told them to think in terms of divisive terms.
You told them to think that obvious hoaxes were true.
And when people saw that the obvious hoaxes were being sold to them, they said, give me a minute, let me see what the other side says.
And that's what was happening.
And by the way, yes, I just have to give a shout out every day or two to Scott Jennings.
Scott Jennings might be the most brilliant hire that CNN's ever done, because he does the Republican version of it.
Because he's got the happy warrior thing so down.
He has a smile on his face that doesn't look like an arrogant jerk smile.
It just looks like he genuinely enjoys his job.
And he sort of methodically just destroys the other four or five people on the table and then watches them go crazy.
And he just smiles politely while they do.
And it couldn't be better TV. And I give CNN credit for that.
You know, I do have some criticisms of CNN. Some specific on-air people are a little ridiculous.
But CNN is definitely...
They're at least making real moves toward showing their audience both sides.
And right now, it's like five on one against Scott Jennings, and he's winning every match.
Now, I'm biased because I'm closer to his opinions than the panel's.
But the panel seems like these just identity idiots.
Like, it doesn't even matter who the other people are.
They're all just identity idiots.
And as soon as you see them go into, oh, identity, and then they start talking about their hoaxes, and you say, oh, my God, they're just identity hoaxers.
So at that very same table where Scott Jennings was getting them all hopping mad, they had this idea that That Trump was...
What were they saying?
Oh, that Trump is going to do vengeance.
So they're trying to concoct a new hoax that's cobbled together from a number of things Trump has said that they're trying to all say that if you put these together...
You know, collectively, it says that he's going to go on a vengeance tour and get revenge on all the people who wronged him.
Now, do you know why they feel so worried about this in the media?
Because they're the ones who wronged him.
If you had never wronged Trump, if you had simply said what was true, even if it had to be a criticism, do you think you'd be worried about going to jail?
We're being rounded up.
No.
I think that the people in the media are so aware of how illegitimately they've been doing their jobs that they think they're on the verge of being locked up, even though as far as I know it's not criminal.
There's no crime to be lying on TV, apparently.
So I think they're worried because they're completely aware of how bad they've behaved, and they found out that the majority of the country just took the other side.
So now they're in the minority, and the majority thinks that they're lying.
And at least they thought that enough to vote the other way.
So if you're looking for the vengeance argument, it's just a whole bunch of out of context things like, he wants to be dictated for a day, okay, but that's not vengeance, but that gives you his point of view.
Okay, it was out of context, but still, it's part of the story.
And then they try to weave all these little things.
Now, but let's ask the question directly.
Will Trump aim to get revenge?
I hope so.
But only if there's a real there there.
So if he says, I'm going to put Adam Schiff in jail because I don't like how he acts, no, I'm not down for that, and I will help you stop it.
So let me say this if there are any Democrats listening, and if any Republicans want to join in on this, If Trump tries to lawfare Democrats, in other words, uses some technical arguments that wouldn't be used normally, I am not down with that.
I will be very, very vocal in resisting that.
And I hope that there would be a lot of resistance, too.
Trump would not do something that had mass resistance from his own team.
I think there would be mass resistance to that.
Now, if you see some charges against some people, public figures, and then you hear the charges and you say, oh, wow, that's different.
Like somebody took a bribe or something just outrageous.
And let's say that it had some impact on him.
And let's say that in his quiet moments, he's probably thinking, I'm getting my revenge on this bastard.
But there was a real crime.
A real crime that you would care about, not just a law fairy technical thing with no victim, but like a real crime with a real victim.
Yeah, I want him to get revenge.
But we're not going to call it that.
We're going to call it nobody's above the law because that's our standard.
And so whether you call it revenge or just making sure that the law is followed and that the country is, you know, the ship of state is righted, These are just words.
But we're going to look at every situation individually.
And if Trump ever becomes this thing you're afraid of, you should look to his followers first.
So talk to us.
If you think that Trump has become this character that you've been warned of, and none of us believe that this is going to happen, but hey, we're here.
We'll protect you.
So let me say this as also a form of unity as we enter the golden age.
I will do everything I can to protect Democrats from any kind of unfair lawfare, any, you know, any, let's say, any censorship against them, any Any shenanigans?
Now, I realize there's going to be sort of an ordinary amount of political, you know, firing the Democrats and hiring the Republicans.
That's sort of normal.
So the normal stuff I'm not going to get excited about.
But if you see Trump cross the line into he's just getting revenge, we will stop that.
We meaning his supporters.
We will stop that.
Because his support ends immediately if he crosses that line.
The thing that Democrats don't understand about Republicans is that they're rules-based.
Republicans are rules-based.
And the rule is the Constitution.
So if we see Trump violating the Constitution, everybody's triggered.
And it's immediate, and it's going to be massive.
So I think Democrats don't quite understand the The basic core DNA of the conservative Republican right.
They're so against the thing they're worried about, there really is no chance of it, in my opinion.
There's no chance of it at all.
But if you've been a Republican and you watched all these dirty tricks being used against Trump, you would imagine the Republicans would respond in kind.
I don't think so.
But let me give you one example where maybe there's a little gray area.
Who was it?
Was it Mike Davis?
Skipping ahead.
I think it was lawyer Mike Davis who had a good quote that I'm totally going to find here in a minute.
Nope, not going to find.
All right, so I think it was Mike Davis who said that Letitia James is going to put her fat ass in jail if she gets in line, meaning that she's violating the Department of Justice guidelines and just going after Trump.
Because I do think that there's something there.
Meaning that it does look like the lawfare against Trump did cross the line into a RICO situation.
And now that Trump and his people will be in charge, I think a threat to the lawfare people is completely appropriate.
Now, would that be revenge?
It would not, because I would not be in favor of any kind of action against Letitia Jones, Letitia James.
I would not be in favor of anything unless there's real evidence of a crime.
So if there is, well, it's go time.
But if there isn't, absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
All right, so CNN had somebody come on to say that RFK Jr.
is dangerous.
It was Dr.
Paul Offit, the Director of Vaccine Education Center and Infectious Diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
So here's what I'm looking for when I see the medical professionals criticizing RFK Jr.
If they have to make up an opinion and assign it to him to have something to complain about, then they're the problem.
If they say things that he really does believe and does plan to do, and they have a problem with it, I'm going to listen to that.
That's exactly the debate we need.
But if they make up stuff...
And they characterize him as something he's not.
And then they criticize that imaginary version of him.
I'm going to back him twice as hard.
Because...
I mean, that's just such a tell that you're hiding something.
So what did Dr.
Paul Ofit say about RFK Jr.?
He said, quote...
And now you have this man, RFK Jr., who's a science denialist.
Is that true?
Is RFK Jr.
a science denialist?
No, the opposite is true.
He's the one who says there's not enough science being applied to vaccinations.
So the science denialist is the one who didn't do the science.
The science promoter is the one who says, I think we need more science on this question.
So the very first thing is opposite of true.
What else does he say?
He says that he's a virulent anti-vaccine activist.
Out of context.
Out of context.
He's not anti-vaccine.
He's anti-undertested vaccine.
Anti-undertested vaccine.
That's not anti-vaccine.
That's pro-vaccine.
So this is, again, the opposite.
He says that he's a conspiracy theorist.
Well, let me say this to you, Dr.
Paul Ofid.
Fuck you.
Because conspiracy theorists doesn't belong in our conversation.
Your vaccines are killing people or they're saving people.
I'm no expert.
I don't know.
But when you call him a guy who is pro-science, a conspiracy theorist, just fuck you.
I'm not going to debate it.
I'm just going to say, fuck, fuck you.
Get back to science.
Stop this bullshit.
Whatever this is, you're bad at it.
Talking in public.
Maybe you're good at your test tubes and shit.
But you're not good at this.
So you should stay the hell off of TV if you're going to just bring us garbage.
It's the golden age.
It's not the trash age.
And he said, nothing good can come of that.
He denies those advances.
He does not.
He simply declares his own scientific truths.
Does not.
None of this is true.
And he's the expert they have on.
Now, this is every tell.
Every tell is screaming that the vaccines are A corrupt business or under-tested or maybe more dangerous than we think.
And by the way, I'm not anti-vax.
If we're talking about childhood vaccinations, I'm not anti.
I'm also not pro.
I'm absolutely 100% RFK junior on this.
We need more information.
It doesn't mean I would stop somebody from getting a vaccination, necessarily.
But absolutely, we need a little more safety.
Wouldn't mind that.
Well, on MSNBC, Mika, on Morning Joe, she says that she thinks that women are too busy with their lives to worry about, you know, the threat of Trump's fascism and losing democracy.
Now, what could be more fun than watching MSNBC have no idea that they are the problem?
And that they're blaming now women for being too busy to worry about fascism and losing democracy.
Neither of those things were even real.
There's no fascism.
There's no losing your democracy.
Maybe women were just smarter than Mika, and they said, how's he stealing my democracy?
You know, even the people who live in the states where the abortion law is not the way they want it, they know that their state can change that law and that they can vote on it.
Where did they lose their democracy?
Now they do lose a year or so of having the law the way they want it if their state has to make an adjustment.
So that's real.
If you're mad about that, that's a real cost.
But you didn't lose democracy You can just vote whatever you want in your state and then you'll get it.
MSNBC also had this Oh, he was on Bill Maher.
So John Heilman, who's from MSNBC, there was a clip of him getting absolutely everything wrong in his description of the world that was just hilarious.
But he was also on Bill Maher.
And he said, quote, not only is Twitter not a real place, but it's becoming a toxic cesspool filled with misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories.
And Bill Maher listens to this, this ridiculous rant.
He just says...
Twitter is real.
That is where reality is now.
So yes, thank you, Bill Barr.
That is correct.
That is real.
But Heilman was right that the legacy media has lost its energy.
All right, here's some fun for you.
I saw a post today from a user named Picola.
I don't know who Picola is, but on the X platform.
And mapped some of our characters who are in the news lately into the founding, the founders.
So he called it founding slash refounding fathers, although it's not all fathers.
There's some mothers on here.
Or some women, not necessarily mothers.
So he says you would map George Washington would be Trump.
You all see that one, right?
That one's easy.
If you were going to map our current players onto the founders, George Washington, Trump, that's easy.
But here are the others.
We'll see what you think.
Alexander Hamilton, JD Vance.
Now, wasn't Alexander Hamilton famous for being brilliant and unusually young?
Right?
Like, Hamilton was doing stuff when he was like 18.
You know, I'm changing the world at like 18 or something.
So yeah, JD Vance, unusually smart and younger than what we're used to.
So yeah, Alexander Hamilton, got it.
Thomas Jefferson, Vivek, totally.
Totally.
Yeah.
Vivek and Thomas Jefferson, you all see it.
He's multi-skilled.
His communication abilities are virtually unparalleled.
But certainly he has founder-level persuasion, communication, intelligence, grasp of various fields.
That one fits.
All right, how about this one?
Well, this is not really a founder, but in order to make things work, Thomas Edison as Elon Musk.
I think I preferred Ben Franklin for the Elon Musk.
But Thomas Edison makes sense.
I mean, greatest inventor.
So I see that.
James Madison, Ron Paul.
I guess I don't know enough about James Madison or Ron Paul to know how that lines up, but maybe you do.
Does that make sense?
James Madison is Ron Paul.
I don't know.
Abigail Adams, Nicole Shanahan.
I think that was a little unfair because we're just trying to figure out a way to, you know, to make the genders work because there were more men, you know, in 1776.
But I think Nicole needs some larger...
Some larger, I don't know, credit or mention or association.
Abigail Adams, by the way, although she was the spouse of John Adams, if I have my history right, I think she was very influential, wasn't she?
So maybe that's not a terrible...
I think I would just promote her higher than spouse of a founder.
I think her impact is founder level, not spouse of founder level.
Patrick Henry, RFK Jr.
Patrick Henry, RFK Jr.
I don't know.
I have to think about that one.
Good fit.
George Mason, Tulsi Gabbard.
Again, the gender part is weird, and I don't know exactly what George Mason did, but of course we want Tulsi on the list.
And then he says, what about a few others?
And he said a few other ideas.
Samuel Adams, Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson as Sam Adams.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'll take that.
John Hancock, Bill Ackman.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, I can say that one.
Bill Ackman with John Hancock.
And here's a fun one.
Benjamin Franklin.
Naval.
Naval Ravikant.
Ben Franklin.
Now, I would have made that Elon, but it's good to have Naval in there.
And then he's got Joe Rogan as Governor Morris.
Who my history knowledge is not sufficient to know if that would make sense.
And then he's got Thomas Paine.
And he's got me.
Do I map to Thomas Paine, who wrote the publication Common Sense?
And he was the most published person in maybe the history of the United States.
If you look at the number of copies of his publication Common Sense, As a percentage of the total number of people who lived in America at the time, it was the greatest publishing success of all time, Thomas Paine.
And here's an interesting fact.
Thomas Paine died on my birthday, June 8th.
Isn't that weird?
Died on my birthday.
If he had been born on my birthday, it'd be weirder.
And then Pecola has, for John Adams, he's got V.D. Hansen, Victor Davis Hansen.
Victor Davis Hansen for John Adams?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Here's my fun recreational hypothesis.
It goes like this.
There is a certain energy...
That is needed for certain times.
And America is one of those places that does look like destiny has shaped it.
Now, I'm sure Rome thought that before Rome fell apart, and Mongol hordes probably thought that too.
But there's something very destiny-like about America.
And I've always been amazed that the dozen or so founders who were really the superpower ones, that they were all here at the same time.
When there weren't many people here.
Like, how could it be that the tiny nation of America, when it was just, you know, before it was formed, that could have such superstars in the same place?
It was like the Beatles times three.
And then you look at the current times, and I ask the same question.
How could we have a Trump and an Elon Musk and a David Sachs and a Bill Ackman and a Tulsi and a Vivek and a RFK Jr.
and, you know, I could go on.
Naval wants to get in there if possible.
How is it possible that we have, again, these characters?
It's almost as if there's an energy that stays dormant until needed.
And then the energy comes out through people, but it picks its own host.
Do you know what I mean?
Now, again, this is a recreational belief.
I don't want to go too far into woo-woo, weird spiritual stuff.
But in 1776, there was a certain energy that was needed, and then it came out through a certain number of characters who were exceptional.
At this moment in America's history, we're completely off the rails, and the same energy was needed.
But why is it that the vessels for that energy so mapped to 1776?
Is it just my confirmation bias?
Just my imagination?
It just feels like fate works through people who can handle it.
Do you know what's true about all the people in 1776 who were the leaders of the revolution?
Every one of them was going to get hanged if they didn't succeed.
Do you know what's true of this group of people from RFK Jr.
to Trump to Elon Musk?
They were all in a lot of trouble if they didn't succeed.
The level of bravery that In the founders, and then the level of bravery in the refounders, all of them, you know, if I don't mention any of the names, just imagine that they're in there.
It's like fate only operates through the brave.
Because if you're not brave, you can't see the future.
And you can't imagine surviving it.
You need brilliant, brave, patriotic people.
And boy, did we get lucky.
Because we have exactly the right people.
It's kind of crazy.
By the way, there's at least one more founder-level entrant that I can't tell you about yet.
But there's somebody else who's at least up for working with the administration that when you hear the name, you're going to go, oh, fuck, that makes so much sense.
I hope I can tell you about it soon.
But...
There's another corner of the country that needs to get fixed, and the exact right person is looking to be that person.
It's unbelievable.
It's unbelievable.
When you find out, you go, oh, shoot, this really is the Golden Age.
So that's a little behind the curtain stuff.
Maybe I can tell you more later.
Here's my other take on...
Oh, so something Vivek said, Ramaswamy, is that Elon's contribution, beyond the obvious funding, beyond the obvious public statements, etc., and all he did with X, that maybe his biggest contribution was making it safe to back Trump.
And I agree with that totally.
I think that it's hard to say that Trump is a monster and he's stupid when Elon Musk just backed him completely.
I think the permission structure was a really big part of the story.
But I'll go further and say that there are a lot of people in that story.
Vivek himself Put his whole life at risk to back Trump.
Before Elon.
Joe Rogan.
Before he had endorsed Trump, was at least not anti-Trump and was putting his whole thing at risk.
I would say that I basically threw away my entire career, put myself at risk.
And to the extent that people knew us and said, well, wait a minute.
I don't always agree with those people, but they're not stupid.
Not very many people think I'm stupid.
They just might disagree with specific things.
And once you get enough people who are unambiguously smart and unambiguously have no dog in the fight except we want the country to do well.
I mean, look at Elon.
He wants the country to do well.
Just totally.
You know, look at any of the founders or re-founders that I mentioned.
They all just want the country to do well.
I'm not in this for the money.
Like, I want the country to do well.
So I think a lot of us helped make Trump acceptable to those who were being lied to continuously by the fake news.
But I would say the following.
I think Trump has...
Has now with this victory and the amazing third act movie that he has managed to host here, he has moved into a different category.
He has moved from leader to legend.
And I think the legend part we're a little bit blind to in the United States because we're sort of in the middle of the fight.
We're in the weeds all the time.
But if you're in another country and you're somebody like Putin, Here's what Putin says.
Quote, he said, quote, talking about Trump, his behavior at the time of the attempt of his life made an impression on me.
Putin said, quote, he turned out to be a courageous man.
And it's not just about the raised hand and the call to fight for his and other common ideals.
He behaved, in my opinion, in a very correct way, courageously like a man.
That's Putin.
Even Putin is calling Trump a legend.
He's not using that words, but you can feel it.
Now, I think that this framing is going to be really strong with other countries, and that's why you're going to see other countries lining up to make a deal.
Trump as a salesperson and a dealmaker is really powerful, but Trump as a legend is Oh, we haven't seen this yet.
Do you know what happens when the legend comes in to negotiate with you?
It changes everything.
If Trump was just the leader of the United States, then you would be an adversary, and you would try to get the best deal you could, and maybe you couldn't even get a deal.
But if Trump comes in and he's a legend, you're going to do a deal.
Do you know why?
Because everybody wants to do a deal with the legend.
Everybody wants to say, I made that deal.
You see that nuclear weapon treaty?
I did that with Trump.
I worked with the legend.
And the two of us, the legend and me, the two of us made this work.
It changes everything.
And this is where I love Trump's take on war.
I want fewer people to die.
The more I think about that, the more genius that becomes over time.
If he doesn't take sides with war and he takes sides with life and he does it in every part of his policies everywhere, which he does, that's so strong.
That's a legend.
That's not a politician.
That's a legend.
No, I want less death.
Completely reframed war.
He reframed war.
Who does that?
A legend.
So...
I believe that, you know, everything from Hamas to the Houthis to Hezbollah to Putin to Iran to China to everybody that even, you know, ISIS, I think every one of them is going to say, I can't lose to my enemy.
I can't do a negotiation and surrender to my enemy.
But I can make a deal with legend.
Do you feel that?
Do you feel the point?
I hope I'm coming through.
People just act differently if you're a legend.
They're not going to treat him like an adversary exactly, even though they know he is.
They're going to say, I want to work with the legend.
I want to make my country great.
Let's do it with the legend.
It changes everything.
All right.
Here's a note I was looking for about Mike Davis.
He wants to put Letitia James' fat ass in prison if she keeps weaponizing the law against Trump.
Some say Mike Davis is on the short list to be Attorney General.
And, well, I don't know much about Mike Davis, but I like him so far.
The one thing I know about him.
Yeah, I like this.
Yep.
And he absolutely should be threatening Letitia James.
I think a fair and reasonable threat that's not based on craziness or conspiracy theory, but is based on observable public behavior, absolutely.
You know, we're a country that needs, you know, the free market competition of ideas and money and legal system.
So, yeah, a little pushback is what this country needs.
You know the question about whether Trump can remove the Fed chair, Powell?
Turns out, according to Adrian Vermeule, I believe he's a Harvard lawyer kind of guy, he says that there are, he says check the statutes first.
So the Constitution is kind of quiet on it, I guess, but there's a statute that suggests that you can change the leadership.
So what he can't do is remove him from office.
What he might be able to do, according to statutes, is remove him from leadership.
So that's interesting.
And it's funny that we didn't know that until, well, I didn't know it until right now.
Our government is so complicated that you can't tell what's up or down.
All right, here are some Trump policies that some of them I saw recently, but I think these are older, but these were little video messages he was doing during the campaign.
I think some of these were a year old.
But he's come out and said that he wants to use the military and the cartels.
He says he wants to move the homeless in our cities to tent cities, move them on some maybe public land or something, and give them nice tents and at least get them away from other people.
And he also talked about defunding the censorship network, which is something Mike Benz has suggested.
Now, on all three of these issues, Would you agree that Trump has probably been surveying the base and looking for what they wanted, and some good ideas trickle up, he put them into videos, and now he's trying them out?
To me, I think these are all bottom-up.
I think they all came from people who said specifically, hey, how about putting them in tents?
How about closing down, as Mike Ben said, closing down the funding to these anti-information people?
And then the cartel stuff I think comes from the public as well.
So I like that.
General Flynn was talking to Steve Bannon and he said something that caught my eye.
He did believe that if Trump lost, that they'd all go to jail, all of them being the people close to Trump, I guess.
And here's something that General Flynn said.
He said, quote, I'll tell you, and this is my fun, I think, this is my fun, I don't know, might be a typo there.
I think that the person behind this is the tactical, the person who's the tactical commander of all this is John Brennan.
I really believe that.
Yes, 100%.
There are people inside that are really good.
He said, we've had decent people, but I think John Brennan is one of the most evil people on the planet.
And that man, he's the tactical commander.
Obama is still in the play, and there's still some of these globalist characters, but that's what we're facing.
Now, I don't know what special insight General Flynn has, obviously, more than I do.
But the reason this caught my mind is that ever since the Russia collusion days, it always seemed to me that Brennan was the tactical commander.
That's the way I saw it.
It seemed to me that he was always in the right place, right time, right messenger, for certain sets of ops.
It was like he was running the ops, and then when he would go on TV, everybody would know what the op is, and then they would fall in line.
So I don't have any special information about John Brennan, but what Flynn is saying is exactly how I felt.
Because it looked like it, but I don't have any evidence to back that up.
I don't know if General Flynn does either, or if he was just getting the same vibe, because it just felt like it and looked like it to me.
Anyway, there's a study in the Journal of Public Economics that because Fox News has grown in its audience, That that growth translates to a.05 ratings on Fox News translates into extra votes.
So the study suggests that the simple exposure to more Fox News will change the vote outcome.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that if Fox News had extra audience, that that would convert people, brainwash them into more Trump votes?
I do.
Now, if you believe in free will, maybe you don't.
But I don't believe in free will.
I think that the influences in people's environments are making them do what they do.
And here's the interesting part.
The increase in their audience had to do with exogenous changes in channel placement.
Exogenous changes in channel placement.
In other words, it wasn't about what the producers or the talent did.
It was about something about the business itself and which cable channels they were on and how visible they were, etc.
So something changed in the outside world that made it a little easier to catch Fox News, and that translated into more votes for Trump.
I don't think that's the big story of the election, but I do note that if this is true, it's another blow against free will.
Because if a tiny, exogenous change in channel placement changed how you voted, what kind of system is that?
Well, who's going to be the president next time?
Who's going to be president?
Well, let me check.
Have there been any exogenous changes in channel placement lately?
Oh, there have been.
We can skip the election.
It's all Trump because of the exogenous changes in channel placement.
Anyway, Daniel Penny, you all know him.
He was the...
The person who tried to help on the subway train and ended up holding down a man who eventually died.
And now he's being accused of killing him, even though he didn't seem to be intending to do that whatsoever.
He was just trying to keep people safe.
And the prosecutor keeps referring to the situation as the white man and the black man.
So the prosecutor is asking witnesses stuff like, and did you see the white man holding the black man by the neck?
That's how the trial is going.
Now, everybody in the jury knows the names of Daniel Penny and the victim.
So why would he say their race when everyone knows their names?
It's the reason you think.
It's exactly the reason you think.
To bias them, make it a racial decision.
And some of the...
I believe some of the...
Witnesses are black.
There was at least one black man, maybe two, who helped Daniel Penny keep the guy subdued.
I think there was a mixed bunch of people on the train.
So Daniel Penny was protecting some black women probably and some white women and some other people.
And here's what I'd like to request.
Black men, as Van Jones pointed out, helped Trump get over the hump.
It wasn't the only thing that happened, because Trump won basically every group except a few.
And that triggers in me a sense of reciprocity, meaning that I appreciate that.
And so my opinion of Black American men, which was always good, you know, on an individual level.
I disagree with group stuff, but on an individual person-to-personal level, I appreciate it.
And it triggers my reciprocity.
So the same reason that black men, I think, responded to the greater respect that came from Trump and voted, that their voting was beneficial to me.
As a citizen.
So, thank you.
Thank you, Black American voters who saw through the hoaxes and said, how can we improve our economy?
Oh, maybe this Trump guy can do it.
So, I appreciate that.
I'm going to ask you for one more favor, though.
Black America, I need you to free Daniel Penney.
Now, I'm not talking directly to the people who are going to make the decision on the trial.
I doubt they're watching my show.
But this is what we need.
This is your moment.
Because we have been divided, you know, and I don't think anybody wants to be.
Like the division, it seems like it was imposed upon us by the narratives in the news.
It wasn't something we picked.
Black and white America didn't sit down one day and say, you know, what would be good is a little more division.
Nobody did that.
Everybody wants to get along.
And here's what I would really appreciate.
I would really appreciate if America can forget identity, ignore this prosecutor who's calling it the black man and the white man, and you just tell me what you want more of.
Do you want more Daniel Penny who steps in and that great personal risk tries to protect you?
Because I do.
I want more Daniel Penny.
If you want less of it, you know how to get it.
Because remember, reciprocity isn't a one-way street.
If the black Americans on this jury And I don't think they could possibly be, can't be 12 of them.
So they don't have full control.
But if they would join in with the rest of the jurors and just give this guy a free pass, because I want to live in the America where nobody judges this as a racial event.
That's the America I want.
And the prosecutor is not playing that game.
But you don't have to believe the prosecutor.
You can ask yourself, what kind of America do you want?
Do you want one where Daniel Penny jumps in?
Or do you want one where Daniel Penny walks away?
So your choice, reciprocity is on the table.
And I think we're seeing lots of evidence that we could get along better than we have.
But we need this.
The Daniel Penney thing matters.
It matters a lot.
And so I can use some help.
All right.
Steve Madden, the shoemaker, is going to move a lot of production out of China.
Won't be coming back to the United States, but would move it into places like Brazil, Mexico, Vietnam, Cambodia.
Those are the places that are the China competitors.
And that probably has something to do with Trump and Trump's warnings about tariffs.
So people are already making moves based on Trump.
Yeah.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I want to talk about today.
So the golden age is kicking off pretty good, looking pretty strong.
Stock market's up.
All the right people are on board.
Trump's team is going to get stronger.
And I think other countries are going to want to deal with the legend.
So I think we're in amazing, amazing shape.
If you joined after I described my wonderful hat, this is available.
If you'd like a coffee with Scott Adams, Hat or hoodie or mug.
Just Google my name and coffee with Scott Adams and merchandise and the page will pop right up.
And remember to get the Dilbert calendar, 2025 calendar.
It's available only at the link you can find at Dilbert.com.
That's your link.
All right, I'm going to talk to the locals, subscribers privately.
