All Episodes
Feb. 27, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:12:41
Episode 2763 CWSA 02/27/25

Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Tesla Patent, Epstein Files Release, Jake Tapper Original Sin, Rewriting Biden's Cognitive Decline, Scott Jennings, Gavin Newsom Podcast, USDA Billion Dollar Egg Plan, Trump Cabinet Meeting, Elon Musk, Libs of TikTok, DataRepublican, DOGE Analysis, Mike Benz, Michael Shellenberger, Megyn Kelly, Reframing MSNBC Commentary, HuffPo, JB Pritzker, Democracy Loss Grocery Prices, Ukraine Mineral Deal, President Trump, Fed Cost-Cutting Competition, Biden Admin Genitalia Focus, Pardon Czar Alice Johnson, AI Gaza Imagined Video, Iran Nuclear, Israel Total Victory, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I need my footstool, though.
Oh, there we go.
That's good.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to see if you can 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 of tank or chalice.
It's time to canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Exquisite.
Let me see if I can fix my glare a little bit.
Worse, worse, better.
All right.
Glare fixed.
Well, if you're subscribing to the Dilbert comic, which continues every day, and you can get it on the X platform, just look at my profile and then subscribe.
Or you can get it on Locals.
You would know that Dilbert's CEO is trying to do a doge project on his own company.
Trying to reduce expenses, and he's trying to do it with a scalpel.
With a scalpel, not a chainsaw.
Now, not a real scalpel, but, you know, figuratively.
It's not working out.
Yeah, it's not working out that well.
But you'd have to subscribe to know what went wrong.
Now, here's some news that is a really big deal to me.
It won't mean anything to the rest of you.
The rest of you won't care about this a bit.
But this is transformative to my actual daily experience.
So Amazon is finally coming up with an AI version of its digital assistant, whose name I will not say so I don't activate yours at home, but A-L-E-X-A. And, you know, as you know, I've been hooked on that product for a long time.
I have one in most of my rooms that matter, including this one.
And so my daily life involves walking around, and then when I have a question, I just say it out loud.
You know, I just ask my digital device as I'm walking through the room, you know, what time is it?
What's the weather?
What will the weather be at this time?
Where's my package?
You know, I always have some kind of little question, sometimes math, you know, some fact.
But it's not great compared to AI, and it doesn't always recognize what you're asking.
Whereas AI will be way better at recognizing what you're saying.
So my great dream had been that my experience would be like a starship captain in my own house and that I could literally ask anything or even have a conversation with my computer just by talking.
And it would just hear me and talk back.
And it looks like that's going to be available in a month or so.
$19.99 per month.
$19.99.
Wow.
I'm so glad it's not $20.
Because at $20, I would have said, you know, that's a little pricey.
But in $19.99, I don't know.
Am I being manipulated?
That seems so cheap.
Okay.
Well, Tesla was granted a patent on some of the self-driving car technology, but what the patent spotters spotted is that it's kind of a broad patent, which means that other self-driving cars seems like they would likely violate the patent.
So here's just sort of generally what the patent claim is.
I won't read it all, but it's basically a system with processors that look at objects and use the visual to figure out how to maneuver around, etc.
And it makes me wonder, is there a reason that Tesla got this patent so that they can have a competitive moat and own the self-driving car world?
Or, and this would be actually not surprising, Could it be?
Because I think Tesla has a history of giving away their patents.
We're making them available to all.
This one's a big one.
I mean, this is the patent of all patents.
If they can control essentially the idea of training your car with lots of visual images and then using sensors to predict where the other objects are, that's kind of the entire game.
So unless somebody uses, I don't know, only LiDAR or some other technology, which seems unlikely at this point, would they just own the entire category for as long as the patent is on?
Maybe.
The other possibility is that it's a defensive patent, meaning that the other car companies might intentionally or accidentally be violating this patent, but Tesla could be accidentally violating someone else's patent.
Because there are so many patents on so many things that you can't make a product like a new self-driving car without almost guaranteed you're violating a dozen patents you didn't even know existed.
And then those patent people can come after you and they can pester you forever.
But if they're a car company, you can say, well, would you like to trade patents and stay on the court?
Now, I don't know if this is...
The right kind of patent for dealing, negotiating, versus maybe you want to keep it as a moat.
It's very interesting, just knowing that this exists and that the patent was granted.
Well, you're all excited about Epstein Island Reveal Day, right?
Has it happened yet?
Do we have a timing yet for when the Epstein files a small portion of them, just a tiny little sliver of them?
Will be revealed?
Has that been announced yet?
Here's what I expect.
The first release will be underwhelming.
And it will not indicate any crimes by anybody.
That's what I think.
Oh, noon.
So noon East Coast.
Okay.
Well, that'll be fun.
So here's my prediction.
So this is based on the real world, right?
So in the real world, I don't think you're going to see the good stuff, ever.
I don't think it'll ever come out.
I do think that since the administration has made such a big deal about transparency, they had to release something.
They couldn't release nothing.
So I think they're going to release the things that are kind of similar to what we already knew, but maybe it gives you a little detail about who flew on the flights.
And if you only knew who flew on the flights, would you know who committed any terrible crimes?
No.
Because I don't believe that 100% of the people who went to the island or 100% of the people who got on his plane or 100% of the people who visited him in one of his homes, I don't think 100% of them committed crimes.
I don't even know what percentage I would think.
I don't know if it's 10% or 90%.
But you cannot assume.
If somebody took a flight, that they committed a crime.
You could assume that almost all of them were targets, and Epstein was trying to get them in a bad situation.
But that doesn't mean they all accepted.
There were a lot of sophisticated people who probably could see through the whole thing and just thought, okay, I'll take some of the offers, but I won't do this one.
I'm not going to be in a room alone with somebody underage, for example.
So I expect nothing.
So my prediction is nothing.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, Rubio cut over $60 million in waste from the State Department and USAID, according to the Daily Wire.
But the first question you have to ask is, is this new?
Or is this just because he absorbed USAID and those cuts really are coming mostly from USAID? I think that's probably true.
So this looks like it overlaps what we already knew, but now we're calling it the State Department instead of USAID. And they didn't cut 100% of USAID. There's a few things he thought were critical to keep.
But here's why I don't do a lot of reporting on the dollar amounts.
I don't trust the news to make sure that they're counting everything once and that they're counting it correctly.
I think Trump said yesterday that he's looking for a balanced budget by maybe next year.
Now, that's what I wanted to hear.
That's what I wanted to hear.
I think the hardest budget to balance would be your first one.
Because, you know, you don't have that much time.
You just got into office.
You're looking for waste, but they're still arguing over it, and there's still court cases, and just because you've identified it doesn't mean it's really going to stay cut.
So it doesn't surprise me.
If you're going to need one year of, damn it, we're going to run up the debt a little bit more, but we didn't have enough runway.
Like, we didn't have enough preparation because we just got into office.
Knowing that his own target, Trump's, is to look for a balanced budget by the next budget, one year from now, that would be acceptable.
In fact, I would consider that amazing.
You know, if you can get it done by the second year, nobody's going to look at the first year and say the first year was a failure.
Like, history will look at that and say, you got that done by the second year?
That'll be incredible.
I would be so impressed.
If they balance the budget by the second year.
And just knowing that that's how they're looking at it changes everything for me.
Because you know how much I was bitching about how could you possibly insult us by talking nonstop about cutting costs and then giving us a budget that doesn't do that?
How could you insult us that much?
But all I needed to hear was that we're targeting next year to hit that target.
Now, that might be true.
It might be hyperbole.
It might be wishful thinking.
We don't know yet, but I don't think Trump knows either.
We don't know what Doge will look like a year from now.
But that little bit of clarity of when they think they can get it done, that changes everything for me.
It really does.
It just reframes it as, oh, this is the preparation year where we learn everything about how everything works, you know, the stuff we didn't know.
And then next year is the execution.
Perfect.
If you can get it done in two years, I'm not going to bitch about the first year.
But, you know, I think everybody on social media has been laughing about this next story.
So Jake Tapper has a book out with co-author Alex Thompson called Original Sin.
And it's all about how all the bad people kept the secret of Joe Biden's mental decline.
Yeah, all those bad people.
Now, you know why this is funny, because it's Jake Tapper and it's CNN. And CNN, and most people are saying Jake Tapper, were very much kind of not talking about the obvious degradation of Biden.
Now, I think what CNN and maybe Jake Tapper need to do is reframe it from the news was lying to you the entire time, which is what I believe to be true.
The reason I believe that is everybody can see that Biden was degraded.
I called it out in 2019. There are probably, I don't know, 50 public figures who called him out in public.
Around 2019. That doesn't look like a brain that's working.
What's it going to look like in four years?
And accurately, we've predicted it.
And so the thought that...
So the reframe that the news business needs, and Jake Tapper needs, is that the news business could not have possibly deduced this without the insiders telling them.
So he talks to all the insiders, I guess.
200 or something, quite a few.
And then they get the story of what was really happening behind the scenes, which, by the way, is interesting enough that I recommend the book.
I haven't read it, but if you'd like to know how ugly it was behind the scenes, I think it's probably a good source if they really talk to that many insiders who are willing to talk because, you know, the administration is over.
So I'll bet you that the book is actually fascinating, and I recommend it, but you can't overlook the fact that it's an attempt to rewrite history a little bit.
Not a little bit.
A lot.
Yeah, the poor press.
How could they have possibly known without those insiders telling them?
Anyway, there's yet another clip of Scott Jennings on a CNN panel, speaking of CNN, and I swear to God.
He keeps chewing up the guests in the panel that are the anti-Trumpers who are all crazy.
But now when I watch it, it's like they're finding new sheep to feed to the lion.
And Jennings has been so successful in turning the other panelists into clowns that it looks like there's a lion sitting at the table and CNN is like, I got you new sheep.
Mmm, delicious.
And then we watch him just chow down on the new sheep.
So the latest one, I think they got the new stupidest one they've ever had on the panel.
So the new stupid guy is warning, you just wait until Trump steals our democracy.
Now, I'm paraphrasing.
But they literally are relying on the fact that he hasn't done anything yet.
Because Scott Jennings says, what would be an example of him stealing your democracy?
And they don't have anything.
But the best that the new stupid guy, the new sheep, said was, he's going to steal it.
In the future, in the future, you'll feel dumb after he steals our democracy.
And then Scott Jennings slays him and eats him in front of the camera.
I'm starting to wonder if it's intentional.
It makes me wonder if the producers say to themselves, all right, we seem to get a lot of crossover viewers who are just watching, just only watching to watch Scott Jennings slay the sheep.
And so maybe they're thinking they don't want somebody who might be a fair fight, somebody who could actually make a good argument.
One of the good lawyers, for example.
They have a million lawyers, right?
I would say that...
Probably 100% of the guests the CNN could have on, who have degrees or experience, let's say, as lawyers, would not look like any of the sheep they're putting on.
The people they're putting on just don't even know how to put a coherent argument together.
So even if you allow that, you know, it's a difference of political opinion, the lawyers do a pretty good job of defending themselves because they're experts.
But they're just putting on people who don't have any skill.
And just letting Jennings just slaughter him.
So maybe it's intentional.
It would be kind of clever.
I'll bet the shows with Jennings do well relative to what they've had on that time period before.
Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom has introduced his own podcast.
Now, of course, he's being widely mocked because we like mocking him, no matter what he does.
But I watched it for about three minutes.
Here's my update.
He's not the new Joe Rogan.
Yeah.
I'm pretty sure he's not the new Joe Rogan.
He is hard to listen to, and it's because there's something wrong with his energy.
Did anybody watch it?
It's his energy.
Now, I'm not going to make an accusation I can't back up.
I will just say that if you were to look at his behavior, He looks like he's on something.
You know what I mean?
And I'm not judging, because a lot of people are on a lot of things, and sometimes me.
So it's not a judgment.
But as a worker, not a worker, as an observer, if I see somebody talking in a relaxed way, like any of the all-in pod, sort of joking and relaxed, or Rogan joking and relaxed.
That's who I want to spend time with.
But you look at Newsom, he's got this energy that's a little bit too much energy for sitting in a chair.
And it feels like he's just got too much and is trying to get out of it.
And it just makes me a little nervous because of all the energy.
And I say to myself, did you have a lot of coffee?
Is it caffeine?
Because I hope it's just caffeine because it looks like you've got really strong caffeine.
Coffee there.
And I can't get past it.
So if he can't find some way to relax, I don't know how many people can watch that.
But he might be able to get that.
As I've often said, I remember watching Conan O'Brien when he first got a nighttime show.
And the first several months of Conan, He had that same problem.
Not from any drugs, as far as I know.
But he just seemed nervous.
And you can't really watch a nervous person.
It just makes you nervous.
But over time, he picked up all the right skills, got comfortable with it, became one of the best in the business, and doesn't have any of that nervous energy.
Or when he does, he makes it work.
So it's possible that Newsom is just new and he'll figure it out, but wow, hard to watch at the moment.
All right, Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins has a billion-dollar plan to lower egg prices.
A billion-dollar plan to lower egg prices?
What costs a billion dollars?
I don't know the details of the plan, but there's some thought that they'll do a little less culling of the chickens, you know, killing them because they have some Bird flu.
And a little more maybe letting them build up immunity and whatever else.
But a billion dollars?
If you just gave a direct subsidy to the eggs of a billion dollars, you know, economically that would be a bad idea, but how much would that lower the price of eggs per person?
Probably not that much.
We eat a lot of eggs.
Anyway, it doesn't seem like egg prices.
Should be a multi-year problem, does it?
Because you can basically create a new chicken in just like weeks.
And then it's only a few weeks until the new chicken can lay eggs.
So in what world can the United States not solve the chicken shortage in six months?
What was going wrong?
So this would be a good test of the Trump administration.
In my opinion...
What went wrong is competence.
There must have been a competence problem.
So now introducing a new cast of characters, and I think the Trump administration is the best ever.
Maybe that's all it takes.
Maybe you just needed smarter people, but we'll find out.
Anyway, you probably all saw a video from the big...
Well-attended and publicized cabinet meeting that Trump had.
He had all his cabinet people in one room, and Elon Musk was not at the table, because he's not a cabinet member, but he was in the outside chairs, and he got a chance to speak.
And the press was there, and they asked a bunch of questions, and it was great transparency, and it was a great show, and it was great TV, and it looked like The Apprentice on steroids.
Trump knows how to put on a show.
The one thing I always say about him is he understands the value of the show.
His critics will say, hey, he's just a TV guy, and all he cares about is how things look and stuff.
Well, obviously, he's full of substance, so he's got more substance than any president's ever had.
In his second term, it's pretty obvious, especially with the EOs.
But he also has that extra skill.
His skill stack, Trump's skill stack, includes...
How to put it on a TV show.
Where to light it, what the room should look like, whether or not the camera should be there.
He knows that stuff.
And you've seen him direct things when they do the little video before the interview starts.
He'll be asking questions like, is that light good?
Maybe you should move this over there.
And he's usually right on.
By the way, if you get interviewed a lot, you end up doing that.
I've been interviewed, I don't know, many hundreds of times.
And photographed in photo shoots many hundreds of times.
And you end up being the director of your own photo shoot.
So I can't tell you how many times after I became extremely experienced in the process, the photographer would come in and say something like, all right, let's look at the house and I'll figure out where to photograph you and what positions.
And then I'll say, all right, here's this big Dilbert cutout.
And it'll be, yes, yes, we'll put that big Dilbert cutout.
And like, yeah, just like every other photographer, just like 100% of the other photographers, they got to put that Dilbert cutout in there.
And then I'll say, well, you know, you should probably get some photos of me at my drawing, my drawing tablet, you know, so they can see what it looks like when I'm creating the cartoon.
The photographer will be like, yes, yes, that's exactly right.
Yeah, put you at the desk.
And then I'll arrange the desk.
And I'll be like, okay, we're going to cheat the monitor in this direction.
It'll look good on camera.
And if you close those blinds, you'll have the blackout.
And then I can use the ring cameras over here.
And the photographer will be, yes, yes, that's exactly right.
So it's definitely a thing that if you get photographed enough and you're in enough videos and you're in the public enough, you end up being your own director because you know what works.
So you just become an active partner with the production crew.
And they like it.
They like it.
They don't have to do what you say because it's still their production.
But they definitely take the good suggestions.
They do.
Anyway, so he puts on this great show, which was great TV, great stuff.
And it was transparent.
It made you think that you could ask any questions and the press could ask any questions.
And there's one event where a reporter asked, he asked Elon Musk, because Musk got up and spoke a little bit, he asked Elon Musk if anyone in the room, meaning the cabinet members mostly, if anyone in the room wasn't happy about his work on Doge.
Now, of course, that's a messed up, stupid, are you still beating your spouse kind of question.
You know, it's just sort of a troublemaking question, right?
It's not even pretending to be useful for the public.
Do you think the public really cared about which cabinet members were on board with Doge?
Oh, no.
What if the head of the interior is not fully on board?
We don't care.
It's just a troublemaking question to try to sow some division.
Well, Trump being Trump and knowing everything about...
Public appearances and everything about his show.
Trump interrupts and he takes the question.
So it wasn't directed to Trump.
But he's smart enough and quick enough that he knew where to take this.
He's so good at the moment.
His understanding of a moment is unparalleled.
Trump's.
And he goes, basically, I'll take this.
He goes to the room, he goes, anybody unhappy with Elon?
If you are, we'll throw them out of here.
So he turns it into a joke, which is perfect.
Do you remember the first debate when he was first running for office?
The Rosie O'Donnell question?
Did he answer the question?
No, it was a troublemaking question.
He turned it into a joke.
And the joke became the viral video.
So he did it again.
And the joke became the viral video.
And nobody gave a flying fig about the question.
All they cared is that he put on a better show than the reporter did.
That's it.
He just put on a better show.
And then he got all the attention and the reporter looked like a clown.
But it gets better.
So everybody laughs, and they laugh and they clap, so they look like they're agreeing with Trump.
And then Musk was still standing, you know, for his part, because he was the center of attention for just that moment.
And he said this.
He said, President Trump has put together, I think, the best cabinet ever.
Literally.
And I do not give false praise.
This is an incredible group of people.
I don't think that such a talented team has actually ever been assembled.
I think is literally the best cabinet the country has ever had.
And I think the country should be incredibly appreciative of the people in this room.
Now, I agree with that 100%.
I've never seen a more...
I'm going to say...
I don't even know if capable is the right answer.
But people I trust.
Let's put it that way.
So there's some people who don't have as much experience as you'd expect for that job.
But I definitely trust them.
And I trust them to be fast learners.
And I trust them to be on point.
I trust them to have their priorities straight.
I trust them to root out DEI. I trust them to get rid of the bad eggs.
I trust them to cut expenses.
And I trust them to make adjustments quickly when they make mistakes.
So my level of trust is just through the roof.
I mean, this is a seriously powerful group of people.
It's very impressive.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about.
There's this one thing that Musk said in that, which is this sentence.
He said, and I do not give false praise.
And, you know, then he praised them.
Now, think about that superpower that he has.
Imagine if Trump said, I don't give false praise.
You would kind of laugh, wouldn't you?
Because Trump basically praises everybody who's on his team and insults everybody who isn't.
So most people, most people in the public do give false praise.
They just care if you're on their team.
That's it.
But when I heard this, when Musk said, I don't give false praise, I thought to myself, Oh, my God.
How many people have earned that?
That's a superpower.
The superpower is that you can say something of this magnitude, that it's the best group of people ever assembled for this sort of thing, and you say to yourself, he actually means that.
That's like a legitimate opinion with no hyperbole.
And that's what I think.
I think that is a no hyperbole, legitimate, actually his opinion.
And that he has the credibility, built over a lifetime, you don't get that overnight, where he can say this sentence, and I do not give false praise.
Nobody is going to laugh at that.
Nobody, the press didn't pick it up, right?
The press didn't say, oh, yeah, he says he doesn't give false praise, but look at this compilation clip of all the false praise he gave before.
Nope.
There's no compilation clip of that because he doesn't give false praise.
It's just literally true.
What a superpower.
What a superpower to be able to say that in public and have nobody question you about it.
It's really remarkable.
I saw a post on X from the libs of TikTok.
And it was a summary of all the things that came out of the meeting.
I won't read the whole summary because some of them you've heard before.
But it was the most useful news.
That I saw about the meeting, because it was just really tight and long.
It was a long list, but it was a tight bullet point, did this, did this, did this, did this.
And I thought to myself, there's something happening in the pro-Trump world that I can't figure out what the cause of it is.
But it's a really big thing.
And what it is, is there are a whole bunch of...
Individual or independent superstars who have just entered the fight, not right away, some over time, but really special analysts and voices.
The libs of TikTok started out as just mocking weird liberal stuff on TikTok.
That was it.
That was the whole game.
But now it has completely transformed because it's sort of...
You can't just mock people on TikTok all day long and expect much out of that.
But now Libs of TikTok has transformed into what today was the best summary I've seen of the news.
It's the best summary.
Now, there's a reason that the Libs of TikTok can do the best summary.
It's because the news needs to sell advertising.
So they can't do summaries.
They have to write a lot and then they fit a lot of advertising on that page because there's a lot of text there.
Or they have to have a TV show where it goes for half an hour so they can fit in lots of commercials.
But lives in TikTok can just say, here's the 12 things you need to know.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
So it's like filling a space that was absolutely useful and additive and really good work.
So you should follow Libs at TikTok.
But the other ones in the same space are Data Republican, who just came out of nowhere and turns out to...
I may have this story wrong because I just saw hints of it before I went live.
But the Data Republican, who if you don't know who that is, you really just need to look it up on X, an amazing data analyst who is just doing amazing work with the Doge.
Discoveries and putting them in context and letting us know who's connected to who and where the money's flowing and what people are connected to other people.
The real stuff.
The stuff that really, really helps you understand it.
Because the surface stuff doesn't help.
Oh, USAID spent $60 billion.
Okay.
Is that good or bad?
Who got it?
Was there a reason for it?
But then you get to the Data Republican level, and suddenly everything becomes brightly clear.
Everything has a clean edge, and you understand it for the first time.
And I think Data Republican is building some kind of tool that will let you see who's connected to what.
You know, I always tell you that what happened won't tell you anything.
You have to know who happened.
You got to know the players or you don't know anything.
So, you know, I always use Norm Eisen as my example.
And I'm not going to give away what my opinion is of his work.
But if you see Norm Eisen attached to any story, you need to go a little deeper.
Yeah, so...
Sorry.
Lives of TikTok is run by, wait, let me get the name right, Chaya.
Chaya Raychik.
So just to give credit.
But then I would add Mike Benton, who seemed to come out of nowhere and be the best explainer of how the real world works in terms of our funding and the intelligence people and what we're trying to do with other countries and all the dirty tricks.
Then you've got a Michael Schellenberger who comes out of nowhere.
And suddenly he's putting everything in context from nuclear energy to all the bad behavior in the government and probably the best, I think Schellenberger is the best independent journalist at the moment.
I think he's the best in the business.
And I can go on, right?
I can name a bunch of other people.
I'm going to put myself on the list.
So my own little domain is reframing things.
Helping you look at it in a different way.
And putting the Dilber filter on things so you know, okay, in the real world, sort of a Dilber world, what would it really look like?
So that's something I can add that is a little bit unique.
And then I add the persuasion filter.
So you can look at things from a persuasion view as opposed to a policy view.
Now, there's nobody on...
The Democrat side, who does what Data Republican does, Mike Benz does, Sheldon Berger does, or I do.
And again, that's just four examples, or Libs of TikTok even.
The fact that such effective people just rose up, there's this whole independent reporting network, because I can name another 12 people who are doing a great job of Identifying the stories you need and bringing them up and adding just the right amount of summary so that we can understand them quickly and then move on to the next story.
Unbelievably strong independent reporting, independent analysis, independent data, independent history.
How about Victor Davis Hanson?
Who's the Victor Davis Hanson on the Democrat side?
They've got a bunch of historians that are just obviously just liars.
And then we've got Victor Davis Hanson, who's like probably the best I've ever seen in that kind of work.
And they've got literally just historians they use, in my opinion, they use them as professional liars.
They don't even seem like they're being serious.
And then on top of that...
On top of that, Elon Musk gets to be sort of a kingmaker on X. And I think it was yesterday, maybe the day before, I made a comment on one of the posts.
It doesn't matter which one it is.
It's something political.
I think it was a post on, there was a survey that said 75% of Democrats didn't think that the border was open intentionally.
And I made some comment on it, reposted it.
And then Elon Musk, he made a comment on it too.
So it was on my post.
And the last I checked, they had over 30 million views.
Now, what do you think that does to an individual voice on X? If you just get a little tap on the shoulder from Elon Musk, you get 30 million views.
Now, if you watch Elon Musk's posts, you'll see that he has a little constellation of, I don't know how many people, I'm going to say several dozen.
So there's several dozen people that he's identified as voices he wants to look at every day.
So I think he's boosted or replied to my posts, just mine, several times this year.
I don't know the exact number, but let's say a handful of times just since the beginning of the year, and other people as well.
And so he becomes the person who gets to say, I think a million, you know, 30 million more people should see this idea or this person, and it's incredibly powerful.
Do the Democrats have anything like that, where one of them can make some other strong player who is way below them in Let's say, you know, power, and can just boost their message right to the top.
I don't know.
I'm not sure they can do it.
And then we talk about the podcast world, where the conservative world has created an unbelievably good podcasting, what would you call it, environment or architecture or platform, and they're all independents.
Like, you know, of course, Joe Rogan's the standard, right?
But then the all-in pod just bursts on the scene, I don't know, was it a year or two ago?
The all-in pod just had such smart, insightful people that it just went bang.
And, you know, they don't lean completely right, but that's part of their value, that you can see both sides.
And then you look at the Megyn Kelly show.
The Megyn Kelly Show, in my opinion, is probably one of the greatest podcast successes ever because it has all the production quality.
It has the very best on-air personality you're ever going to see.
And every bit of it is interesting.
I probably consume five or six reels from just Megyn Kelly's show every day.
And they're always good.
And everything she says is worth listening to.
Do they have that?
Maybe they have some podcasts that are doing okay in terms of viewership, but I don't think they have as many superstars.
It feels like the political right just absolutely owned podcasting, because they had to, because they were shut down from most of the major media, or the major media would look like enemies.
So, yeah, the success of individuals just saying, you know, I've got to take control of this.
Here's what it is.
I feel like when there's a successful Democrat-leaning show of any sort, whether it's a podcast or whether it's on a traditional platform, it feels like it's coming from the top.
As in, hey, we need a Joe Rogan.
Who's our best person?
And then somebody gets pulled in like Gavin Newsom or something.
And it's artificial.
It's just somebody trying to do the thing that was the missing thing.
I don't think a single one of the people I mentioned who are podcasters on the right, I don't think a single one of them said, I have to fill a spot.
There's an empty spot.
I have to fill it.
I think every one of them said, What can I do that's additive?
What can I do that's additive?
And then within the constraints of a media that doesn't allow everybody to do everything.
And podcasting was it.
And they just said, I can add to this.
And then they did.
So there is something beautiful and magical about what's happening to so many strong voices on the right that I'm just so impressed, and I don't know what's causing it.
The only thing I can think of is that right-leaning people feel that their destiny is in their own hands.
That's the best I can come up with.
Because if you think your destiny is in your own hand, you say, what can I do?
How can I help?
But also, how can I monetize it?
Which is perfectly fair.
That's our system.
And I think the people on the left are like, Who's going to tell me what I should do to win so our team wins?
I mean, it's something completely different driving them.
So I don't think it's an accident that the most talented people are all on the same side.
There's something behind it.
All right, here's my favorite story.
I like to have at least one story that I can really sink my teeth in.
And here's an example that clarifies my last point.
I'm going to give you a spin on something.
Oh, we used to use that word, right?
A spin?
I'm going to call it a reframe.
I'm going to reframe something, and when you see it, you're going to laugh because you didn't see it already.
You ready for this?
What is MSNBC's main thrust of their commentary for weeks and weeks?
The answer is anti-Doge.
Oh, Doge is causing chaos.
Doge is not communicating enough with people.
Doge is causing a fall-off in morale.
Doge is causing confusion and flight and people are leaving and we don't know if all the work will get done, right?
Now, first of all, can you confirm that that's MSNBC's almost their total message for weeks and weeks and weeks, right?
Now, here's the fun part.
This is where the Dilbert filter comes in.
They're doing massive reorganization and cost-cutting at MSNBC at the same time.
They're doging themselves at the same time they're criticizing Elon Musk's doge.
Now, here's the fun part.
They say that the real doge is causing chaos, morale is bad, there's confusion, the communication is not sufficient.
Let me ask you this.
If you could find one of their fired staff members who just got fired in this big reorganization, what do you think they would say about how MSNBC is handling their own little doge?
Do you think they'd say, you know, unlike the government, they communicated so well, they led with empathy, there was no chaos whatsoever.
And the morale was still high even while we were getting fired.
What do you think?
And so I challenge the independent voices, see if you can find even one staff member who got fired or doesn't know where they're going to end up.
Now, if they're still with the company, they're not going to talk.
But if you can find somebody that is fired, who's a little bit disgruntled, Why don't you ask them if their experience is exactly, exactly, exactly what Rachel Maddow is criticizing the big doge of doing?
Because it is.
So they're exactly in the middle of their own little doge that you know.
Because if you've lived in the real world for a minute and a half, you know that nobody can do as extensive changes as MSNBC is trying to do.
They just cut Rachel Maddow's staff after she complained about them being racist.
Do you think there's any chaos?
Do you think their morale is just terrific?
That they're so happy that the staff got cut?
Well, this couldn't be more perfect.
So that's my challenge.
Find me that staff member, as they're going to have something to say about the MSNBC firings.
Meanwhile, the White House has ejected, according to Post Millennium, Hayden Cunningham is writing, that the White House is ejecting the Huffington Post and Reuters and some foreign press from the cabinet meeting.
Now...
Imagine working for the Huffington Post, and your organization has spent 10 years just absolutely defecating on every Republican that has ever lived, and especially, especially on Trump, and then they would be insulted that they're ejected.
What did they expect?
If you're a nonstop, you know, Right-crapping group, of course you could have a little pushback.
So yeah, it's perfect.
All right, here's another great one.
Governor Pritzker, J.B. Pritzker, he was on MSNBC. And I saw a post about it on X, and I thought, oh, that's fake.
Because there was a quote attributed to him that looked like, you know, obviously made up because nobody could be that stupid.
But it came from a source that didn't look like it was a joke.
So I thought, hmm, could this possibly be something that actually came out of his mouth?
So I had to play the video to find out if the quote that was in the post was actually real.
It's real.
Here's what he actually said.
I promise I'm not making this up.
Quote from J.B. Pritzker.
The prices at the grocery store are going up because democracy is being taken away.
Oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
They can't stop with the intersectionality stuff.
You know, the intersectionality is, okay, you might be black, but what if you're also gay?
You know, that's two things.
And I feel like...
There's some kind of instinct to connect everything that doesn't need to be connected.
And so somehow he's trying to put together the price of eggs with the democracy being stolen around.
And as Scott Jennings proved on the CNN panel, they don't really have examples of anybody losing their democracy.
So the democracy has not yet been stolen.
I guess we're waiting for that any minute.
Uh-oh.
They took my democracy when I wasn't paying attention.
But yeah, once that democracy goes away, well, there's your price of eggs.
Your price of eggs is going to go right through the roof.
Now, seriously, is there anyone smart left on the left?
Anyone?
I did hear that Jon Stewart had an offer to Elon Musk to do an interview, and I guess Elon said yes.
With a couple of conditions, it's unedited and it's on X. Now, I don't know if Stewart has agreed to that because he might want to do it for his own podcast, but he might do it.
And at least John Stewart is capable of understanding an argument on each side.
Now, he might not embrace it, but he's capable of understanding it and then even repeating it back.
So that could be the most interesting conversation of the entire year.
I am so down for that.
You haven't seen anybody on the right interview Musk who could actually ask good questions, could actually accept that some things are good and some things are bad, could accept that maybe his intention is not to destroy the country or just make money.
You know, just get rid of the crazy stuff.
Because here's what I don't think Jon Stewart will ever say.
I don't think you'll say, Elon Musk, you're stealing my democracy.
What do you say about that?
I don't think he's going to ask that question, because it's a dumbass question, and obviously he knows that.
So, wow, I'm there for that.
I'd love to see that conversation.
Anyway, Trump and Zelensky are supposed to meet on Friday for the big mineral deal.
I think I'm going to not hold my breath that the mineral deal is going to go off smoothly.
But at the moment, it looks like they have a mineral deal.
I'm going to wait a little bit on the details, because I think we're still in the fog of war, and there might be some last-minute tweaks to it.
But the basic idea is that we would be partners in some kind of a mineral exploration deal.
They would make some money, we would make some money.
Allegedly, both sides have backed down on something.
So Ukraine backed down on security guarantees because presumably they thought it was good enough that America would have a big financial interest in the country and that might be enough to incentivize America to protect its own interests, which would protect Ukraine at the same time.
So it could be that they don't need it to be explicit if it's sort of built into the business model, I guess.
Let's see, what else?
And then the U.S. It's not going to try to claw back $500 billion from their natural resources.
They're just going to split the money in what looks like a better deal.
And apparently there's some bigger picture things that they've not told us about.
So there might be some non-mineral related stuff.
Now, here's what I think is the amazing part of this story.
While we're watching...
One of the greatest things I've ever seen any leader ever do is happening, and I don't see anybody calling it out as directly as I'm going to call it out.
We don't know if this is going to work yet, right?
So it's too early to say the Mineral deal is a spectacular success, but it looks good.
At the moment, it looks like it has a pretty good chance of working.
But here's my take.
If Trump succeeds in reframing a hot war into a series of business deals that are good for everybody, in the history of leadership, that will be the greatest thing anybody ever did, if it holds.
Now, I'm not naive.
Putin is Putin.
We know that we can't predict or trust what he does.
We know that people with the best of intentions, you know, Maybe things don't work out.
We know that implementation might matter as much as having a good idea.
So if it's not implemented properly, it doesn't work.
A million things could go wrong.
I get it.
I get it.
You don't have to tell me that it could go wrong.
I get it.
But just think about this.
He's on the verge of maybe reframing an actual hot war into a business deal.
have entered his frame.
They've all entered his frame.
Nobody else can do that.
You're seeing a once in a thousand years set of talent from Trump and the people that he's hired to help him.
This is so unprecedented and unprecedented that, and I haven't seen anybody Report it the way I just described it, have you?
Have you seen anybody describe it the way I did?
Everybody knows the facts.
But has anybody described this as the greatest reframe maybe in history?
Like, whoever did anything even close to this?
If you can turn a hot war into a business deal where everybody wins, and it sticks, and of course, I'll say it again, we don't know if it'll work, we don't know if it'll stick, we don't know if...
Putin will just use it as a delaying tactic until he does worse things.
Maybe.
But it definitely has a chance of working.
And more than a good chance.
It's got a solid chance of working.
Incredible.
Incredible.
Anyway, this is also incredible.
So Senator Jim Banks and Representative Kat Kamek, they're introducing a bill to defund NPR. Because it's a liberal propaganda network, they say.
Now, I don't know if that means NPR would go out of business where they just have less funding, but I don't care about the NPR part of the story.
Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't.
Here's the bigger picture.
Trump has created a situation in which everyone in the government, in every way, from Congress to every one of the cabinet positions, To all of his appointments.
They're competing to see who can do the best job of reducing costs.
Did I just tell you that Trump reframing a hot war into a business deal is the greatest thing anybody ever did in history?
If Trump pulls off reframing governments as a competition among peers to see who can cut the government costs the most, Standing ovation.
standing elevation now to be clear to be clear and to be fair I'm not excited about the cost cutting yet I think there's going to be a whole bunch of, we thought we could cut that, but we didn't get as much.
People will argue about whether the numbers are accurate, even though Doge is showing exactly what they're doing and they publish it.
So there's a lot of messiness to come.
But the hard part, the hard part was the reframe.
He turned it from a bunch of people just, I don't know.
What, pursuing their own self-interest in the government?
What was the old model?
Into literally, they're publicly competing, publicly competing to see who can cut the most fat and waste and fraud out of their own departments or their own domains.
When have you ever seen that?
Never.
Never.
You've never seen it.
It's never been done in the history.
Of the whole freaking world.
It's never been done.
And you're watching it being done right in front of you.
Have I ever mentioned there are some things that America can do that nobody can come close?
You know, I have plenty of criticism from my own country as a patriot.
You know, I love it, of course.
And, you know, we're not perfect.
You know, we make a lot of false starts.
We've done a lot of things we wish maybe we hadn't done, etc.
But there are just some things nobody else can do.
Europe can't do that.
China can't do that.
Japan can't do that.
Name a country that can do that.
Even when Millet did it, I don't know that he got everybody to compete.
I think maybe he just took the chainsaw.
I could be wrong.
He might have actually pulled that off in Argentina.
But this is incredible.
If you think of it in terms of the reframe, then suddenly it goes from just a thing they're trying to do to, holy cow, are you kidding me?
He pulled off that, making them compete to see who can cut the cost the most?
Unbelievable.
Wow.
Let's compare that to the main focus under the prior administration.
So the main focus, the thing that gets you attention, the thing that will get you the most praise from the president, is how you cut costs and made it work.
What would have been the same kind of focus, different focus, but what would have been the Biden focus?
I'm not making this up.
This was the Biden focus.
It was...
It was, you got promoted if you cared the most about people's genitalia, what color the genitalia is, and what is being done with it.
That was the Biden focus.
How'd that work out for you?
Did the country get a lot better when the focus was genitalia, what color it was, and what it was being used for?
That was your government.
We actually lived through that.
I mean, just think about that.
We went from caring about your genitalia, and everybody else's, I guess, and how it all fit together, to competing to reduce waste and fraud in the government.
Talk about the golden age.
Oh, my God.
Meanwhile, case in point, Lee Zeldin of the EPA plans to cut 65% of it.
In other words, he's competing.
He's publicly competing to see how much he can cut in his own domain.
Unbelievable.
So good.
Over at HUD, the housing group there, HUD, according to Just the News, HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced yesterday, I guess, The term, but then Biden put them back in place.
And I guess it was a rule.
I'm just going to paraphrase because it gets a little technical.
The rule was we can't build a house for you unless your genitalia is the right color and it's being used for the right things.
Okay, I'm probably exaggerating a little bit, but that's basically what it was.
It was sort of DEI in housing.
So the federal government...
Put restrictions on what you could and could not do because they had to be diversity, inclusive.
It created a whole bunch of obstacles to building anything.
So it probably just made the cost of housing go up because it created a situation where a lot of people would say, I don't even know how to satisfy all those rules, so I'm not even going to bother.
So getting rid of burdensome rules.
Doesn't mean that you're getting rid of diversity.
Doesn't mean that you're getting rid of anything you wanted.
It just means that if the states want to put those some kind of rules on themselves, I guess they can.
But he's just saying that the federal government isn't going to prevent you from building homes.
How great is that?
The federal government is not going to prevent you from building homes.
Thank you.
I just want the federal government not to prevent me because the state will do a good job of making sure my home doesn't fall down on its own.
You know, that it's safe.
It's built in a place I can insure.
I mean, I'll work it out in the state.
So that's good.
Meanwhile, there's a new Trump.
Trump picked a pardon czar.
A pardon czar.
So somebody to help him decide who to pardon.
And who we picked was Alice Marie Johnson, who you might remember was pardoned, or did she come out during the first step thing where I think she was just pardoned, right?
And she was a famous pardon, and she's a black woman who I think was involved in some drug stuff way long ago, but was in jail for what was an unreasonable amount of time, in my opinion.
And even Van Jones, who had worked on that process of allowing people to get out of jail earlier, he was praising Trump for picking Alice Marie Johnson as the pardons are.
Now, I appreciate that.
Now, again, I'm not telling you that Van Jones turned Republican or that everything he says next you're going to agree with.
So it's not about that.
It's just, you know, it's like a little...
Flower growing out of the sidewalk.
If you hear somebody on the left say, okay, I can't even argue with that one.
That's just a good idea.
There's an AI-created video of what Gaza would look like if Trump got to redevelop it.
And I guess Trump actually reposted it on Truth.
But what's funny is...
It shows a giant golden statue of Trump in what would be a Gaza that looks like a seaside luxury resort perfect situation.
And then I think there's a part of it shows him lounging poolside topless with Benjamin Netanyahu, which I didn't see that part, but that's funny.
There's something with Elon Musk there.
And the fact that Trump reposted it.
When it shows a giant golden statue of Trump?
Again, it's just something that Trump can do.
You know, Biden couldn't do that.
Like, nobody else could do that.
He's the only one who could repost that, and you would understand it's just a mild troll.
It's just a little mild troll.
Hey, does this bother you?
Do you want to complain about it?
Go ahead.
That would be fine.
It's just a little mild troll.
Love it.
Well, The Hill is reporting that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says Iran's going to be trying to accelerate its process for being able to make a nuclear weapon.
Do you think they had to research that story?
Let's see.
How else could they have gotten that story without doing research?
Oh, here's an idea.
They could have asked me, Hey, Scott, do you think Iran is working harder to build a nuclear weapon?
Yes.
Yes.
Well, are you sure that they're not moving in the other direction?
I'm checking my brain.
It's the only thing they have left to protect themselves?
No, they're accelerating.
But is it possible that they just say they're accelerating, but maybe they don't have even the capability to get it done?
Yeah, that's possible.
That's possible.
Did you really need to research that?
I mean, what do you think they're doing?
Of course they are.
They have nothing left.
It's the only thing they have to bargain with.
Or keep an attack away.
So I do think there's a really good chance that at some point Israel will bury everything that they have with giant bombs.
So we'll see how that works out.
I've got a feeling that Netanyahu is enjoying winning, and he's never going to have a better chance for total victory.
You know how they talk about total victory?
And you thought, not you, but some people thought, oh, and then when they're done with their total victory, they'll build a two-state solution and move all the Palestinians and Hamas back into Gaza, and they'll live happily ever after.
Does that sound like total victory to you?
No.
No, there was never any intention, because total victory is about the clearest statement of intention you could ever make.
Total victory.
Now, take that to what's going to happen with Iran.
Do you think that Israel would say, well, we got total victory when all Iran is doing is building back its capability to do it to them again through their proxies?
Nope.
Let me explain it again.
Total victory.
Total victory.
Total victory means that Iran can't do nuclear weapons one way or the other.
They're not going to stop until Iran has no nuclear program.
How do I know that for sure?
Well, can the reporters ask me?
Scott, what do you think Israel plans to do?
Let's see.
What does total mean?
Does total mean we stop halfway and let them rebuild?
Wait, wait.
No, total.
Total.
Okay, I got it.
Total victory.
It means that they're going to destroy the nuclear program, whatever it takes.
Whatever it takes.
Guaranteed.
I think we've clearly left the domain of maybe.
I think maybe's over.
Now, there is a possibility that Iran will get that message too, because someone could explain to them, do you know what total means?
Have you heard of total?
Yeah, total means they're going to solve the problem once, and it's not coming back.
And this would be the time to talk.
And if there is some way that you can reach a non-military agreement and not develop nuclear weapons, we can talk about that, because that would still be total, and it would be the easiest way to get there.
But no, if you're wondering if Israel is bluffing, They're not.
Total is total.
And they could not be more clear about it.
So that's the beauty of being credible, too.
If Israel had not done everything that it's done so far, which is pretty darn impressive if you're just looking from a military perspective, you can make up your own mind about who's right and who's wrong in this.
And I don't even have an opinion.
My opinion on the whole situation is that in the Middle East, The strongest person gets what they want.
Why would I need more of an opinion than that?
That covers everything.
Whoever is strongest is going to go get what they want.
That's it.
Everything else is just blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Do you support Israel?
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
Is that going to make a difference?
No.
If they can get it and they have the strength to do it, they're going to go get it.
And if that ever changed, and I don't see how it would happen soon, but if something changed where the Palestinians suddenly got all the power, what do you think they would do?
You know exactly what they would do.
And I wouldn't be for it.
I would just be saying, well, I told you, whoever has the strength gets what they want.
So that's the entire story.
You don't have to be more complicated than that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's everything I have.
On the topics of the day.
Thank you for joining.
You're all wonderful.
I will see you again tomorrow, same time, same place.
God supports genocide.
Of course you say that.
No, I support understanding what the words total and victory mean.
What happens after that?
I won't say it's not my concern.
It's just that having an opinion on it wouldn't make any difference.
So I just don't bother.
So no, I do not support Israel just reflexively, no matter what they do.
Nothing like that.
They have to be a good ally to us, and that's all I care about.
And I would like to spend less money, and I would like them to spend more of their money.
But there are lots of variables that go with that, because I think a lot of the money that we...
Give to Israel for military stuff is really money that they have to spend on our own military industrial complex.
So maybe that's more of a us problem.
You know, something we need to work on on our end, whether that still makes sense for us as a country.
But I only care how Israel's treating us.
That's it.
All right, I'm going to talk to the locals people privately, the subscribers, and the rest of you I'll see tomorrow.
Export Selection