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, Mark Cuban, Microplastic Clouds, Tripling US Nuclear Power, Ozempic, Oxytocin Hugs, Kamala's Oprah Payment, Uncounted Michigan Votes Found, Congress House Majority, Vivek Ramaswamy, Kari Lake, Maricopa Vote Count, Split-Ticket Explanations, Underwater UFOs, Democrat Self-Destroying Philosophy, Unity vs Identity Politics, Trump Era Golden Age, MSNBC Host Ratings Collapse, CNN Ratings Collapse, FoxNews Viewer Surge, Democrat Election Loss Analysis, James Carville's Advice, Tom Homan, Deportations, Kash Patel, Kristi Noem, Marco Rubio, Lee Zeldin, Stephen Miller, Free Speech Censorship, 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
There's an interface oddity on the Rumble Studio, which is that when you press the unmute button, it takes a few seconds to take hold.
And if you're in a hurry, you click it once and then you think, oh, that'll work.
But you have to click it just right.
So sometimes you have to click it and then wait five seconds to see if it really clicked.
And I didn't wait five seconds.
I was ambitious.
I wanted to jump right in.
But I think there's something you missed.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and when it's finally working, it's a wonder to behold.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is Special
thank you to Paul.
Thank you for the alert.
I needed that.
Because I wasn't quite sure what I was seeing there.
All right, here's a little thing called reciprocity.
You ready for this?
Reciprocity.
It's a good thing.
So as you know, Mark Cuban was playing for the Kamala Harris team, and she didn't win.
And Mark Cuban took quite a hit.
But on the other hand, I do like the fact that he played the game.
Played it hard.
And then when he didn't win, when it turned out that Trump was the winner, Mark Cuban simply thanked him and said congratulations and congratulated Elon Musk.
And I said to myself, that's how I want my country to work.
Play hard, play fair, get over it, move on.
And so I'm going to give a little shout out to Mark Cuban's, one of his companies I didn't know he had, Which sounds like a really good idea.
So it looks like he's got some kind of a company called Labdor, Labdor, that will test your supplements to find out if they're real.
Which, weirdly, I was just wanting to do.
It was actually in my mind, because I'm, you know, taking some just general supplements.
And I thought, I don't even know if these are real.
So he's got a company that you can send your supplement in and find none of it's real called Labdoor.
Looks like a startup.
And I think even some of the best-selling brands might be worth a check.
That's what they say.
So anyway, this is reciprocity.
Mark Cuban played fair.
You get some reciprocity.
But I think it sounds like a good idea anyway.
So if you were looking for that kind of a service, there you go.
It's called Labdoor.
There was a study that showed that Americans like to look for news that agrees with them and just makes them feel good because it agrees with them.
Whereas Japan and Hong Kong readers like to explore diverse perspectives.
What does that tell you about the Asian consumers versus the American consumers?
So the Americans go for the news that agrees with them, and at least these two Asian groups are looking for news that's diverse, so they can see all sides.
Well, the first thing you need to know is that if you were in Japan or Hong Kong, the news would not be that diverse.
So when you don't have diversity, you go looking for it.
So that's what they're doing.
But in our country, we have the most diverse news you could possibly have.
And so I think here we just go for the dopamine hit.
I mean, our news is not real for the most part.
The news is mostly to make you feel a certain way.
And if it makes you feel good, it's a dopamine hit.
If it makes you feel bad, it's bad.
So you avoid the bad stuff.
So you go for the stuff that agrees with you.
Here's a scientific fact you didn't see coming, according to the bite.
Microplastics are somehow getting into the air and getting into clouds.
And then you say to yourself, uh-oh, that sounds bad.
You got plastic in your clouds.
But it turns out that the plastic in the clouds might seed the clouds and make it rain more, which would then put more plastic in the ground.
So maybe the plastic part's bad, but I ask you this question for the millionth time.
Did our climate models include a variable for microplastics increasing the cloud cover and rainfall?
Just wondering.
I'm just wondering.
Did they leave that out?
Because if it's completely irrelevant, why is there a big story about it?
And if it's completely irrelevant, it seems like there is something very big left out of the models.
But if you're worried about the microplastics, fear no more.
Because there's a plastic-eating insect discovered in Kenya.
It's the first of its kind in Africa, according to the conversation.
That's the name of the publication.
So apparently there's this little mealworm larvae that can consume polystyrene.
So there's a small group of insects that are capable of breaking plastic down.
Now, I'm pretty sure there's a way this could go off the rails.
We could have like an immense number of mealworm larvae.
I don't really want to live in a world that's polluted with microplastics, but I'm not really that much crazier about replacing my microplastics with Gigantic floating armies of mealworm larvae.
So, anyway, maybe there's a way to keep them in a cage and still eat the microplastics.
Here's some good news, because it's the golden age, and it's only good news from now on.
But is it good enough?
According to the Financial Post, the U.S. has plans to triple its nuclear power by 2050.
Triple its nuclear power.
Now you might say, Scott, I've been listening to you for years, and you've been saying for years, nuclear is green, and you need to ramp up that nuclear.
And so should I be happy that the US is going to triple its nuclear power by 2050?
Well, I don't know.
Between Bitcoin and AI and all the power that's going to need, and who knows, maybe self-driving taxi is going to need some electricity too.
I don't think tripling by 2050 is even close.
Tripling your nuclear power by 2050 seems like 5% to 10% of what we need.
I worry that we're not even in the zip code of enough that the AI people would tell us.
But it does show that even the Biden administration is very pro-nuclear power.
I think Trump administration will be equally, if not more.
So that's all good news.
At least it's a green light for nuclear power.
And, you know, you watched me advocate for years to get the green light for nuclear power.
And we have it.
Did you know that Ozempic, the claim is, it's the drug that's being used for weight loss.
And apparently there are, at least anecdotally, people are thinking that it might be helping with diabetes.
And you say to yourself, well, obviously, if people lose weight, you know, that's going to help them with their diabetes.
But there is some suggestion, strong suggestion, that it helps independent of weight loss.
But it also helps with skin issues.
It's an anti-inflammatory.
It might help with arthritis.
Looks like it can help with drug and alcohol addiction.
Might help for Alzheimer's patients.
Might reduce your heart attacks and strokes.
What does that sound like to you?
Is there any drug that you've heard of before that was made for one purpose and then later, miraculously, turns out all these other things it might help with?
Do you know what it reminds me of?
Statins.
Doesn't that sound familiar?
Statins.
I remember when statins were for cholesterol, right?
And then I remember my doctor told me one day, this is a real conversation, my doctor told me that the research was showing that statins were so good for you in so many different ways beyond just cholesterol that That he was on the verge of just prescribing it for all of his patients.
Lee, he didn't do that.
But he said, gosh, it's just so good for so many things.
I'm going to prescribe it for everybody.
Now...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but statins are now sort of on the ounce.
People are saying maybe they weren't so safe after all, or not so useful.
I'm not fully up on that story, but it reminds me of that.
And so I say to myself, is it likely that Ozumbic Is it useful in all these completely unrelated things?
Or is it more likely that the people who make Ozempic are putting out some studies and trying to convince people that it has many more uses so that the Ozempic people can make many more dollars?
So I'm going to say I'm a skeptic on this.
I'm not against Ozempic because I don't know enough one way or the other, but I'm a skeptic That it has all these benefits without much in the way of risk.
That would be amazing.
It would be amazing if it's true.
But I'm going to stay skeptical on this for a while.
I saw a presentation online that said that you need a full 8 seconds of a hug for the oxytocin to kick in.
So you don't get like a full oxytocin hit from your friends where you just give them like the 3 second hug.
You gotta embrace them and hold them.
Don't let them get away.
Especially your co-workers.
If you're in the office where sometimes your co-workers will hug you, don't let them go.
You've got to hold them for the full 80 seconds.
And that's just the beginning.
It only begins in 80 seconds.
And apparently there's research that says the oxytocin doesn't just feel good.
It's good for your brain.
Apparently it's good for your brain health.
I have other benefits like muscle regeneration.
And it reduces age-related loss of muscle mass.
So apparently, if you can get somebody who is dumb enough to hug you, the best thing you can do for your health is to trap them and make sure that they don't get down for like, I don't know, two or three minutes.
Really get a good dose of that oxytocin.
Okay, that's the worst advice I've ever given.
Don't hug people more than they want to be hugged.
Unless you want to steal their oxytocin.
And then, yeah, don't let them go.
So that's my bad advice for the day.
The Oprah story for the day is that Oprah has claimed that she did not receive payment of $1 million or any payment From the Harris campaign for her interview that she did with Harris and then endorsed her.
However, now this news comes from Oprah herself.
So somebody tracked her down in Hawaii, I think, and she said, I was not paid for that.
Now, there are two documents that show that her production company was paid, two payments of half a million each, which means that she was paid a million dollars.
So what is true?
Was Oprah paid a million dollars?
Because there are actually records of it.
Or when she looked at the camera and said, I was not paid a penny, was that true?
The answer is, they're both true.
This is one of those stories where I have like a little extra window into it because I'm a public figure.
It is very common For public figures to be offered elaborate travel expenses, but not payment.
So, for example, if a college says, hey, we want you to come give a speech at commencement and we'll give you like an honorary degree.
And I'd be like, no thanks.
Sounds like a lot of work for nothing.
And then they'd be, but we will pay for your travel.
First class flight, you know, best hotel in the city, pay for all your meals.
And then I'd be like, no thanks, I still wouldn't do it.
But you can imagine how some people would if they cared about the event.
You know, if it was a political event and they wanted to weigh in, they might do that.
So here's what I think happened.
And I would place a reasonably large bet that I'm right about this.
Somebody contacted Oprah and said, would you be willing to come here and do this?
Oprah said, yes.
Talk to my production company to set it up.
The production company said, all right, and how much are you paying for this?
And then they said, we're not paying for it.
Oprah's just coming here and she's going to do her thing.
And then the production company Who is working for Oprah, but also probably trying to maximize profits within their company so that they can keep their job.
So the production company says, I understand you have lots of like money donated by people.
You got a big ton of campaign money, right?
And then the campaign would say, well, yes, we do.
We want to use it for advertisements.
And then the production company says, well, you should at least pay for the production company.
So you should fly...
First, you should fly Oprah in on her private jet and pay for the cost of the travel, which would just be the gas, I guess, and the pilots.
And then, of course, when she travels, she brings 20 people and her dogs, and we all get like a whole floor of your best hotel.
Then we may build a set.
And then we may have to, like everybody's got meals and everything.
And then you can imagine the production company trying to come up with a budget for that.
And then the campaign says, well, what the hell is all that going to cost?
And then the production company goes, oh, let me check.
And they come back and they go, it's $1 million.
Meaning they didn't really check.
They just tried to figure out what number was big enough that they would say yes, but not so big that it was ridiculous.
So probably...
The production company negotiated to cover their own expenses, which were extravagant, because probably when Oprah travels, it's like the queen traveling.
And probably they overcharged the campaign by a lot.
But probably it did not go directly into Oprah's wallet.
It went into the production company and then got mixed in with the production company's costs and revenues and may or may not have made her money.
So is it possible that Oprah came out ahead?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
Is she lying when she said she wasn't paid a penny?
Probably not.
She probably told the truth when she said she wasn't paid.
If they had asked the further question, was the production company that you own and you benefit from their success, were they paid?
Probably yes.
And then she would say to cover expenses.
Probably.
So anyway, that's just my speculation.
According to the Gateway Pundit, there were four counties in Michigan that had uncounted votes, and at least one of them ended up flipping a seat that they thought was already decided.
So does that give you any pause?
Now, it turns out that the seat that was flipped was for a Republican.
So they found a bunch of votes.
Found.
Found the votes.
Huh.
Who would ever use language like that?
Find votes.
But it turns out in Michigan, there was a Republican who looked like they lost, but in the end they won.
Do you know why?
Because they found votes.
Now, apparently it's not a Republican area, so nobody thinks that found means that they cheated and created votes that don't exist.
They actually literally didn't know the votes existed and they found them.
They found votes.
Finding votes is real, people.
Apparently, our elections are so disorganized that the idea that there could be votes uncounted, even after you've decided who won, it's apparently a real thing.
It's happening right here in Michigan in real time.
Now, that doesn't mean that, you know, Georgia in 2020 had some unfound votes, but it does mean that if you're using that language, you just need to find this many votes, that that is completely compatible with our modern election system producing surprises after the outcome.
Yeah, but what about this?
So the red wave is apparently continuing, if you want to call it a red wave.
So at the moment, the Republicans have 218 seats.
The Democrats have 209 in the House.
That would give Republicans control.
There are few races still outstanding, but not enough for Democrats to catch up.
Now, how close does this need to be to a tie before the House is useless?
It's not like if they have a one-vote advantage that the Republicans can go hog-wild, right?
Because that one vote will never be enough.
But is eight votes?
Nine votes?
If they had eight or nine votes, could the Republicans be pretty confident they'd get everything they wanted?
I'm not sure where that number is.
But we're right on, I think we're on the cusp of you could get anything you wanted.
I'm not sure.
Other conversations about who's taking what job.
Apparently, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine would consider Vivek, so I guess since J.D. Vance will be leaving the senatorship in Ohio, the governor can appoint somebody short-term, and that person would be the front-runner to run for re-election, of course.
But Vivek's name came up.
We haven't heard from Vivek if he'd be interested in that.
I think at one point he didn't rule it out.
But other than that, we don't know.
What do you think of Vivek as a governor?
Obviously, he could do it.
Obviously, he'd be good at it.
I'm not sure that's big enough.
I think Vivek has already demonstrated that we could use him at a national level.
But on the other hand, if he needs to, you know, let's say, put in some time, you know, he has to do some serious governance before someday he runs for president, I assume.
That might make sense.
Might make sense.
So I would feel a little bit deprived nationally if he were used for a state.
But, you know, if you come up for air in four to eight years, maybe that turned out to be the wisest thing he could have ever done.
I don't know.
I think that would have as much to do with his personal life and, you know, his kids and whether he wanted to live in Washington or be political but live in the same state he wants to live in.
So a lot of considerations.
Meanwhile, Cary Lake, according to some projections, but not all, has not won in Arizona.
So that would mean Ruben Gallego would be the winner.
Now, the votes are not all counted, so I think that technically there would be some chance that she could win, but that would require a lot of finding votes.
So it doesn't look like it's going to happen, but it's not physically impossible.
However, this would mean that there are more states this time that split the ticket, meaning that they would vote for Trump overall in the state, But when they looked for their senator, they would pick the other party.
Don't you expect that would almost never happen?
Now, in the real world, it turns out it almost never happens.
But it happened like four times, four different states, I think, which is a little suspicious.
So in Maricopa...
We're being told to believe, I think it was a gateway pundit or something said this.
We're being asked to believe that 100,000 people voted for Trump for president, but they preferred as their senator an open borders Marxist.
That's how Gallego is being described by, I think it was the gateway pundit.
So does that sound real?
Do you think that there really could be a whole bunch of people who say, oh, give me the open borders person for a senator, but give me the president who's going to close the border?
It does seem a little unusual, but I did see some reaction that AOC got.
When she asked why would people in her district vote for her but also vote for Trump?
And then she showed some of the responses on X. They were actually fascinating.
That was actually AOC doing something quite useful and educational there for all of us.
Their reasons were not ones you would agree with, but it was stuff like they both are fighting the system.
You say, what?
Oh, yeah.
Well, Trump is fighting the system, and AOC is fighting the system in a totally different way.
So, people who like people who are fighting the system like both Trump and AOC. Now, you wouldn't really necessarily come up with that on your own, but anyway.
So, I'm seeing in the comments the The graph that shows that Trump won all of the states where you have to show your ID, and Harris won all of the states where you don't have to show your ID, which would suggest that cheating is the reason that Democrats won anything.
However, that's not the cause and effect you should be looking at.
So that feels like misleading, at least.
Because being a blue state is all you need to say no to ID. So you may have your cause and effect backwards.
It's entirely possible, and I will agree, that it could be that the only reason some states are blue is because they don't check the ID of the voters.
That's possible.
It is far more likely and obvious that if they're blue, they agree with all the things that blue states say.
And so they just all say the same thing.
So you would get the same exact map, whether the only thing that was happening was they were just agreeing with their team, or it was a massive coordinated RICO plan to steal elections.
The map would be exactly the same.
So, does that prove that there was or was not cheating in those blue states?
No.
It doesn't tell you anything one way or the other.
That map would look exactly the same if there were cheating or no cheating.
So anyway, do you believe that four states had different senator selections than they did president?
I think maybe.
Yeah.
As weird as that is, it's within the realm of possibility.
It's hard to believe.
So, I mean, I wouldn't bet my house on it.
But it's within the realm of roughly believable.
It's a weird year.
Well, but more importantly, a rear admiral is going to give some kind of testimony to Congress coming up about underwater UFOs that have been tailing nuclear subs.
So apparently the nuclear subs have had some kind of object trying to get in their behind, and the rear admiral is telling us about it.
And here's my take.
I really don't care how credible the witnesses are when it comes to UFOs.
There's no such thing as a credible witness when it comes to a UFO. You know what I would call credible?
Somebody shows me the ship and I can touch it.
I mean, maybe then.
But now, I don't believe in UFOs in the air, and I don't believe in underwater UFOs.
But I will point out that if you were an advanced civilization from another planet, and you had the ability to visit Earth, wouldn't you be more interested in what was underwater than what's above water?
We live outside of water, so we just assume that the interesting stuff is on the surface.
But if you were exploring Earth, it's mostly ocean.
Most of the Earth is ocean.
So you'd say, hey, it looks like there's stuff on the top, but what's in this big water thing?
And then they'd be exploring the ocean, and they'd say, well, this is the only interesting part of the Earth.
That's where all the action's happening.
And their ships could handle it, so they'd just be checking out the ocean all day long.
Now, that's possible.
In my opinion, there are no UFOs.
Whatever the explanation is, it's probably some grab bag of normal cognitive things and liars and CIA and some other stuff.
But there's one thing I'm very curious about.
If we have underwater UFOs, is it possible?
And maybe this is too much to ask for.
Do we have underwater Bigfoots?
Because I'm very...
I'm always looking for a Bigfoot, but I never see one above ground.
Could it be that, like UFOs, we assume that Bigfoots like to be on land or above the water, but maybe they're just good swimmers?
Okay, hold their breath for a long time.
So maybe underwater Bigfoots are coming too.
But in the meantime, we'll only have underwater UFOs to live with.
That's okay too.
Alex Jones says that Infowars, his company, is going to shut down this Wednesday ahead of the court-ordered auction.
Now, it doesn't mean he's shut down.
It means that it has to be auctioned off, which could include a friendly buyer buying it and just hiring back to work, I guess.
Possible.
So the question I have is, how does Alex Jones ever make money again If he's on the hook to pay for some ungodly judgment from the court, even if you bought the company for him, like just to do him a favor, and then hired him back at his original pay, would he just have to give 80% of it away?
Like forever?
I don't know how that works.
Or can you do something where, I don't know, you pay his wife instead of him and then he can enjoy it the same way?
I don't know.
So I got lots of questions about Infowars, but my big question is, will it continue?
I'm sure that Alex Jones is not done, so it will continue one way or the other.
Well, here's the thing that everybody should have been able to predict.
We're going to talk about Trump, how he won so handily this election, but identity politics...
It was guaranteed to destroy the Democrats.
Does everybody know that?
The natural progression on paper is that it destroys itself.
It's a self-destroying philosophy.
Because on day one, you say, all right, I'm a woman, and you're black, and we're both Democrats.
How about we work together?
And then you say, all right, what do you want?
Well, I want abortion stuff.
Can you back that?
I think I can.
What do you want?
I want reparations and maybe some DEI stuff.
Can you back that?
Yes, I can.
I can back that.
So you got, you know, two different groups, let's say black Americans and women.
And if there's only two of them, they could probably figure out how to get something.
But then you find, well, but there are also black people who are women, and so you've got the intersectionality.
And then you've got your LGBTQs, and you've got your everything else.
And the next thing you know, you're fighting with each other because if you're fighting for, let's say, what the Hispanic population is getting as they come into this country, Then the black Americans say, wait a minute, this Democrat Party is where people like me are supposed to get more stuff.
Why are you giving it to somebody else?
Well, we're very diverse.
We like the diversity, don't we?
So the natural way that the identity politics was going to go is that if you're thinking about yourself, you're going to be unhappy and unsuccessful.
Have you heard all the science that says that the longer you think about yourself, the unhappier you are?
Now, relate that to identity politics.
Just think about that.
When I walk into a public place, I think I'm in America with Americans.
So I feel like I fit everywhere.
I'm in America and I'm surrounded by Americans.
Oh, I belong here.
Now, suppose you're an identity person.
You walk into a crowd and you say, I'm gay.
Most of these people are not gay.
I don't know if I fit.
So you'd be thinking about yourself.
But I wouldn't be.
There's nothing to think about.
I'd be just shopping.
So I'd be happy because the mental health people tell us, and this is one of the most consistent findings, everybody agrees with this, the more time you think about yourself, the unhappier you are.
That's very clear science at this point.
The more you're thinking about external things and what you're doing in the external world, the happier you are.
Identity is about thinking about yourself.
It's like an intense, intense thinking about how you're different.
Or in this case, also similar to the subgroup.
So if you build a movement around identity, it's first of all going to splinter until they're fighting with each other, which is exactly what you're watching.
And that's 100% predictable.
It's 100% predictable.
That if identity is your main thing you're going for, you'll eventually have factions that are fighting each other within your movement.
There's no way to avoid that.
So sure enough, the progressives are at odds with the normies within the Democrat Party, exactly as you'd imagine.
The Black Americans, some of them are moving to the Republicans because they don't think that the immigrants coming in are You know, they think they're being treated too well compared to the citizens.
So there's no way that identity politics could have worked as a movement.
But on top of that, it guarantees bad mental health.
Because if you walk into a crowd and say, you're American, I'm American, we're all great, you're not thinking about yourself.
If you walk in and say, oh my God, they're all, I think I'm surrounded by Republicans.
Surrounded by Republicans.
You're going to be sad.
So it's as simple as that.
Identity will destroy your organization, guaranteed, over time.
And it will make you sad, guaranteed.
If you say, let's make America great again, who are you thinking about?
You're thinking about the country.
It's literally a framing that makes your mental health better.
Right?
When you think about making the country great, you're outside of your body.
You're like, oh, let's fix this thing over here.
Let's solve this war over here.
Let's fix this inflation.
They're all outside my body.
But as soon as you say, it's about whether you're black or Indian, let's work that out.
Well, it's all about you.
Then it's an entirely internal process and you're going to be sad.
Well, Trump's performance, of course, has shown that the identity approach didn't work.
So CNN's reporting that Trump's performance was the best among young people, 18 to 29.
It's the best in 20 years.
For black voters, it's the best in 48 years.
For a Republican, for a Republican, this is.
And for Hispanic voters, it's the best in more than 50 years.
To me...
Those are all the people who are rejecting identity politics in favor of a more of a unity American message.
So Trump's Make America Great Again message beats identity really every time in the long run.
Well, how are things going to go?
According to Cathy Wood, who runs ARK Investments, one of the ones you hear about in the news a lot, she thinks the Trump era might spark an innovation boom.
She sees a, quote, golden age.
She uses the phrase golden age for active investing under Trump.
Now, she thinks it's going to benefit AI, digital assets, and healthcare.
I don't know about healthcare, but maybe.
Pretty much everybody that I trust for predicting the future of the economy says that Trump's going to be good for it.
The stock market is speaking, obviously.
Stock market's up.
Crypto's up.
I don't think, like...
I don't know if I've ever felt this much optimism in my life.
I can't remember.
It seems like we went through a really bad period for several years, the pandemic and everything else, and that somehow everything seems to be lined up positively.
Even we have a chance of reducing our debt with the Elon Musk attack on the oversized government.
According to Siki Chen, I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name right, S-I-Q-I, would you call that Siki?
Anyway, he talks about AI and technology stuff on X, and he's saying next year feels like it will be the best year in history to be in tech as a founder, employee, investor, or anything.
The best year in history to be in tech.
Now, when have you ever heard stuff like that?
When have you ever heard like a serious investor say where we might be entering a golden age and then a serious technology commenter saying it might be the best year in history to be in tech?
In history.
The best year in history?
And you know what's weird?
I think he's right.
I think it might be the best year in history.
It might be amazing.
Trump's got a video, I don't know when he did it, but he's pushing flying cars.
And specifically, he says that China and other countries are developing personal flying cars, and he wants our industry to lead that.
And I agree.
The flying cars depend entirely upon the battery capacity.
Everything else is solved.
And the battery capacity is, I think, solved now.
I think you can get a decent ride out of an electric tiny airplane now.
So Trump wants to make sure that the R&D for that is a write-off.
That feels like a good idea.
A whole new industry that could drive things.
Of course, we've got the robots.
We've got the AI. We've got the crypto.
Is there any reason your robot can't spend crypto on your behalf?
I haven't seen this for sure, but I understand there's a debit or a credit card, maybe both, in which if you have crypto, but somebody wants to be paid in cash, you can use your crypto and it goes through your debit card thing and it turns into cash so that the recipient just gets cash, but you paid in crypto and it translated through the card.
Now, if you have that, don't you just need to give your robot your wallet credentials?
And then the robot can go out and shop for you.
Right?
The robot could go to the grocery store in a self-driving car.
It could stand in line with its groceries.
And it could put in this little debit card.
And, well, I suppose it could have used your credit card, too, if nobody's checking it.
But yeah, robots can pay in crypto.
Chris Wallace is quitting CNN to become a podcaster.
Now, this is interesting in a few ways.
It's interesting because he used to work at Fox.
And it's interesting because a lot of you like to criticize him.
And it's interesting because his dad was famous as well.
But here's what's interesting to me.
He's 77 years old.
He's 77 and he's decided to change careers and embark on something completely new.
I love that.
I love the fact that he's like pushing 80 and he's thinking in terms of a career change.
If you're 77, aren't you thinking in terms of retiring?
He's thinking, no, I think I'll get into this new thing, podcasting.
So, again, is this the Trump effect?
Is everybody just feeling like the future is better than the past?
Like even Chris Wallace, like, hey, I'm going to get out of this dying media industry and get into this new Joe Rogan thing.
By the way, there's a very cool video of Tom Green.
Do you remember comedian Tom Green?
Hasn't been around much lately.
But he's the one who apparently started podcasting.
Tom Green made a little TV show, or maybe it was only on the internet, in which he would have a guest and it wasn't part of any big network or anything.
It was just a thing he was doing.
And it shows a video where he had Joe Rogan on and Joe couldn't stop Raving about how cool it was to have this non-network little podcasting thing.
And that probably created podcasting.
That one experience is probably the reason that Joe Rogan exists as a podcaster.
Anyway, according to End Wokeness, and I saw some others, the ratings for MSNBC have collapsed.
So just because you enjoy this kind of content...
I'm going to give you the names of the hosts and how much their shows are down just since the election.
Joy Reid, her audience is down 55%.
55%.
Ari Melber, 50%.
Chris Hayes, 47%.
Alex Wagner, 54%.
Morning Joe, 40%.
Stephanie Rule, 67%.
Her audience went down 67%.
Andrea Mitchell down 40%.
But here's the punchline.
It's the first time that MSNBC beat CNN on the election night coverage.
So for election night coverage, MSNBC beat CNN, and they're probably pretty happy about that.
Except there's something that maybe they're not aware of or decided not to mention.
Is MSNBC not aware that a lot of their viewership is Republicans who are tuned in to watch them cry?
Like, actually, literally tuned in to watch them cry.
And the reason I didn't watch CNN as much is that CNN had drifted a little bit toward the middle.
And I thought that CNN would probably be a little depressed but act professionally, which they did.
CNN didn't have any meltdowns at all, I don't think.
MSNBC sure did.
Were they entertaining?
Yes.
Are they still entertaining?
Yes.
Would I like to see more of it?
Yes.
It's been a week now and I'm not even a little bit tired of it.
I know I'll get tired of winning, but it hasn't kicked in yet.
So, some more dunking.
Oh, so CNN's number is also down.
Let's see.
40% year-over-year for CNN to fall.
Oh, my God.
Yeah, they're just dying.
Now, this is proof, isn't it, that the traditional media news is dead, right?
MSNBC's ratings are down, CNN's dead.
So that would prove that the TV news business is just dead.
Except Fox News averaged 2.6 million viewers and a 60% increase from 2023.
Fox News is killing it.
So maybe the problem with MSNBC and CNN is not structural.
Maybe it's not structural.
What do I always say about Fox News?
Let's see how many times I've said it, if you can repeat it back to me.
What do I always say about Fox News that makes it unique among the other news, besides the obvious leaning conservative?
There's something else about them.
And I say it all the time.
They're better produced.
They're just better produced.
They have better talent.
And they have better shows that are just designed better on paper.
And they operate better in reality.
So it turns out that if you execute and you've got great hosts and you have great content and you have great producers, then there's not so much of a structural problem with the news business, is there?
MSNBC and CNN have to deal with the fact that they put clowns on the air.
They turned their show into a clown show.
Whereas Fox News still does a great job of separating the opinion people from the news people, and that probably has a lot to do with With why they get more even Democrat viewers than you would expect.
It's just a higher quality operation.
All right, here's my favorite.
We're going into why the Democrats lost.
And as you know, everybody's got their pet opinion, and they're all right.
Literally everything was worse about the Democrats, which I love saying.
They had a worse candidate, a worse campaign, a worse situation because of the switching end of one over the other, a worse policies, worse everything.
Like actually everything.
Trump even had better supporters.
If you look at the people who joined the Trump pirate ship, they're just better supporters.
They're better at everything.
So we shouldn't be too surprised that the team that did everything better than the other team eked down a victory.
It was just better in every possible way.
There was just nothing that compared.
According to the Free Press' Peter Sivodnik, and he was explaining why, in his opinion, the Democrats blew it.
He said, quote, They didn't lose because they failed to trot down enough celebrity influencers.
They lost because they were consumed by their own self-flattery, their own sense of self-importance.
They should have spent the past eight years learning from the Republicans, very honest, if flawed, conversation about the plight of America.
But they insisted on talking to themselves about the things that made them feel morally superior.
Now, of all the explanations I've heard that try to give you sort of a summary of what went wrong, that's pretty good.
Now, it's not complete.
Like I said, if one side does everything right, including surviving an assassination attempt, and the other side does everything wrong, including picking walls for vice president, of course it should go this way.
But it is also true that the Democrats did seem to focus on self-flattery.
And the Republicans did seem to focus on the plight of America.
And do you see the pattern?
Let's put it in other words that will now sound familiar from this live stream.
So, according to Peter Svodnik of the Free Press, the Democrats were focused on themselves.
They were focused about their own feelings and their moral superiority.
They were thinking about themselves, which makes you sad and also not very effective.
The Republicans were thinking about the plight of America and as Peter says, even if flawed, which, by the way, I appreciate that framing.
Nobody's perfect, so if you put in a, you know, including flaws, I always accept that because everybody has some.
So he didn't need to, like, take a dump on the Republicans.
So he just said, you know, nothing's perfect, but they were concentrated on the plight of Americans.
So once again, Republicans were thinking about the country externally, and they were happy warriors.
Happiness is when you don't dwell on your own thoughts.
Democrats were focusing on their moral superiority and, you know, feeling like they're better than you.
That's an internal feeling.
And they're sad and ineffective.
On paper, this is exactly what should have happened.
So again, if you had come to me with the design, hey, we're going to move our political party toward identity, I could have told you, well, on paper, that fails every time.
There's only one way identity goes.
It goes to failure.
And if you had told me that one side was going to be thinking about the country and the other side was going to be thinking about their own feelings, again, on paper, I could have told you where that ends up, right?
Design is destiny.
The design was right here.
It was right in front of us the whole time.
You had to wait for it, like it wasn't the same day.
You had to wait for an entire term, presidential term of four years.
But here it is.
Now, but the best is James Carville.
Now, when I was listening to James Carville before the election, I kept saying to myself, you know, he's a fascinating character and, you know, there's plenty to say about him.
He's just perpetually interesting.
And I thought he was also probably correct in all of his recommendations about what the Democrats should do.
But I think I was most amused by how ignored he was.
Now, in the end, it looks like they did accept his idea to call Madison Square Garden a Nazi event, but that was his worst idea.
That was a terrible idea.
It probably was his worst idea of all time.
But here's what Carville says.
He's saying we told you, but I think he got it wrong on the Madison Square Garden thing, so he didn't have a full win.
Because, quote, we told you this identity shit was disaster.
He did.
Right.
He warned them, the identity thing will sink you.
On paper, it's a loser on paper.
And sure enough, he can see it, I can see it, you can see it.
He says, we have no legislative power, we have no executive power, we have no judicial power.
So when you're out of power, you're an opposition party.
And go and tell all the people that are sending you and asking you for money to justify what you did.
Justify what you did wrong and tell us you're going to do different.
So he's basically saying that the The people who donated to the Democrats should be mad.
And I believe they probably are, because it looks like they wasted their money.
And then he continued, what you've done ain't worth a shit.
Get your head around that and all the Washington-based Democrats farting around, going to wine and cheese parties and talking about how misogynistic the race is.
Get your ass out of Washington and go to work for a 2026 campaign and two pennants to make up for your G.D. arrogance and stupidity.
So, he's calling his own party arrogant and stupid.
Is he wrong?
Well, obviously they're not all arrogant and stupid, as any large group does not equal any particular two-word description.
But certainly the people in charge acted that way.
He says, we're going to say we told you so.
We told you this identity shit was a disaster.
We told you to get out in front of the public safety issues.
You didn't.
Public safety being crime in the border.
We told you to have an open process and demonstrate the magnificent and staggering and deep talent that exists in the modern Democratic Party.
Okay.
Really?
Is there magnificent and staggering deep talent in the modern Democratic Party?
And they were all hiding?
Were they sick that day?
And, for example, can you give me an example of one of the magnificent people that we've overlooked?
All right, well, we'll give them that.
He said, we told you to differentiate yourself from Biden.
You didn't.
Yes.
He says, I hate to be some effing know-it-all, but all these things are part of the record.
And then he also pointed to Kamala being on The View, where she couldn't think of a single thing to say.
Why she would do different from Biden.
But listen how Carville talks about Kamala not being able to answer that question on The View.
He says, we got effed because the single money question, the single thing that it boils down to is what would you do different?
That was the fattest, softest pitch you could possibly get.
But you missed it.
I mean, you didn't just miss it.
You missed it by four feet.
Yeah, she missed it by four feet.
So, now that the Democrats have proven to be incompetent and self-absorbed and not very useful for the country, you'll be delighted to know that Elizabeth Warren is trying to get 40 judges approved by Biden before the term is over.
Can you imagine 40 judges that have this point of view being stuffed into our system?
That ain't good.
Let me see how this looks on paper.
Hmm, let's see.
The political philosophy is now so completely destroyed that their party has lost every sense of power, but they could do this weaselly thing where they get 40 of their judges approved.
Again, the judges would be part of this group that lost every other part of power because they were so bad, philosophically as well as execution-wise.
Yeah, that's not going to work.
But we'll see if they get away with it.
As you know, Elon Musk has a PAC that supports Trump, so he can put a lot of money into it, and then the money goes to support the campaign.
And apparently, according to Elon, he's going to keep it open, even though the race is over, because he's going to keep it over to fight Soros' efforts around the country, where he's going to keep grinding, he says, increasing Republican registrations in key districts in preparation for special elections and midterms and primaries.
So, where George Soros has figured out that smallish amounts of money in cities, for example, can get you people in charge, let's say attorney generals and mayors and stuff like that, that can make a big difference, it looks like Musk is just going to try to meet him in the middle and take away that advantage.
Now, he doesn't say about...
He's not saying that directly, but we know that Musk is anti-Soros, and we know that Soros is the big distorting factor in the Democrats.
So it could be that Musk is just going to see his bluff and call it.
You know, just spend as much as he is to erase his advantage.
Anyway, so let's talk about some of the appointees.
Tom Homan for, you'll be the border czar.
I guess we can really call him the border czar.
And did you know that, I think Obama deported four or five million people.
So when we talk about the mass deportations, it's fun to start with, you know, Obama did 4 or 5 million.
And that's actually more than either Trump or Biden.
Trump and Biden were about tie for having one term.
If they had both done two terms, it would have been closer to Obama's number.
So as Scott Jennings and I think Tom Holman said this also, that there are 1.8 million people who came here legally and Meaning that they came through the asylum doorway.
That was legal.
And then their time came to be judged whether asylum makes sense for them.
And it was judged in 1.8 million cases to not be appropriate.
So there are 1.8 million people who did come here legally because asylum is a legal process.
But now they're not legal because they failed in their asylum claims.
I would be concerned about how long they've been here.
So I'm trying to balance two things.
One is that we should have empathy and that immigration needs to continue being a real vital part of our country.
Can't close it down, obviously.
But you can't have it go wild.
So here's the situation that makes the most sense to me.
That the way our officials talk about it should be extreme, but the way we treat it should be more discerning.
Does that make sense?
So this is one of those cases where the way you talk about it should not match the way you're acting.
Normally, I'd say that's a minimum requirement for anybody who's in charge.
You've got to say the things you're going to do and then do the things you're going to say.
This is one of those cases where you shouldn't.
You should talk in the maximum aggressive terms to make sure fewer people come in because they won't think they can stay.
But then when you actually do it, you should start with the criminals.
And then secondly, this 1.8 million people the courts have ordered out, I feel like I'd take a look at them a little more granularly.
Because I don't feel completely comfortable kicking somebody out who has had three kids since then and they're working a job and paying taxes.
Do you really want to kick them out?
What are you getting for that?
What's your benefit?
There's a company that doesn't have an employee.
There's a family that's dislocated.
Where's the upside?
If you can close the border for me and you can get rid of the criminals, Then I can get real empathetic for people who are contributing.
If you're contributing, I'm okay if the language is tougher than the actions.
And I think everybody is.
Honestly, nobody wants to say this out loud, but I think most of us fall into the category of you have to say whatever you need to say to stop the bleeding.
But then after you stop the bleeding, You got a little time, right?
Then maybe look at it a little bit more closely.
That's what would make me happy.
Apparently, Trump is going to name Kash Patel a CIA director.
I don't know if that's official.
Some of the news might be premature.
Do you think Kash Patel is actually going to be named CIA director?
He seems to be somebody who is very much...
I would trust to be on Trump's side, and he's going to need that in the CIA. So there are a few jobs here where I would put the trust above experience.
Not normally.
Normally I'd put the experience because trust isn't usually an issue.
But we have such a severe trust problem that we think that parts of the government might be trying to kill Trump.
That for the entities that are the most critical to the risk of the chief executive, I want a loyalist.
Give me a loyalist.
So if Kash Patel is a smart, capable loyalist, I'm going to care a lot less about whether he's had 26 years in intelligence services or something like that.
So I'm feeling positive about that one.
Apparently, Kristi Noem is going to be nominated as Homeland Security head.
How do you feel about that one?
Kristi Noem for Homeland Security.
I'll give you my first impressions, then my subsequent impressions.
First impression is, wait a minute, what background or qualifications does she have for one of the toughest jobs in the country?
So I'm not sure that she qualifies on experience.
And then I say, hmm, what's up with that?
So, and it has to be confirmed, so we don't know if it'll happen.
But did you know that Homeland Security includes management of the Secret Service?
Hmm...
Hmm, who would you want in charge of Homeland Security if you knew they were in charge of the Secret Service?
Again, I would not normally say this is a good idea, but in this very specific case where Trump is at risk of being killed by insiders, I want a loyalist in charge of the Secret Service.
That's what I want.
Now, I don't think we have to worry about experience too much because she'll be surrounded by experienced people all over the place.
And I'm not worried about that.
But as Michael Schellenberger pointed out on Goffeld, the Department of Homeland Security was part of the massive censorship effort.
So you don't really need, you know, if you're part of the censorship effort, You don't have to be like an experienced Homeland Security person to say stop that.
Let's not be part of the misinformation censorship stuff.
So I think there are a lot of things that are sort of so commonsensical, like yes, we should close the border.
No, we shouldn't be censoring speech.
Yes, maybe we need to look into the Secret Service and what happened with the Trump attempted assassinations.
So I think these all are things which are Handleable by an ordinary, smart, capable person.
Now, what else it does...
Well, we'll get to that.
So, I don't know.
But the fact that it includes the Secret Service...
So, if I were going to name loyalists who you could say for sure would be pro-Trump to the death...
Probably Kash Patel and Kristi Noem would be in my top 20.
So I'm not going to complain about loyalists in either of those jobs.
Because I think that was a requirement in this case.
There's talk that Marco Rubio will be nominated as Secretary of State.
Has that happened yet?
Has Marco Rubio been nominated or is that just the internet talk?
But he's tough on China and Iran, but some say he's a neocon who likes war too much.
And of course, Rubio and Trump have had their history running against each other.
I think we could ignore all that.
Like, I'm not interested in what they said about each other when they were on the opposite side running.
But here's another thing that happens.
If Marco Rubio...
Becomes the Secretary of State.
What are you going to do for senators in Florida?
Doesn't that mean that DeSantis can select the interim senator?
And do you think there's a good chance that that might be Matt Gaetz?
So is this a way to promote Matt Gaetz to Senate?
Because it looks like it could go that way.
So it makes me wonder if Trump's getting a twofer on this.
That Marco Rubio makes some people comfortable, maybe needed to make some people in the military-industrial complex a little bit more comfortable.
And at the same time, it allows one of his closest allies to get a leg up.
Maybe.
So maybe it's a twofer.
I don't have an opinion Plus or minus on Marco Rubio.
I did see some smart people, Adam Townsend, for example, saying that getting somebody in there who's a hawk on China and Iran makes sense.
That makes sense to me, too.
So I'm going to be open-minded on Rubio.
I did see lots of conservatives complaining about things he has done or things he might do, and that's fair.
I don't mind seeing a good conversation about it.
But I'm open-minded on Rubio.
I'm open-minded on him.
The other thing that the New Borders are, Tom Homan said, is that he's going to do the deportations whether the sanctuary cities like New York want to cooperate or not.
He just says, it's not up to you.
Now, I don't know what that looks like.
Do you think that could ever turn into an armed confrontation where the local officials put their hands on their guns and say, hey, our local law says you can't take them.
And then the Homeland Security, they have their hands on their guns, and they say, we're the federal government, and we can take them.
What happens then?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Now, I don't think it will come to gunfire.
But I do like the fact that Holman talks about it this way.
Like, no, I have a job.
I'm going to go do that job.
You're not going to stop me from doing it.
I just like the attitude.
Apparently, Trump's naming Representative Lee Zeldin to lead the EPA. That would...
I only have positive things to say about Lee Zeldin.
I don't know if it makes sense for him to be head of the EPA. But these political appointments aren't always about the experience.
So he does have the right...
He has the right Republican approach to the topic.
That you don't want to starve your industry on every decision.
So that looks positive.
That would make my stock go up.
So, you know, theoretically.
And Stephen Miller is going to be the Deputy Chief of Policy.
I don't know exactly how deeply that job goes into all the other categories, but Stephen Miller seems like he's earned his place at the table.
And also Michael Schellenberger is talking about Australia.
And their prime minister is, I think he's part of this global censorship thing where the countries outside the United States are trying to censor the platforms which operate in the United States, which would put foreign countries in charge of our free speech.
In other words, the mechanism for free speech in the United States, primarily social media, Could be crippled by being made illegal or law fared in other countries such as Australia.
Now, I am such a free speech guy that that's a red line.
If Australia is going to work against free speech in the United States, you can defend yourself.
You're not NATO anymore if you're against free speech in America.
And I know how dangerous that would be for the world, but no, that's a red line.
If you're saying to me, but, but, but, Scott, you've got to work with Australia to, you know, keep China from being too aggressive over there, I say to you, nope, I'll take my free speech.
Nope.
Nope.
If I have to give up the South China Sea and half of the world to keep my free speech, yep.
Just so you're clear, Australia, you're on your own, right?
You don't get to take that from us.
If you think that we're going to call your bluff and like, oh, we'll roll over, you can censor our internal speech in America, nope.
Hard no.
Not negotiable.
If you're going to try to curb speech in America, I think we should remove all military cooperation.
Because you're either on our side on free speech or you're not.
And there's no gray area there.
Sorry.
So Australia, I consider you not an ally.
Same with Great Britain at the moment.
I'd love it if you could correct that and we could be good friends again.
But I don't consider Great Britain an ally at the moment or Australia because of their pressure on free speech in America.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I had for prepared comments.
I'm sure you would agree it was the best time you've had this morning.
The day is young.
Could get even better.
But as we see, there is some kind of animal spirit at work here.
Have you noticed?
That the animal spirits is sort of a word that you use in economics, that people just feel a certain way, and when they feel a certain way, they're likely to act a certain way.
And that's usually good for investment and good for the economy.
So I would agree with whoever says we've never had a better looking launchpad than this.
It looks better than anything I've ever seen.
I've never seen anything that looked as positive, honestly.
I've never seen America look like it has such a good future as right now.
Now, lots of problems.
A lot of stuff to fix.
But almost everything that is a problem also has something that looks like a solution that's already forming around it.
From the national debt to war in Ukraine.
You can see and describe the solution to all of them now.
Oh, Elon Musk helps get our debt down or our expenses down.
Got it.
Re-engineer the government.
Trump works with Russia and Ukraine to end the war.
Got it.
And his team work in the Middle East to get something that looks like a two-state solution but is not really a two-state solution so that Israel can accept it.
Got it.
You can almost explain how everything will get fixed.
That's new.
I mean, usually it's like we have this problem and nobody's working on it.
But now we have problems and exactly the right people working on it.
You've got RFK Jr.
looking at the food supply.
Oh, my God.
That's like so good.
So good.
I mean, it's beyond good.
All right.
Well, that's all the good news I got for you today.
Yeah, I think X is now back online in Brazil as well.
Brazil finally caved on the X thing.
All right.
I'm going to talk to the locals, subscribers privately here.
But you on YouTube and Rumble and X, thanks for joining.
I will see you tomorrow morning, same time, same place.
