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, Statue of Liberty Melted Down, Infowars Sale Price, ActBlue Allegations, Foreign Money Laundering, META Censorship Policy, NYC Judicial Hellhole, Oligarchy Government, Game of Thrones Style Government, Healthcare Hitman Evidence Questions, Governor Trudeau Canada, President Trump's Humor, Nancy Mace Physically Attacked, Hunting Republicans Continues, Joy Reid, James Carville's Democrat Analysis, Black Kamala Staffers, Toxic Identity Politics, Melinda French Gates, Kash Patel, NYC Subway Violence, Mystery Drones, J6 Committee, J6 Pardons, Debt-Free Argentina, Senator Lara Trump, 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 I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
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 for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug or a 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 the simultaneous step it happens now wait what is that What am I seeing?
Oh, no!
Damn it.
A UAP landed in my coffee.
No, really.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
No, seriously, there's a UAP in here.
Advanced civilization.
It's doing things that are defying physics.
I swear, just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not happening.
Oh, I could show it to you, but there are reasons.
Totally.
All right.
Let's get serious.
Now here's some science updates.
You're not going to believe it.
This is unbelievable.
Did you know that physically fit people tend to be more creative?
That's right.
Turns out that, I don't know if I've ever told you this before, but have you ever heard that Your body and your brain are the same thing.
Yes, your body is your brain.
If you do your exercise and do your physical fitness, yes, you'll be more creative.
Yes, you'll have less dementia.
Yes, you'll have a higher IQ. Stop doing studies.
We all know it's true now.
Well, there's another study from Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
They say that people who have a positive attitude, you know, a mindset that things will work out, are built differently.
And that a positive attitude, what the researchers call a growth mindset, or belief in growth, it's associated with both higher willpower and passion.
Huh.
So, let's see if I understand the science.
So, if you have a growth mindset...
That's associated with being an optimist.
Here's another way to interpret that.
A growth mindset is an optimist.
It's not associated with it.
It's what it is.
There's no difference between optimism and a growth mindset, is there?
The only reason you would have a growth mindset is you thought it would work.
Do any of you have plans that you know won't work?
No.
You make plans based on what you think will work.
So optimism is a growth mindset because your optimism isn't going to be about other people.
It's going to be about yourself.
Of course you're optimistic if you have a growth mindset.
One doesn't cause the other.
They're just the same freaking thing.
All right, science.
Science.
I spit on science.
No, I love science.
I'm kidding.
Now, you won't believe this.
There's another study, according to SciPost, that physical activity boosts IQ in kids and teens.
We know!
We know!
Physical activity, your brain, your body, it's all the same thing.
Take care of your body.
Your brain will be better.
Yes.
Here's another one from SciPost.
Religious service attendance linked to lower dementia risk in black older adults.
Oh, my.
Why?
Why must I be the one who speaks out against science?
Science.
Do you think that this is a causation?
Do you think if you say, hey, people, if you go to church more, you're going to get less dementia?
No.
How about people who are high-functioning Do all the high-functioning things that people with high function do.
And in the United States, that includes going to church.
Because you can wake up in the morning, you're disciplined enough, your life is together enough that you can make it to church.
No, it's just association.
It's not causation.
Sorry, backward science.
Meanwhile, according to Tom Perkins in The Guardian, China just invented something that will suck up almost 100% of microplastics and it's cheap and scalable.
So they've got some kind of sponge made of cotton and squid bone.
You know how I always say the scientists, they could have come to me, they didn't need to spend the money?
Well, here's an exception, because if they had come to me and they said, Scott, we've got a lot of microplastics, we're looking for some way to absorb them.
What are the odds I would have said, okay, okay, what have you tried so far?
Have you tried squid bone and cotton?
I probably wouldn't have said that.
So this would be an example of science that was worth doing.
You didn't need to just ask me.
But yes, if you've got access to squid bones, which I assume are squished up and mixed with the cotton, it'll absorb 99.9% of microplastics in water samples.
My God.
Imagine if that worked, and apparently it's reusable and scalable and all that, but how scalable could it be?
How many squid bones do you have?
If he tried to get all the microplastics out of the ocean, wouldn't you run out of squids really fast?
Seems like he'd be squidless before long.
Yep.
All right.
Reuters did a fact check, some valuable fact check.
Now, Reuters, as you know, unlike some of these fake news organizations, you've heard of them, fake news.
Well, Reuters is real news.
So when Reuters does a story, you can pretty much bank on it being right down the middle and logical and well-researched.
That's Reuters.
Good reputation.
Let's see what Reuters is up to today.
Oh, Reuters did a fact check.
There was a story that looked like it was a CNN headline, but Reuters says it's fake.
And the fake story said that Elon Musk had melted down the Statue of Liberty.
But Reuters wants you to know that that didn't happen.
Or did it?
Because Elon Musk responded on an ex-post.
He said, no, I definitely melted it down 1,000%.
So now I don't know.
Did he?
I don't know.
We get the CNN headline that says he did melt it down.
And then Reuters says he didn't.
So that's a tie.
But then Elon says he totally melted it down.
So that's two to one that says he melted it down.
I'm going to go with the Statue of Liberty.
No longer exists.
And it was melted down.
But that's not all.
Reuters also fact-checked a well-known news site called the Babylon Bee that had a story that said that Alua Akbar has replaced Cheerio Mate as UK greeting.
And Reuters wants you to know that didn't happen.
They did not replace Cheerio Mate.
With Alua Akbar.
That did not happen.
That was fake news.
Yeah.
So it turns out the Babylon Bee doesn't get every story completely accurate.
I don't know.
I'm going to keep an eye on those guys because I want to make sure they're, you know, playing ball the way they should.
So we'll keep an eye on them.
Speaking of Babylon Bee, it makes me think of The Onion, which makes me think of their effort to buy Infowars.
So there was some group backing the publication The Onion, which I didn't even know existed anymore.
It's under new management, I guess.
And they made an offer to buy Infowars because of the bankruptcy judgments.
And that got turned down by the judge.
I guess the reason was the people who organized the auction for it didn't do enough work, and maybe they left some money on the table, so the judge said, go back and try harder to get more money for the Infowars assets.
Now, did you know how much that was going for?
I was trying to guess, how much are you going to pay for Infowars, and what exactly do you get?
Do you get to take over the rent for the studio?
What exactly do you get?
Do you get the cameras and the lighting equipment and a desk?
If you don't get Alex Jones, what is Infowars?
Is it just the studio and the name, some IP? I don't know.
So the price for Infowars was somewhere between roughly $1 to $4 million.
So the The bid that the Onion made was on the low end.
They think they can get closer to the, you know, three million plus.
But it occurred to me that I could buy InfoWars.
I didn't know it was affordable.
I had no idea.
But technically, I mean, I could afford it.
So should I buy InfoWars?
What would I do with it?
Is there anything you can do with it?
If I bought it and just said, hey, Alex, go do your thing, is there any way I can make my money back?
So could I buy it and then just hire Alex as my employee and just keep some of it?
I don't know.
I probably don't have enough energy to pull off that transaction, but if there's anybody out there And you wondered what would it cost to own Infowars?
You know, if you're a billionaire and you just want to mess with the powers that be, because the powers that be wanted Alex Jones to be out of business.
It would be just a wonderful FU if you had a billion dollars.
You know, I'm not a billionaire.
But, I mean, for me it would be serious money.
So it's not like, that's not pocket change.
I'm doing okay, but that's not pocket change.
Anyway, so make an offer.
Three million, four million, you might own it.
You remember Act Blue?
So Act Blue is that big organization that allegedly is accumulating small donations for the Democrat Party.
But they were accused of taking money from foreign entities that were trying to influence the elections and using them as essentially a money laundering operation for their foreign influence.
That's the charge.
John Solomon of Just the News is reporting on that, but apparently the new news about that is that the platform did not block foreign gift cards until this fall.
So apparently you could donate using a foreign gift card so that nobody would know who the real donator is, I guess.
And it would sort of conceal what's going on and you could have a lot of foreign influence that way.
So apparently they've fixed this so that it can't do that anymore, but it was.
So foreign money laundering appears to be confirmed.
It appears to be confirmed.
Because if they ever had the ability, which they do confirm, to accept these foreign prepaid gift cards, and we know they were doing it, we don't know how much influence it was because we don't have a dollar amount for the cumulative total, but it can't be nothing.
Or else it wouldn't be a story.
So the story is kind of empty without knowing what dollar amount they think could have been this foreign money laundering.
But if I ever hear that number, I'll tell you if it makes a difference.
Meanwhile, over at Reclaim the Net, they're reporting on Meta is tweaking their program for censorship.
I'll call it censorship, but really it's getting rid of people who violated the terms of service.
And instead of being kind of one strike around, there's going to be some kind of a probation period where Meta Tries to educate you on why you were temporarily banned, and then you can work your way back into their good graces.
That's pretty good.
So I don't know if this is a good idea or a bad idea.
It probably depends how it's implemented.
But when I see Meta doing something that, at least on paper, It's exactly what we want.
Because we want people to have free speech.
But if you have free speech, you know you're also sometimes going to violate the terms of service and maybe not even know it.
You might not even know you did it.
So isn't it better for everybody and for free speech if Meta says, all right, we don't know if that was intentional.
Here's a warning.
Maybe a little limitation on your account temporarily.
But here's some education.
Did you know this?
Don't do it again.
I like that.
Feels like progress.
Meanwhile, apparently one of the hottest trends, at least for China, on the consumer internet, is these short video dramas.
So apparently creators are making one to two minute episodes for something that might be over an hour.
So you see only one to two minutes for each episode.
And it's designed for vertical viewing on phones.
So it's not movie format.
It's that up and down selfie kind of format.
And apparently the traffic and the money on that has surpassed movie box office.
So it's already, like I'm hearing about it today, it's already bigger than movies, at least for China.
And to them I say, that makes perfect sense.
The thing I worry about is the shortening attention spans that the phones are causing.
And I know for myself, it is literally just not possible for me to watch a long-form movie.
I've said it many times, but I keep thinking I'm exaggerating when I say it, and that 10 minutes from now I'll be watching a three-hour movie and enjoying it thoroughly.
But I don't think so.
I'm starting to think that there's no place in my life and maybe no place in your life for a long-form movie.
The trouble with a long-form movie is they have to do the entire first act It has to be bad news for the hero.
So the hero has some purpose.
So I don't want to watch, you know, 30 minutes of terrible things.
Oh, my family was wiped out by the bad guys or whatever.
And then at the end of the movie, massive people are getting killed, including the favored, you know, like the co-star who you really loved, but I guess they didn't make it to the end of the movie.
And then I hate movies where...
Thousands of people have been killed, including, you know, a dozen people that are very close to the hero.
And then the hero is still happy at the end.
How can you be happy after like 12 of your friends just got wiped out, you know, even though you won?
So everything about movies is sad and archaic and doesn't fit the modern world.
So maybe these new short episodes would work.
It made me think, I wonder if I could do one.
I have to look into this.
But it seems to me it wouldn't be that hard to get some friends together and create a drama that's one to two minutes where all you do is agree what you're going to act out for a minute, and then you just sort of do it with your friends.
But you make it look like, you know, something bigger has happened.
Could be cool.
Meanwhile, Kimberly Guilfoyle has been tapped to be the ambassador to Greece.
And if you're not up on the news, you might say to yourself, huh, what will Don Jr. think about that?
But it turns out that they are not a couple anymore.
Don Jr. has found another woman.
I'll just leave it at that.
So he's connected now with some other young, beautiful woman.
And I feel like there must have been a lot of interesting negotiations behind this.
The first thing I would note is that the breakup didn't happen, I think, until after it was obvious that Newsom would not be the candidate.
Did you notice that?
Because if Newsom had been the candidate, Kimberly Guilfoyle would have been so valuable to the Trump family, they probably would have told Don Jr., you know, if you're thinking about breaking up, Maybe just hold off a little bit longer because wouldn't it be good to have Newsom's ex on your team?
You know, for all the, like, inside psychological stuff.
But probably a coincidence, but at the same time that that asset was no longer necessary because Newsom's not running for office for at least this time.
Then Kimberly Guilfoyle has put all of this, let's say, time and effort and blood and sweat and tears into the Trump operation and reasonably could expect that she would have some home there.
But then she can't really hang around locally because her boyfriend's got a new girlfriend and that's going to be awkward.
So this looks perfect.
If it works out for her lifestyle-wise, great.
I mean, she might actually love being an ambassador to Greece.
Doesn't sound like a bad job, actually.
So I wish the best to all of them.
Meanwhile, the American Tory Reform Foundation ranked...
New York City has the second worst judicial hellhole, especially for lawsuits.
So I guess the laws and the process there are really friendly for people who want to abuse the system.
So New York City, judicial hellhole.
I didn't see who came in second, or who came in first.
But New York second.
So I would say again, New York City, and really New York State, I wouldn't build a business there.
I feel like that would just be insane.
The laws are so unfriendly that it just seems like the logical thing is to stay on in New York.
Anyway, Mark Andreessen continues to be interesting in his, I would say, his new role as more of a public commenter.
And we need more of him because his Public comments are unusually good.
He is unusually smart and, you know, no BS. So he was, I think he was talking to Barry Weiss, and he was saying that every government becomes an oligarch.
And he says the simple reason is that the elites, because they're a smaller group, and they're smaller and powerful and capable, that the elites tend to be good at organizing so that they can keep their power, whereas the masses are bad at organizing.
Because the elites might have more in common, which is, you're rich, I'm rich, let's try to keep this going.
So as long as the elites want to stay in power and stay rich, they can more easily organize.
Whereas the masses are like, hey, you're black and I'm a lesbian.
Can we be on the same team?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Does that make sense?
And I would agree with that, that every government, in reality...
Is an oligarch.
But I would add a little wrinkle to that.
So this is one of the smartest reframes that I ever heard in terms of the United States.
Is that we're more like Game of Thrones.
Meaning that the oligarchs are not all on the same side.
So there's an oligarch group over here that has a lot of interest in one topic.
There's another oligarch group over here that really cares about another topic, but still oligarchs.
It's just that our oligarchs tend to be divided into smaller teams that care about things more than other things.
So there's that.
But I would add to the idea that every government becomes an oligarchy.
I would add my thing, which is every government becomes a brainwasher.
Every government becomes a brainwasher because they have to.
There's no other model that works.
It doesn't matter if you're a dictator, brainwashing your citizens.
It doesn't matter if you're a democracy or a republic, brainwashing.
You really can't not do it.
The moment you let the news do what the news wanted to do, who would be running the country?
The news.
The news would.
And then there would be somebody who became the powerful news person, and they would effectively run the country.
So if you're in a government, it doesn't matter what kind of government, how you got there, dictator or actually a fair vote, once you get there, you can't let the news run the country.
Because what if the news said, let's say you get elected tomorrow, totally legal election, You're completely legitimate.
But the news decides they want to get their own person in there, you know, somebody who's important in the news business.
So they just start some fake news and say that you're on a Russia collusion or something.
And the next thing you know, people vote you out.
So if you're in any kind of a democratic republic or even dictator, If you don't control your news so that the news is a reflection of what the people in charge want it to be, you will not be in charge.
There is no other way.
Because otherwise you would agree that the news tells people what to think.
And if the news tells people to think that the government is bad and everything isn't working, the government will fall.
So brainwashing is not optional.
You want it to be.
But how much you want it to be won't change the fact it's not optional.
It really isn't.
I hate it, but it's not optional.
Let's talk about the healthcare hitman, they call him.
So they caught him, as you know, at a McDonald's.
And one of the mysteries is why did he seem like he was such a Law-abiding, nice kid with a great future, and then he turned into some kind of domestic terrorist.
Like, how's that happen?
But, and I saw one lawyer, Lawyer Lee, at least that's the name she goes by on X. Lawyer Lee said, I've been a lawyer for 30 years.
There's a lot more to the Luigi Mangione story than we've been told.
I'm highly concerned about his claim that evidence was planted on him.
Well, I can see why you'd be suspicious about that.
Because when you hear what was planted on him, it almost sounds like a comedy.
Well, he still had the murder weapon in his pocket.
What?
What, days later?
You've got the murder weapon in your pocket when you get caught at McDonald's?
And he had the fake IDs that he used To commit the crime.
He had all the fake IDs on him.
What?
And then he had the actual face mask they wore during the crime, or one that looked like it at least.
And you think to yourself, what the heck's going on here?
All right.
So, yeah, I'm seeing in the comments that there's an old video of the The now deceased CEO saying that they had good connections with Nancy Pelosi, so that their business was at least connected to the powers that be, so they were in good shape for that.
I don't know if that was as big a conspiracy as you think.
He was just saying that he's got friends in the government that's going to help him.
So, I don't know.
We'll see.
So it could be that Nancy Pelosi made some insider trading money off it somehow.
I don't know.
I'm just speculating.
So we don't know what that Pelosi reference meant, if it was important or if it wasn't.
So 4chan solved the case.
So here's what I think.
I think that the story about his back injury probably tells you everything you need to know.
He might have been on some kind of medication for the back injury, maybe more than one.
That could have changed his thinking.
It could be that when you're in pain, everything looks different, and maybe he had a death wish, and he didn't care if he got killed.
Maybe he realized that his life wasn't going to be him becoming president and having a good life, so he needed to be important to make a difference in the world.
So he picked this cause, thought he could get people on board, And he was right.
Because no matter what you think about this shooter, the shooter's stated objectives were met.
The stated objectives is to put attention on the fact that some of these capitalist enterprises are more bad than good.
That would be his point of view, not mine.
Now, I would say that he's got that message across.
If you look at the way people are reacting and the way people are often showing no sympathy whatsoever for the CEO, it feels like he read the room correctly, not the entire room.
But he wasn't that far off base from where a lot of people's minds already were starting to drift, which is, I'm not sure if these people have our best interests in mind.
So, anyway, I still think he's weirdly rational, meaning that his views about capitalism are not off base.
I mean, I don't have a better idea than capitalism, but it's certainly true that there are a lot of Big company executives who are doing terrible things to the public while making lots of money.
That part's true.
And if he makes people think about that more, he may have actually done something that he wanted to do.
And maybe he thinks it's good for the world.
I don't know.
Now, I saw the fact that he claimed that evidence was planted on him would suggest that either evidence was planted on him or he is crazy.
I don't know.
It seems like a weak thing to say, unless it's true.
Because he doesn't feel like the guy who wants to claim that he was innocent.
Is he really going to tell us he's innocent?
But that it would make more sense, it would make more sense that they planted the objects on him than that this guy who was that smart had all those objects on him.
I don't know.
You can imagine it either way.
But I'm going to go with my working assumption is that his back injury is the explanation for all of the change in his brain.
Have I ever mentioned that your body is your brain?
Is this the first time you've heard it?
Yeah.
His brain should be completely distorted by the pain in his body.
I would think that would be normal.
So it doesn't surprise me a bit, actually.
You may have heard that Trump continues to tease his Prime Minister from the North, Trudeau.
And in his statement on truth, he called Canada the great state of Canada, meaning like a future state of the United States.
And he called Trudeau the governor, kind of kidding him that Canada is not important enough to be its own country.
Maybe it should just be a United States.
Here's the thing.
It wasn't long ago, maybe during the first Trump administration, that if he had pulled this, calling Canada a state and joking with Trudeau that he's just the governor, don't you think people would have gone nuts and said, oh my God.
He's embarrassing us on the world stage.
He's a bully.
Why can't we have normal people in office?
He's not normal.
Stop him.
Oh, look at his tweets.
Oh, God.
Oh, no.
And what did people do this time when he insulted Trudeau, bullied him, and put him in his place, so to speak?
Here's what's different.
Trump has transformed From that bad boy who couldn't stop doing all the wrong things, according to you, into what I call a character.
As a character, he has the freedom to act within that character.
And somehow we've just given it to him, because as long as he's in character, we kind of get what's going on.
So what's in character for Trump is this.
Bullying his peers.
Trying to get a little psychological advantage on them.
Sometimes joking with them because it gets you to a better negotiation at some point.
I feel like Trump has now...
He's cemented his place as the person who acts this way and it's okay.
Meaning that we all survived his first term and he was this way.
But now, since you know you survived it, and nothing bad happened because he talks his way, now he's just a character.
And as a character, he can be funnier.
I think I've taught you that the reason AI can't be funny is that it doesn't have a personality.
You have to have a personality in order to fit the humor to your personality, and it's the two of those things that work.
If you take the personality away and you just do the joke, there's nothing there.
It's the personality plus the joke that gets you the humor.
So that's Trump.
He's got the personality.
Plus the jokes.
Trump can read a room better than anybody in politics.
And I think Trump is reading the Canadian room as well as the American one.
I think Trump wants Trudeau to be replaced, and he's mocking him in public so that the Canadians say some version of, oh, did we just send our leader to the United States?
And did he just get mocked and sent home?
Basically, this is a kill shot.
Trump is using a linguistic kill shot on our neighbor to change their government.
Will it make a difference?
It might.
It might.
It is powerful enough.
Just imagine this.
Imagine some president of the United States who's not Trump, just some other regular president.
Say we send our regular president To some other world power.
And after done, the world power literally mocks him as not worthy of being a president.
You can't even hold that in your head, can you?
America would go nuts.
We'd be like, oh no, we have to get rid of our president so we don't send somebody over who gets mocked that way.
Or we need to invade the country that did it or something.
But Having Trump even gently mocking him, I would think just takes his legs out from being a credible politician in the future.
So I would expect to see the end of Trudeau as a political actor really soon.
I think this might have been the last push.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, Nancy Mace.
Was attacked on the Capitol by what she says is a pro-trans man.
And she had to get a new brace for her wrist.
I think her wrist was already hurt.
And some ice for my arm and it'll heal just fine.
And the Capitol Police arrested him.
Now, you remember the story about the Democrat lawmaker who was attacked by the white supremacist?
You remember that story, right?
There was a Democrat lawmaker at the Capitol, and this white supremacist came in and just started wailing on him.
You remember that?
No, it never happened.
Of course you don't remember it, because it never happened.
But Nancy Mace got attacked physically.
I wonder if there's any trend involved.
Well, let's see.
Nancy Meese was attacked physically.
Marjorie Taylor Greene got a bomb threat.
Birchett, also another Republican lawmaker, got a bomb threat.
Trump got a shot in the ear.
Do you see a pattern yet?
Yeah.
Republicans are still being hunted.
The J6ers are still in jail.
Yep.
Still being haunted.
Well, I think that's going to change.
So Joy Reid did another mentally unstable video where she looks in the camera with the eyes like this.
And I think Hitler's coming.
Oh, people.
Oh, I think Hitler's coming.
Hey, Hitler.
Orange Hitler.
Everybody can see it.
You can all see it.
You can all see it.
Orange Hitler's coming.
And I can't look away.
I watch every second of her videos because I just look at it and go, what?
What's happening here?
So here's one where I can't tell.
Is she really this stupid?
Or is she just doing this for political brainwashing propaganda effect?
She actually said that when Elon Musk and Trump and I think mostly those two, they talk about running the country like a business, Joy Reid takes that literally and then explains why running the country exactly like a business would be a bad idea.
Now, does Joy Reid not really understand how words work?
That doesn't make sense.
Does she have like an IV education and she's on TV every night communicating very well?
Does she really not understand how That when somebody like Musk says run the country like a business, all they mean is don't do stupid shit.
That's all it means.
Just don't do stupid shit.
Because companies don't.
Or they try not to.
And she turned that into, well, if you're going to run like a country...
I guess you'd get rid of all those unnecessary expenses, you know, like all the things that help people.
And like, no.
No.
Everybody knows they don't mean that.
Everybody knows that just means don't do stupid shit.
Everybody knows that.
Is she the only person in the world who doesn't understand what it means to run the government like a business?
Is she just lying?
Or trying to convince you that she really believes this is like a business.
I mean, I don't know.
I'm actually...
My first instinct is she couldn't possibly be that dumb to think that they mean that literally and that the analogy holds for every element of a business versus a corporation.
But on the other hand, this is exactly how Democrats argue.
They argue like the analogy is illiteral.
They argue hyperbole is literal.
I don't know.
She might be that dumb, but I'm going to lean toward its intentional bad behavior and not something she can't control.
Meanwhile, James Carville continues to entertain.
He might be the only Democrat who fully understands what happened with the Democrats and what they did wrong.
So listening to him talk and having the Democrats not understand any of it is just entertaining the hell out of me.
So here's what he says now.
He said, well, did the language of identity politics really didn't hurt us ever?
And he says it wasn't bad, but there's evidence for a fact that no one talked about it in 2024. So he's talking to somebody else's argument that identity politics couldn't have hurt them because the Democrats weren't really talking about identity politics during the race.
And Carville says, so he goes, so wait a minute.
If you have an idea and no one talks about it and you still insist it was a good idea, it doesn't make any sense.
Right.
So the Democrats, their top thing was identity politics.
But I think he correctly notes that when they ran for office, suddenly their top thing disappeared.
It's because their top thing was just toxic and bad for the country.
So they couldn't even lead with their top thing because even they knew it wasn't a good thing.
If they believed their top thing was a good thing, they certainly would have made it the focus of their entire campaign.
So Carville is totally correct that their philosophy, even they knew, was so weak that they couldn't mention it while running for office.
Wow.
He's right about that.
But he says, and he points out that one side doesn't get to make all the rules, the other side gets a vote too.
So he talks about how the Republicans very smartly focused on the identity politics because the public believed that it was a thing.
And if the Democrats weren't talking about it at this minute, certainly everybody in the country still knew it was a thing.
So He said that the late deciders, 78% of them, thought Democrats wanted to defund the police.
Now, it is true that there were a lot of Democrats who did want to defund the police at one point, including Kamala Harris.
It's not true that they were running on that.
I don't know that anybody was running on it.
But if 78% think Democrats want to defund the police, that means that the Republicans were winning on messaging for sure.
Anyway, Carville will have no hope of convincing the other Democrats because they're still stuck in a gaslighting environment.
They really, really, genuinely don't know what went wrong.
That's why it's so quiet, I think.
They're looking around and saying, did we get everything wrong?
Are we the bad guys?
And the answer is yes.
You got everything wrong and you are the bad guys.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
That's not even politics.
I'm just talking common sense.
Whoever opens the border, to me, that's not politics.
If you open the border, no.
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to call that politics.
That's a whole different level.
Whatever that is, it's not politics.
Anyway, here's my favorite story that kind of wraps it up.
Post-millennial is talking about it.
Apparently, the black Kamala Harris campaign staffers were complaining about all the outright racial discrimination against them during the race.
So Kamala Harris' black campaign people Believed that working for the black candidate, they were discriminated against for being black.
Does that sound like something that really happened?
I don't know.
But I'll tell you this.
Remember I've told you that reality...
It is best decided by what is predictive.
What is predictive.
So if you've got a theory on life that predicts what happens next, that might be as close as you can get to understanding reality.
You still might be in some illusion, but at least if whatever your illusion is predicts the next step, well, you've got an advantage.
I mean, that's good.
So let's test this against my view of reality.
My view of reality is that identity politics destroys everything it touches and that it does it in the order of what it touches hardest and first.
So anything that had lots of it and fast destroys itself.
So the Kamala Harris campaign, I would say, destroyed itself.
Would you agree, first of all, that that's an accurate observation?
That the campaign was largely incompetent compared to the Trump campaign, for sure.
So I think you agree on that.
So certainly there was something organically Terribly wrong with the campaign itself.
And we can see it every day.
I mean, it was obvious even from the outside.
Now we find out that there was mass problems and that identity politics were top of mind within the campaign.
So, my prediction...
Is that the place that has the hardest, fastest DEI identity politics issue will be the one that's most thoroughly destroyed the fastest.
Here it is.
So my prediction holds.
Now, it's only a one-point prediction, right?
So you'd like to see the prediction work for other things.
So I would say that it has destroyed the campaign.
Because the campaign had the highest concentration of identity politics, so it was the most destroyed.
Secondly, the Democrat Party in general had the next highest focused identity politics thing, and it destroyed the entire Democratic Party.
Then you go up to the next level, which is the United States.
But the United States had half the country, you know, roughly, half the country who were not on board with identity politics and wanted to erase it from our minds, and then half the country were deeply focused on it.
That predicts, that predicts that you would have massive problems from identity politics, but maybe your country would survive, because it was only, it's not a saturation.
See, the Harris campaign was saturated with identity, Destroyed it.
The Democratic Party, saturated with identity politics, destroyed.
Now, I think the party might be able to reform itself over time.
The Harris campaign is dead forever.
She's not going to run in 2028 and win an election.
So again, the consistency of my prediction.
So she had the most focus.
She's the most destroyed.
Democrats had the next most focus.
Pretty thoroughly destroyed, but maybe with a chance to come back.
The America itself had a 50% saturation, which really, really fucked us up.
But we're a strong country.
And we had enough balls to figure out how to get out of it.
Because that's what it took.
It took people taking an arrow in the back and the forehead and the side.
It took people like me.
Here I'm not trying to put myself as a hero, because I was just doing what I felt like I needed to do.
I wasn't doing it for a bigger purpose.
So there you go.
Identity politics as a prediction will destroy everything where it's first and most focused.
And you'll see that, you could put it on a graph, and you'd see it every place.
Meanwhile, Melinda French Gates, the ex of Bill Gates, is donating $150 million to a bunch of non-profits, and a lot of it is to help remove barriers for women in the workplace.
What?
Barriers for women in the workplace?
What barrier are you talking about?
Here's a woman who clearly has not had to apply for a job in a long time.
Does Melinda French not know?
That if a man and a woman go into the same interview and they have similar or even anywhere in the same ballpark credentials, that the woman gets hired every time.
Every time.
In corporate America.
What problem is she fixing?
I don't know any company that doesn't prefer females over males for hiring, including construction.
Because even the construction guys would be like, oh, we better get some diversity in here.
Oh, there's a woman applying.
She has all the skills.
Yes, definitely get the woman.
Well, there's a guy applying too.
No, no, no.
We need a woman.
We better get some women in here because we'll get in trouble.
So no, I don't know any company.
I've never even heard of it.
In my entire life, I've never heard of a place that wouldn't hire qualified women.
Have you?
Have you ever even heard of it?
Have you heard of one person telling the story that the qualified woman couldn't get a promotion or a raise?
Even once?
Now, I absolutely believe it was true in our past.
And you don't have to go that far back for it to be true.
70s, 80s, definitely true then.
But today?
Today?
2024?
2024?
It's not even close.
Women have far advantages over men in employment.
It's not even close.
What world is she living in?
It's puzzling.
But I would use her as an example of somebody who, unlike James Carville, she doesn't know that she's making things worse.
When I look at this, it almost looks like it's revenge against Bill Gates.
Like it's some kind of angry way to spend his money on something that he would hate.
Because do you think Bill Gates is happy to see $150 million of what used to be his money go to something that, because Bill Gates is not an idiot, He knows that Microsoft loves hiring women.
He knows it.
Oh, my God.
All right.
So there's a story that the Department of Justice, back in the old Trump administration, spied on Kash Patel and other federal employees, including two House members.
And it had something to do with Kash Patel looking into the Russia collusion hoax, I think.
I have a little uncertainty about this story, but what seems to be true is the Department of Justice did spy on Kash Patel and other people.
Whether they had good reason to do that, we haven't heard any.
So, I do have a feeling that Kash might be going into that FBI job with a little bit of a chip on his shoulder.
Boy, does he deserve a chip on his shoulder.
If there's anybody who you would allow to operate with a chip on their shoulder, it's him.
Because it's a real chip.
He's not imagining it.
They really went after him.
So even though that was the Trump administration, the DOJ wasn't, I don't think, I think it's fair to say Trump did not order, he did not order the investigation of Kash Patel.
So the DOJ has some answering.
But also on the Kash Patel story, he said on Steve Bannon's War Room on a 2023 episode that we will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media.
And he said, quote, yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig elections.
We're going to come after you.
Whether that's criminally or civilly, we're going to figure that out.
But yeah, we're putting you all on notice.
Now, here's my question.
Where's the crime?
It's certainly bad behavior.
For the media to collude with the Democrats and effectively lie and create hoaxes and support narratives they know are not true.
But is that illegal?
Is it even something you could sue over?
Because it's sort of how our entire system works.
If you could...
Criminalize the actions or civilly sue somebody for who is in politics if they also influence the news to, let's say, use their narrative?
Is that illegal?
And is it only illegal if they're making up something that isn't true, like the Russian collusion hoax?
What if somebody influences Fox News just by being a really good guest?
Just some Republican.
They're just really good guests.
And then that really good guest goes on Fox News, hypothetically.
And then the other hosts, the opinion people, listen to it and they go, oh, wow, that's a pretty good opinion.
The way that person stated it is so good, I'm going to adopt that.
I like it.
Would that be a case of the media colluding with a Republican?
Or would it just be Republicans and commenters saying, oh, that's a good reframing of that issue.
I'm going to use that.
But suppose that politician came on to Fox News, and I haven't seen this.
I don't know that this has happened.
I think I'm going to be fact-checked on that.
Somebody's going to tell me it did happen, but I can't think of an example.
Suppose somebody came on to Fox News, they were a Republican politician, and And they said, blah, blah, and they created a hoax.
Just out of nothing.
Like the fine people hoax or the drinking bleach hoax.
Just some hoax.
And then let's say Fox News adopted the hoax.
And maybe even had meetings and said, hey, we're all on the same team, so we're going to push that hoax.
Now, none of that happened, as far as I know.
I don't think that happens on Fox News.
But what if it did?
Would that be illegal?
And if it were, what crime would it be?
And if you could sue them civilly, for what?
What exactly would you sue them for?
Because it's so basic that people lie about other people, especially in politics.
I don't know that you could ever sort out what was too far, what's over the line.
I don't know.
It's just catchy stuff.
But do I think that Kash Patel has...
I think he has the right mindset that the way the media lied to the people and worked with the Democrats didn't look like news.
I think on the right, when they get things wrong, it's because they thought it was right.
On the left, when they get things wrong, it's because they know they're running a hoax.
At least the people at the top know they're running a hoax.
It's really different.
So something needs to be done about the hoaxing, but I don't know that jail or the courts are the answer to it.
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think they are the answer to it.
So it bothers me when somebody who I would consider on my side, that would be the conservative side of America, where although I don't identify as a conservative, I prefer their company, and I prefer their management.
So that's where I'm at.
So I prefer Kash Patel, and people like him being in charge of our vital things, but he does make me uncomfortable because When he talks about finding the crime, he's basically saying, here's the people, now I'm going to go find a crime.
He didn't use those words, but that's how it comes across.
And that's never okay.
It's never okay.
So I do not want to see Kash Patel or the Department of Justice or anybody in the Trump administration doing the Stalin thing where we don't like Adam Schiff, so we're going to look for everything that's a crime until we find one.
I mean, I really, really don't like Adam Schiff, and I think he's bad for the country in a dozen different ways.
But no, I don't want them to say, let's start with Adam Schiff and go see if there's a crime we can put.
Nope.
That's a hard no.
Can't live in that country.
So, and I hope there's enough people on the right who would agree on that.
I know some people just want revenge, but you've got to think beyond that.
I saw an opinion by Mike Cernovich.
which That I wanted to add a little to.
He said, in a post today, he said, can we finally accept that most of the subway psychopaths are the result of high-dose weed products and the resulting psychosis?
What do you think?
Before I give you my opinion, do you think that high-dose weed products are causing what seems to be the increase in mental illness of the dangerous type?
Well, here's what I would add.
If you're talking about weed that comes in a flower form and you put it in a pipe or a joint and you smoke it, definitely not.
100% not.
Not even 1%.
There's no chance.
It'd be like, does this anvil float?
No.
Not if it's an anvil.
Anvils don't float.
So, but...
There is a way which Mike is right, because he sort of generically calls it high-dose weed products.
And then some people said, well, you know, a friend of mine did a vape, should have been a weed vape, but got a psychosis.
Now, in that case, it was like a two-hour psychosis.
I don't think that's what's happening with the people who are going crazy on subways.
I don't think it's a two-hour problem.
It's probably a life problem.
But I don't think vaping is always weed.
I think the vapes, first of all, they put in other chemicals.
Second of all, if you've ever tried vaping, and you've also tried the regular version of weed, the feeling you get and the experience aren't even close.
I love ordinary weed, the legal kind, but vaping, not even a little bit.
It's not even a little bit attractive.
I know how it feels, and it just doesn't add much.
It just makes you kind of tired and stupid.
So if that's weed, I feel like maybe they're slipping in a little extra chemical there.
I don't know what, but, you know, I worry that there's like a trace of fentanyl in there or some damn thing.
So if you don't know what you're getting, that might be a bigger problem, yes.
And then there are also some, what's the word for it, like artificial versions of weed?
So if it's an artificial version or something called spice or something made in a laboratory, but it's like they call it something about weed, but it's really made in a laboratory, I can see that giving you psychosis.
I'm no expert, but...
So I'm going to agree with Mike's take that what he calls the high-dose weed products might be behind some of it.
It's a reasonable hypothesis.
But certainly not regular weed.
It's definitely not.
100% regular weed is not causing any problems that look like that.
I woke up to see a claim on X that a bus-sized drone had crashed in New York or New Jersey.
And the roads were closed and soon we would see these alien UAPs or UFOs because one of them, the size of a bus, crashed and they got it surrounded and they're looking into it.
But it turns out it was just an automobile accident and it was nothing like a UFO. It was fake.
Then, of course, have you seen some of the impressive videos of these shining objects sometimes going into the ocean and sometimes coming out?
Do those look real to you?
Do those videos look real?
It's kind of, it's messing with my head.
Synthetic, thank you.
All morning I've been trying to think of the word synthetic, referring to the weed.
There is a synthetic form of marijuana that I wouldn't trust at all, like not even a little bit.
I wouldn't go near it.
So if that's the kind of product that Mike Cernovich is talking about, the synthetics and maybe the vaping, yeah, I would stay away from those.
I would stay way away from both of those.
All right, so yeah, I don't believe any of the videos, but it's funny that we live in a time when videos are easier to fake because of AI, and we're getting tons of videos.
So here's my theory.
Some experts said the same thing.
That the fact that the FBI says they don't know what it is doesn't mean anything.
That doesn't mean that the government's not involved.
If it's really a top-secret drone exercise, the FBI would not know.
The local police would not know.
And most of the military would not know.
And there might be only 12 people in the world who actually know.
And it might be the 12 people in some deep-secret military thing where they're sending the drones around.
Now, the second question would be, I'm stealing this from an expert whose name I forgot to write down, so I'm a terrible person.
Oh, Emerson.
Emerson is his name.
And he was saying that if the drones being tested are for collecting data, So they might be practicing sucking up massive phone calls, cell phones.
They might be practicing, I don't know, navigation without GPS. They might be practicing some kind of just monitoring people's behavior, something like that.
So he thinks that there might be a test of signal interception equipment That they wouldn't want to tell you about.
Let's say you developed a drone, which is made to hover over populated areas and suck up all their cell phone conversations.
Would you tell the public?
You can't tell the public.
And it might be the only way you could test it.
The only way you could test it is on a real population.
But...
The real population would say, are you kidding?
You are just testing, stealing my cell phone data?
No thank you.
How about you stop that right away?
But let's say it was necessary.
Let's say the military said, you know, this is not ideal, but it's the only way we can test it.
It has to be over a real population, and we won't use the data.
So we'll see if we can collect it, but then we won't collate it or attach it to any personality.
So we won't actually do anything that puts you in danger, but it will test the technology.
Could it absorb these signals and store them?
So, maybe.
My guess is that it's a military operation.
Otherwise, we'd see military response.
Obviously, we'd see a military response by now.
So it's got to be military.
And I don't think the FBI necessarily knows.
I don't think the local police know.
But the tell is that people like the governor of New Jersey say things like, we don't think there's a threat.
How do you know that if you don't know what it is?
Yeah.
The only way you know it's not a threat, the only way is if the people who are doing it told you to say that.
That's the only way.
So if the governor got a call from somebody who said, you know, I can't tell you what's going on, but I can assure you, and the only thing you have to go on is my credibility as, let's say, a general in the military, maybe some general.
The only thing I can offer you is my credibility of, you know, 30 years in the service.
I'm a general.
I assure you, there's no risk to the public.
But beyond that, we have no information to give you.
Doesn't it sound like that happened?
I think that happened.
Otherwise, the governor would already be, you know, maybe moving people into the zone or something.
You'd relocate people.
So I think the governor must have been told, and maybe the local police must have been told, That it's no risk, and the only person who could tell them that are the people behind it.
Nobody else would know.
So I think it's kind of obvious what it is.
It's obviously military.
It's obvious that the authorities don't know the details, but they have been told not to worry.
All right.
So some of the January 6th committee people...
They say Trump is trying to send a message with his calls for their imprisonment.
So I think the January 6th committee was completely corrupt.
But as I've said before, I'm not aware of a specific law That they broke.
They seem to have lied.
They seem to have destroyed some information.
But they would claim maybe it was accidental.
I don't know.
But there's definitely tons of bad behavior.
You know, there's lying.
There's, you know, ignoring exculpatory evidence.
Every bit of it was crooked and bad.
But was it illegal?
I think I saw Jonathan Turley say there's no specific crime that looks like they can get a conviction.
You know, there's nothing that the public can see that looks like it's illegal.
And since I'm not a lawyer, I'll just take his...
I hope I've interpreted that correctly, but I think he doesn't see a path to a crime.
But I don't mind that they're threatened with it.
I don't mind that they're threatened because the behavior was certainly as bad as a crime.
I would say worse.
It was worse than a lot of crimes that are definitely illegal.
And I'd hate that nothing happens because of a technicality.
But certainly people who Engage in that kind of behavior.
The January 6th Select Committee.
Some of the worst human beings I've ever seen.
I mean, you have to be a terrible human being to be part of that.
You can't respect any part of that.
Anyway.
So Republicans think that...
Or there's a thought...
That no Republican senator is going to fight Trump if he tries to pardon the January 6th people.
I would go further and say, if you're a Republican and you oppose January 6th pardons, good luck getting re-elected.
If you want to know the fastest way to not get re-elected, just go in public and say you don't agree with the January 6th pardons.
You are so done.
This is a serious red line.
Any Republican who crosses this line and says anybody on the January 6th should stay in jail, even the violent ones, I think you're out of business.
You should be.
I do not see any possible way that a Republican could get re-elected with that point of view.
Although, it would agree with the Democrat they're running against.
So, I'm rethinking this on the fly.
I'm thinking that the Republicans wouldn't support the Republican, but they also wouldn't want the Democrat.
I don't know.
I think this would be one where I'd rather have the Democrat win.
Well, no, because the Democrat would also be against the pardon.
Yeah, I guess it's a little more complicated than I first thought.
But if you're a Republican, I would not fight the January 6th pardons.
I would roll over and find something else to worry about.
Trump has a new proposal.
He wants businesses that invest over a billion dollars in the U.S. He wants them to receive expedited approvals and permits.
Now, how big a deal is that?
It's really big.
And have you seen the stats on how many billion dollar companies have been created in the United States in the last few decades versus how many have been created in Europe?
So in the United States, I don't know what the number is, 50 or whatever, but quite a few.
Quite a few.
The number in Europe is none.
None.
In decades, they haven't created a new billion-dollar business in Europe.
None.
Now, why?
Well, Y is probably red tape and tradition.
Some of it's cultural, but a lot of it probably is just the red tape.
It's just hard to get anything going.
In Europe, it's harder.
So Trump's instinct to reduce regulations and make it easier to do business is right on.
I've told you before that I've had Numerous small business ideas for California.
For example, I would love to open a cat petting cafe.
But it's California.
So I go, oh, it's California.
There's no point in it.
Because California would make me try to preserve some endangered frogs, and I would have to guarantee that I hired diverse employees, and I would get sued for who knows what, and the power would go out.
California is not really suitable for starting a business at the moment.
Not a small business.
I don't know.
Maybe a bigger one would make sense.
So when he says that he will, if you bring a billion dollars into the country, he'll expedite the approvals and permits, that's a really big deal.
And here's the thing that nobody said when Trump said this.
Nobody said, you're not the president.
So he's not even the president, but he puts out this proposal as if president.
And I think everybody treats it as though he said it as president, which they should.
Common sense.
Common sense says the real president's disabled.
And if we have somebody who can step in who's legitimate because he did get most of the votes, yeah, act like a president.
So the fact that he does this without an apology, You know, he doesn't add anything like, you know, once I'm sworn in.
You know, he doesn't have to do any of that.
He just says what he's going to do, and then it's done.
I mean, you could argue that he implemented it already, because if what he's offering is expediting approvals and permits, he doesn't need to pass a new law, probably.
He doesn't have to get anybody's permission, probably.
Probably if just some big billion-dollar company wanted to do this, they would just contact him or Elon Musk would contact him.
They'd get to him somehow.
And then Trump would say, what is it you want to build?
A chip factory?
Absolutely.
I'll have my people remove all the stupid regulations and get you right in business.
Because I think the chip manufacturing is maybe largely what he has in mind.
Because you don't want to have too much red tape, otherwise we'll fall behind any AI. And we'll all be dead.
Meanwhile, in Argentina, a story which I feel is fishy...
You know those things that are too good to be true?
Are a little too on the nose?
A little too perfect?
Well, so as you know, Argentina's new president, Millet, is an ex-economist.
And he had very, very big claims about what he was going to do to turn around Argentina, and he was going to do it fast.
And so today the news is saying...
That Argentina has completely removed the deficit, meaning that the government is bringing in more revenue than it's spending.
And he said, with no debt, he says there's no inflation.
So suddenly, Argentina is looking like a great economy, or at the beginning of a great economy.
And he says Argentina will become the AI and nuclear powerhouse.
Which is exactly the smart thing you'd want your president to say if you were the president of Argentina.
So here's my problem.
Is this a little too good?
Do you believe this?
Do you believe that the economists came in and completely turned the country around in one year?
Does that sound real to you?
I'd love to think it was.
Like, in my perfect world, this is completely real because it suggests we can do something like it.
But the question I would have is, did Argentina not have a bunch of welfare, health care expenses that they couldn't cut?
Or did he cut things that they shouldn't have cut and that the real story is that the poor are all going to starve to death because the only way the government could cut their costs to get rid of the deficit is to stop helping people in need.
Are we going to find that out?
This is one of those stories where only the good side is shown.
Oh, great, you got rid of the deficit.
Did anything else happen?
Such as, I don't know, poor people dying in mass because the government isn't helping them anymore?
What are you giving up?
Is there more crime because you had to cut the police force?
I don't know.
So I'm just going to say that this story smells wrong.
I sure hope it's true, because I would love for Argentina to do well.
I would love that somebody with an economics background Did well.
By the way, that was true in India, right?
Isn't Modi an economist?
I don't know too much about the Indian system, but I think Modi is an economist, right?
So here's my second question.
I would like to know the history of economists who rose to the top office and how often that made a difference.
Wouldn't it be fun to find out that, let's say, it only happened five times in history, and all five times the country completely turned around in a year?
Because I think India had kind of an economic miracle with an economist in charge, right?
I don't know enough about India to know that that's true, but I kind of vaguely think that's true.
So give me a fact check in the comments if you know more about the Indian system.
Meanwhile, the representative, Jamal Bowman, who's no longer representative, he was ousted in New York, he did some kind of open letter, which he said, Dear White People.
That's a bad start.
Dear White People.
Okay, where's this going?
And he's mad about the Penny verdict, Jamal Bowman is.
He says, don't know why I feel the need to keep talking to you, meaning to white people.
And he said on Tuesday that, quote, white supremacy is the reason Daniel Penny was acquitted.
Oh, my goodness.
And he said he doesn't understand why people feel the need to keep talking to white people.
Well, Jamal, this might have something to do with why you're ousted.
So he's doubling down on identity politics.
And I was watching, oh, Dan Abrams.
I think he's on News Nation now.
Used to be on MSNBC, if that's correct.
And he was talking to a Black Lives Matter reporter.
Leader who was saying that the Daniel Penny thing was pure racism, and Abrams was, who I believe is a Democrat, he was just no.
He was a hard no on the Penny situation being about race.
I really appreciated that.
Now, I'll need a confirmation.
He does, doesn't he, side Democrat?
You know, not, he's not an extremist, but I thought he was always, you know, friendly to the left in terms of politics.
So if you could get somebody like Dan Abrams, who's friendly to the left on politics, to say, this Daniel Penny situation?
Nope.
Nope.
Absolutely not.
That is not, that is not about racism.
And I agree.
Meanwhile, there's talk that Laura Trump, who is now stepping down as the RNC co-chair, might be considering a Senate seat to replace Rubio.
What would you think of Laura Trump as a Florida senator?
I will not wait for your answers, and I will tell you the answer.
I like it.
I like it a lot.
And again, I've had some interactions with her on interviews.
She's interviewed me a few times on video.
And I'll tell you the one thing you get from her, like loud and clear, is she projects competence.
Like, you just feel it.
So she's got the charisma, the fight, the connections, the competence.
And to Donald Trump's point of view, she's perfect on camera.
Camera loves her.
So if you have...
And her physicality, I don't think, can be ignored.
If you've never seen her workout routine on her Instagram posts, oh, my God.
She really takes exercise and fitness to a level that is inspiring, actually.
It's just inspiring.
So, does she have the tools to be a senator?
I'm going to say hard yes.
I'd be pretty happy with that.
So, if you had to predict, I would predict that she will be a senator.
We'll see.
Elon Musk apparently set a new record for richness so he crossed the 400 billion mark he's in the mid 400 billion range of richness now I'm not the first person to predict this but I think he's only two years from the first trillion air First trillionaire.
Because I think when the robots go online...
And his robo taxis go online.
And he's part of the Trump administration.
So those, let's say, those things holding him back, regulations and red tape and lawfare and all that, if those things are removed, which are his biggest problem, weirdly, it's not going to take him long to get to a trillion.
Because you could easily see the value of Tesla doubling.
Right?
You can imagine Tesla doubling in value in two years with the robots, even maybe just with the cars alone, but you add the robots in for sure.
And then you add the self-driving taxis.
I mean, that's got to be worth a few hundred billion right there.
So yeah, I think two years.
Two years until he's the first trillionaire.
That's kind of cool.
If somebody had to be a trillionaire, Are you glad it's him?
Like, try to do this exercise in your mind.
Try to come up with one other person in the United States That you would be as happy if they became a trillionaire.
Name anybody.
But he clearly puts so much blood, sweat, and tears into the benefit of the United States, not just now, but in the long future, and the benefit of the world, and making us multi-planetary and God knows what else.
I don't think anybody in the history of anything Has ever been so clearly somebody that I would say, trillion?
Go for three.
You can have as many trillions as you want.
You just keep being you and keep giving back to the stockholders and giving back to the country and the world.
And yeah, we're all good.
And then the other thing you have to realize is that Musk with a trillion dollars Can do more things like buying old Twitter and saving free speech.
So that was worth a trillion dollars.
And remember, the trillions that he makes probably just go back into productive investments.
He doesn't keep money in a pillow.
He doesn't put money in his mattress.
He reinvests, and he reinvests at least two or three times he's reinvested in everything he had.
So, he's all in on America.
And if you're all in on America, and you prove it every day, and you're working 120 hours a week, and it seems like it takes three of you to do what you're doing, and you don't have to do any of it.
You don't have to do any of it.
Yeah, you can have a trillion.
You can have as many trillions as you want.
That's fine with me.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for my prepared remarks.
I went on too long.
I'm going to say bye and say hi to the fine folks who are at Locals.
But if you're on Rumble or X or YouTube, thanks for joining.
