God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, LCM AI, Perplexity AI TikTok Bid, Political Opinion Persuasion Technique, US British Commonwealth, Abundance Book, Australian University Funding, Jerome Powell, Feds GDP Prediction, Identity Change Advantage, Nicole Shanahan, Woke Movie Industry, California Job Losses, AOC Bernie Rallies, Dramacrats, Vague Accusations Technique, Anti-Elon Vague Accusations, Anti-Trump Vexatious Litigation, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Scott Presler, Laura Loomer, Anti-Trump Conflict of Interest Judges, Fair Representation Conservative Disadvantage, Jeff Clark, Chuck Schumer, Democrat Violence Promotion, Jamaal Bowman, Anti-Tesla Violence, Tim Walz, SNAP Soda Purchase, Influenceable Marketing Agency, DOGE Pentagon, Navy Border Presence, President Putin Agreements, META AI Generated Comments, 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.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of deck, a tank of chalice, a stein, a canteen 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 of the dopamine for the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, except my talking.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens now.
Go. So good.
You needed that.
It's a good Sunday morning, and we should enjoy it.
Well, let's see what's what.
You know Mark Benioff?
He's the founder of Salesforce.
Very smart, very futurist-looking kind of a guy.
He was reposting on X a video of a company showing off the robot, and he said that if you take DeepSeek, Which is that Chinese AI that costs just pennies to use.
And you combine it with Unitree, which is basically a cheap humanoid-looking robot.
It goes for about $16,000.
I think there might be an expensive version, too.
He said that it's not science fiction anymore.
So we're right on the verge of AI plus robots.
Except... I'm pretty sure that the video he sent around was CGI.
I don't think we're close.
I don't think that the current version of AI, no matter what you do, you're not going to make a robot be able to generally do stuff.
I think it's always either CGI, or they find one robot doing one thing, and then they show it to me and go, ooh.
Look at that robot removing glasses from the dishwasher.
And then you realize, that's sort of all it can do.
If you tried to do something else, we would forget how to do the dishwasher thing.
So I don't think we're even close.
But it'll sneak up on us really quickly.
There is, however, according to Hamza Abbas, a new kind of AI.
So the current ones are large language models.
Where all they do is predict what the next word will be, but they don't really understand anything.
They just predict what the next word will be.
But there's a new kind of AI called an LCM, a large concept model.
So instead of looking at words and just predicting what word comes next, they somehow can...
Master concepts.
And then they put these concepts together and then they're supposed to be smarter.
But apparently Meta is doing this.
And I think I'm going to wait on this because, again, I'm very skeptical that this would give you enough AI to put in a robot and make you feel good about it.
I do think we'll get to the point where there's AI in robots.
But I don't think we're as close as any of the smart people are saying.
It just doesn't look like the technology can do it.
Anyway, the TikTok, as you know, either has to be bought or go out of business in the United States.
But Perplexity, the company that does that cool little Perplexity app, which I highly recommend, it's awesome.
So they've got a pretty good bid.
Or at least they've got a good concept for a bid.
They want to buy TikTok.
And they would sort of integrate it in some ways with the perplexity.
So one of the things you could do is if you did a search, one of the things it might come up with would be a TikTok video.
But that's only if they buy it.
They would rebuild TikTok's algorithm from scratch.
They'd put it in American data centers.
They'd make the recommendation system transparent and open source.
And they'd upgrade the AI infrastructure using NVIDIA's technology and a bunch of other stuff.
But they're not the only ones who want to buy it.
You've also got a bunch of investors led by somebody named Frank McCourt.
He must be very rich.
And I think Microsoft and Oracle, yeah, they're part of it too.
So there's a lot of people who want to buy it.
But I don't think China wants to sell it, so they may just decide to go into business in the U.S. We'll see.
There's a study out of Northwestern that showed that ordinary people can persuade people on political topics.
Do you believe that?
So they did a study, and it's led by Northwestern University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
And what they did was they had ordinary people send their arguments to other ordinary people and see if anybody could change anybody's mind on some political topics.
Amazingly, 30% of the people who were targeted, they all knew they were in the study, but 30% of them changed their opinions after citizens tried to persuade them.
And allegedly...
What they learned is what kind of persuasion works to change somebody's mind about politics.
So here's what they think they found.
That it's better if you pace.
That's a term I've taught you before.
You sort of match the person you're supposed to persuade.
So instead of coming at them as, I have superior knowledge.
If only you knew what I knew.
That doesn't work.
In fact, they called that out as the bad way to persuade.
So you don't want to start off with all of your news sources are fake.
I know everything you know, but you don't know everything I know.
And if you were as smart as I am, you would have a different opinion.
Apparently that doesn't work at all, surprisingly.
But what does work is if you identify the topic...
As if through the lens of the person you're trying to persuade.
So you sort of adopt their point of view to show that you can.
And then you don't seem like you're the superior one lording it over him.
It just feels like you're them.
Oh, you and I have the same opinions.
Okay. Oh, but you know a little bit more.
Okay, well, I'll change my opinion.
But here's what I think.
I'm not sure that study proved what they think it does.
Here's my opinion.
I think that if you took 100 people, you could find that 30% of them weren't really paying attention to politics in the first place.
So if you took the people, you know, 70% are just locked in and there's no way you can persuade them.
But 30% would be...
Well, you know, I know a little bit about climate change.
That was one of the topics.
But I don't know that much.
So if somebody that they saw as a peer told them things about climate change that they never heard, they would say, oh, well, okay, I've never heard that before.
That'll change my opinion.
But they were never really locked in.
So here's my persuasion take on this.
If somebody is really paying attention and they think they know politics and they think they know the topic, there's nothing you can do to change their opinion.
It doesn't matter what you do.
You're not going to change it.
But if somebody has a very weak understanding of a topic and they're not really locked in, they've never protested for it, they've never commented on it on social media, well, they can change their mind because they're not locked in.
And it probably does make sense.
That you sort of bring yourself down to their level of understanding and make sure that you can bond with them before you give them a little extra information that might change their mind.
So that's your persuasion tip of the day.
Well, here's a story that I swear I thought was a fake news.
Apparently, Trump was asked, Fox News is reporting this, he was asked if the U.S. would consider joining the British Commonwealth.
If King Charles offered it.
And here's the part I didn't believe.
Trump was enthusiastically interested in doing that.
Now, what?
Doesn't that sound like the very opposite of America first?
He would actually consider joining the British Commonwealth, which has 56 members.
I think either all of them or most of them.
Or former colonies.
So a lot of them speak English, etc.
Or at least one of the languages would be English.
And I said to myself, am I crazy?
Is Trump really saying that?
Hold on.
Hold on.
We're going to do a little test.
Remember I just taught you a persuasion trick?
So here's me using the same persuasion trick.
Since almost none of you...
I had a preconceived idea about the U.S. joining the British Commonwealth.
I believe that you're not really settled into an opinion that you can't change.
So that's the first thing.
Most of you don't really know what that means.
I didn't.
I had to look it up.
So I only did some research on it just before the show.
So like you, I didn't know what the British Commonwealth was, at least in terms of Did it make sense for the U.S. to join it?
But weirdly, there's an argument for doing it.
There's an actual argument for it.
And again, Trump was ahead of the curve because he understood the question well enough to know that maybe, maybe, not guaranteed, but maybe.
So here's what you need to know.
Being in the British Commonwealth, Does not obligate you to do anything.
It's a voluntary thing.
You don't have to be in it, and the British government can't tell you what to do.
So it's definitely not about giving up any sovereignty.
So there's no sovereignty given up.
You have full control before you join.
You have full control after you join.
You could quit any time if it doesn't work for you.
But what would be the upside?
Well, it turns out that it might, I asked Grok, so this is just one of AI's opinion, and it had a number of categories that might be beneficial, but a lot of them seemed not as important as the economic stuff.
But apparently it might give us, the US, a little more access to the other Commonwealth countries as markets.
Now that's interesting.
So maybe, and I don't know the details, maybe there's just...
A little extra or a little less friction selling into markets that are part of the Commonwealth if you're also part of the Commonwealth.
Now, I don't know what the details of that would be.
This is just Grok talking.
But it says access to Commonwealth networks.
So access to those countries.
Apparently there might be some benefit in trade dispute resolution if you're all part of the Commonwealth.
I don't know the details.
And it could encourage U.S. businesses to expand into member states, benefiting from their access.
So the argument would be that it doesn't cost us anything.
We wouldn't be obligated to anything.
There would be 56 countries, most of them speak English, and they would just have a little bit of better feeling about us because we joined their club.
Isn't that interesting?
So, there's no downside.
Apparently, there's no downside whatsoever, but there's a potential upside.
It would just be a little bit easier to do business and resolve disputes if you were part of the same Commonwealth.
Huh. I didn't see that coming.
So, all right, let's test.
So, I used the persuasion technique that I told you, and I picked a topic.
That most of you didn't have a hardened opinion about, because it was just on the left field.
How many of you started out, like I did, started out with, hell no, hell no, we're not giving away our sovereignty.
But then when I explained that there's no sovereignty change whatsoever, but there might be some economic benefit that's, you know, not super obvious, but makes sense.
Anybody change their mind?
Did anybody say, huh, you know, actually that doesn't sound terrible.
I'm just looking at your comments to see if I changed any minds.
All right, you can work on that.
According to the Amuse account on X that you should all be following, Quinnipiac, they got a latest poll that says, for the first time ever, the congressional Democrats are underwater.
Meaning fewer than 50% of their base likes them.
While at the same time, congressional Republicans are approaching record-high favorability.
So at the same time Democrats are at record-low favorability, or they're in that neighborhood, Republicans in Congress are at record-high favorability.
Now, that should be enough to guarantee that the midterms go to...
You know, the Republicans.
But, you know, nothing really works that easily.
But it's quite a period in time.
It does further suggest that the Democrats don't have policies and plans that the public is interested in.
You probably are aware that there's a new book out by two Democrats, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and the book is called Abundance.
And I heard some people, Democrats, say positive things about it and say it's all the buzz and everybody's talking about it.
So I thought to myself, huh, what could this book be about?
So I asked AI to summarize it.
And as far as I could tell, the suggestion in the book is for Democrats to become Republicans and just act like it was always their idea.
Now, I didn't read the book, so there's a very good chance that I'm not summarizing it correctly.
But the abundance refers to using capitalism in its best way to create enough stuff so your prices go down.
So if you use capitalism properly, there would be more homes, and then they would be more affordable.
If you use capitalism properly, there'd be more food.
And your prices would go down.
There'd be more gas and your prices would go down.
So how do they do that?
Well, a big part of it is removing regulations that aren't critical.
Now, what does that sound like?
It's literally just mainstream Republican policy.
Let's bring our manufacturing back to our shores.
Let's get rid of...
You know, burdensome regulations.
It just sounds exactly like being a Republican.
So are we at the point where Democrats are going to claim that the core ideas of Republicans have always been just good Democrat ideas, they just didn't message it well?
So anyway, I'd be interested if any of you read the book, if you have a different take, because obviously I'm not.
You know, mentioning every single thing.
But I think that they even talk about things like health care.
You know, Democrats would like everybody to have health care, as would I. But if you had abundance and your economy was doing great, you could probably give everybody health care and still afford it.
So this to me sounds just so completely like Republican economic policy.
It's hilarious.
It feels like Democrats just gave up.
If we give up being Democrats, maybe we could win an election.
Maybe. Maybe.
Meanwhile, according to Red State, this was in the news, Australian universities are demanding an emergency meeting after Trump cancels their funding.
Now, did that make sense to you?
Australian universities Are mad that Trump canceled their funding?
Australian universities?
Did you know that about a third of the research grants for Australian universities is paid for by America?
Did you have any idea that we were funding colleges and universities in Australia?
Now, I suppose the deal was If they come up with any good ideas in Australia, then we'd have access to them because we funded it.
But I guess Trump just froze that funding and now the universities are going to have a little economic challenge unless that gets reversed.
But how in the world did that ever happen without us knowing it?
It's a pretty big number.
And we were just giving it to Australian universities.
While our own schools were failing.
Incredible. Well, Jerome Powell at the Fed said that the Fed now projects only a 1.7% GDP growth this year.
Now, that would be something like half of what you would expect for a good year.
I think the Atlanta Fed had some kind of weirdly small number that was off from the other ones.
So does that sound credible to you?
Do you believe that the Fed can accurately forecast the economy for the next year or so?
I feel like nobody can do that.
I don't think the Fed can do it.
I don't think anybody can.
There are just too many variables.
So I'm not too worried about that, and it could be a political thing.
But I think Lutnik was just sort of scoffing at it.
I think I'm with him.
Now, I do think there's a very good chance that we could have a minor recession for half a year or a year or something.
That could happen.
Because Trump's making some big changes, and it will take a while for any of those changes to become positives in the system.
But in the long run, almost I think everything that Trump's doing would have a long-term good economic...
But we'll see.
Well, Breitbart News has an exclusive.
Apparently, the Department of Justice is going to investigate the anti-white discrimination in Rhode Island public schools, which involves, I think, what help they give to white teachers versus other teachers.
So, good.
Every time there's one of these gross discriminations against white people, I am all down for the Department of Justice to go after their asses.
I'm going to tell you a story that I heard confidentially recently.
So I'm sworn to confidentiality, but I'll just tell you the general thing.
Apparently there was an individual who was doing okay in his job, but not killing it.
But recently...
Got a big raise he wasn't even expecting, and all of a sudden his career just took a great turn for the positive.
Do you know what was different?
The only thing that was different is he changed his identity from white guy to something else.
Now, I don't want to be more specific than that, but apparently he took my advice, he says.
He just changed his identity.
And changing his identity allowed his company to say, yeah, let's get more of that.
Next thing you know, he gets a big raise that he wasn't even expecting.
So I'd love to hear if other people have done the same.
Because if they haven't, I don't know why not.
It would have been harder for me during my work years because I'm blonde.
Or I was.
I was blonde.
So it was a little harder to sell myself as a person of color who doesn't look exactly like you'd expect.
But hey, everybody's different.
But if I had brown hair, I might have tried to sell myself as a person of color.
Maybe. If it helped my career.
And by the way, I don't think there's anything illegitimate about doing that.
I don't find that immoral or unethical.
Not even a little bit.
Because the point is that he was being discriminated against for his race and maybe his gender.
So if he found a clever workaround so he wouldn't be discriminated by his race, that's not unethical.
That's not immoral.
That's nothing but...
Playing the system the way it was designed.
So good for him.
Nicole Shanahan, who, as you know, was sort of one of the leaders, if not the leader, of a movement to get LA Mayor Karen Bass recalled because of her terrible performance, especially around the LA fires.
But as Nicole Shanahan is warning us...
It went from in January and February, she said, just about everyone in L.A. was calling for me to help cede the recall of Mayor Bass.
By the end of March, though, a month after the recall rolled out, the L.A. elite are peddling back.
Why? And she says it's because Bass's surrogates are claiming anyone coming at it against her lack of leadership is racist and classist.
Well, there it is.
Predictable thing in the world.
And Nicole says, I can't think of anything more pathetic than race-baiting your community after literally burning it to the ground.
I have some advice.
You should get away from the cities.
The cities are not fixable.
And the sooner you realize that...
The better you'll be.
Now, I don't know if you can get away from them because, you know, I live in California.
If LA and San Francisco go down the drain, I don't think I would be unaffected.
Seems like my taxes would double again or some damn thing.
But anything you can do to get away from cities, because there's no fixing it left.
And the reason there's no fixing it is identity is...
It's going to be the main criteria and it doesn't look like anything's going to change that.
And as long as identity goes first and competence is not the top goal, you're not going to get anything better.
Meanwhile, actor Rob Lowe is on a podcast kind of thing talking to the star of Severance.
His name is Adam Scott.
I almost forgot his name.
His name is almost exactly my name, Adam Scott.
Anyway, Rob Lowe was saying that if you were going to make a TV show or a movie today, you would never make it in California because California would just be higher taxes, higher regulations.
He said it would be cheaper to take everybody from L.A. that's involved with the movie, including the extras, you know, hundreds of people.
And moved them all to Ireland and filmed the entire thing in Ireland.
Just to pick one country as an example.
Other countries too.
So the other countries have, or other states too, have tax breaks and they make it easy.
But California has destroyed its own most important industry after tech.
Can you believe that?
That California is so poorly managed that nobody in their right mind would make a movie here anymore.
Oh, my God.
Now, that's from Rob Lowe, and they talk about walking through the studios and they're just ghost towns.
All of Hollywood is dead.
All of Hollywood is dead.
And if you've seen any recent movies, I tried to watch...
What's the one that's like the prequel to The Wizard of Oz?
Is it The Wiz?
What's the one with the Green Witch?
I don't know.
I tried to watch that because at least it was like a big production.
And I thought, oh.
I'll put it on the big screen in my house with a nice sound system.
And I'll just sort of enjoy it for being a big production.
Wicked. It's called Wicked.
So I tried to watch that the other day.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God, it's unwatchable.
And I like old Disney movies, and, you know, I'm kind of a fan of the genre.
And I loved Wicked in the theater.
In the theater, Wicked was incredible.
But, oh, my God, it was just completely unwatchable.
And then apparently this new movie is Snow White, which I saw a meme calling it No White.
No White.
Because I guess they're very DEI sensitive.
Apparently that thing is so bad that Disney is just losing billions of dollars.
I remember a time when a Disney movie was just...
It was just a pass to another billion dollars.
Okay, there's a Disney movie.
Well, that's going to make a billion dollars.
You can just count on it.
It was nothing but high quality.
And indeed, when I used to watch it with little stepkids, I used to love it.
Even though it wasn't made for me as a target market, I would just enjoy the quality of it.
Sometimes you can watch things that are not your thing if the quality of it is just so good.
Like, ah, good actors, good writing, you know, good production.
I really, I kind of like it.
Wow. But Snow White and Wicked appear to be just absolutely lost.
And then, of course, the whole Star Wars franchise completely destroyed.
So if you put all that together, America has destroyed its own Hollywood advantage.
One of the biggest things we had as an advantage.
Was that American-made content was influencing other countries and making them want to be more American because, oh, look at that awesome movie and all those awesome people in it.
I wouldn't mind being more like that.
But now we don't have that.
We just have this pathetic industry that can't economically even put on a movie or a TV show anymore.
So there's that.
How much did that affect the state?
Well, California gained 76% fewer jobs in 2024 than estimated.
76% fewer than estimated.
Is that a coincidence?
And it had this tiny growth of 0.3%, which probably was just government jobs.
So California is really in trouble.
You know, our biggest industry, or maybe second biggest after tech, just completely destroyed.
And I would say that it was completely destroyed by bad management plus DEI.
Those two things just completely destroyed it.
Meanwhile, you know that AOC and Bernie are doing these big rallies, and you probably said to yourself, Are these rallies organic?
Or is somebody paying people to go to them?
Well, I don't know the answer to that, but someone named Tony Saruga claims to have data about cell phones that not everybody has.
And somehow he can estimate based on the cell phone information he has.
That the people who were there were not 30,000, but closer to 20,000.
So no big deal.
The crowd was overestimated.
There's still a big crowd.
But that 84% of the devices at a recent rally, one of the AOC Bernie rallies, so 84% of the devices, which means the people who own them, Attended nine or more Kamala Harris rallies,
or Antifa, BLM, pro-Hamas, or pro-Palestinian, and 31% of them had attended over 20. Now, how do you attend nine or more Democrat rally events?
Because they're not all in your town.
There would be travel, and you'd have to take time off from your job if you had one.
These have to be paid, right?
So it's looking to me like the entire Democratic Party, where their popularity, at least for their congressional leaders, is the lowest it's been in a long time.
It looks to me they're trying to create what looks like an artificial popularity by simply paying people to protest and paying people to go to rallies.
Yeah, it looks like they're rally professionals.
Exactly. So, that's alarming.
Now, I don't know about the accuracy of the phone data.
We could find out tomorrow that there's some problem with the data.
Meanwhile, the dramatrats, as I call them, dramatrats.
So, what AOC and Bernie are doing, are trying to, you know, whip up their base into a frenzy.
So, here's the newest vague accusations.
So the Democrats don't have real topics and real policies or anything.
So they have to use vague accusations.
Here's a new vague accusation.
These billionaires bankrolling some of the most divisive media and disgusting, hateful things, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So they're saying that the billionaires are trying to divide us.
Is that what's happening?
Is that what Elon Musk is doing?
He's trying to divide us?
He's trying to divide us by saving money for all of us and saving the country?
How did that divide us?
He's trying to divide us by supporting the president who was elected by a solid group of people?
What exactly is the trying to divide us?
These are made-up problems.
So are the billionaires trying to divide us before or after Trump steals your democracy?
It's all like monsters under the bed stuff.
Well, there's no problem yet, but they're trying to divide us.
Well, there's no problem yet, but they're going to steal our democracy.
Well, there's no problem yet.
But it looks like Musk is trying to cut the USAID funds that are keeping so many people alive so that he can use that money to cut his own taxes.
Really? So if you look at the accusations, they're just nonsense.
They're literally just stringing words together.
All right, we'll take billionaire.
We'll take divide.
Yeah, billionaires divide us.
How about...
Steals your democracy.
They got nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
Meanwhile, Trump has instructed the Department of Justice to sanction any law firms over what he calls vexatious litigation against the government.
Now, if you're like me, you're saying, what exactly would be considered vexatious?
It seems a little subjective.
So I had to look it up.
But in a legal sense, the vexatious litigation would be frivolous with insufficient grounds for winning.
So the standard would be if a lawsuit is filed that a reasonable expert in the law could look at and say, okay, there's no way you're going to win that.
That must be just for bothering the other side.
Trump wants the DOJ to sanction those law firms involved in that.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, there's a gigantic problem in Wisconsin.
There's an election on April 1st, I guess, for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And I'd seen this story but didn't pay attention to it because it seemed like a state thing and I didn't really get it until I looked at it today.
It turns out that that would create a...
Depending who wins.
It could create a liberal majority on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which could lead to changes in gerrymandering, which could be enough of a change to cost Trump the House of Representatives.
And apparently the big donors for this, and they're coming in for big money, because this particular small little thing in one state could completely change the federal situation.
And so, of course, Soros is funding it for over $4 million.
Hoffman's over $14 million.
J.B. Pritzker's in for six and a half.
And the woman who is the widow of some man who probably shouldn't have left her that much money, Jervetson, she's in for millions herself.
Millions. There is, of course, a Republican running against, or at least a conservative running against her.
But wow.
So if you know anybody in Wisconsin, you need to rattle their cage and make sure that they vote to keep the country viable.
So Scott Presler is warning us about that.
Meanwhile, these judges that keep pestering Trump and putting stays on things and trying to stop what he's doing, they keep getting lumered.
So Laura Loomer has done a great job of finding out, wait a minute, this judge or that judge has a wife or a daughter who is deeply into Democrat politics and clearly not objective.
It would be hard to imagine that the judge would be objective if the Adult daughter or wife are deeply into Democrat politics.
And the thing I wonder is, how do we not know this in advance?
And what happened to people recusing themselves because they had a perceived conflict of interest?
It doesn't even have to be a real one, just a perceived one.
We don't have that.
That's not a process.
Or do the judges say, Well, I'm not the one who's working with the Democrats.
That's my daughter.
Or I'm not the one who donated money.
That's my wife.
So, you know, I'm not...
I don't have any conflict of interest.
That's just family members.
I feel like family members being deeply involved in politics should rule you out for any political decision.
Shouldn't we have a list of not just...
Liberal versus conservative.
But a list of whether or not their core family members, just spouses and kids, that's all.
Not cousins.
I'll let the cousins go.
Not aunts or uncles.
But just spouse and children.
Adult children.
If they're deeply involved in fundraising or organizing, we should have them on a list.
So that every time one of these judges gets picked, we can say, oh, that's one of the conflict of interest judges.
Now, even if none of that causes anybody to say, okay, I have a conflict and stand down, even if it doesn't change any of the behavior, wouldn't we be better off knowing which ones are clearly in the bag?
Because there's nobody who thinks that if you're a spouse...
Or your adult daughter are deeply involved with one side of the political spectrum.
Nobody thinks that has no effect on the judge.
Obviously it does.
Because you couldn't go home unless you ruled in a way that your spouse and your daughter approved of.
Well, speaking of the legal and justice system, lawyer Jeff Clark explains how Dangerously close we came, according to him, in the 2020-2024 period to become a one-party political monopoly,
meaning a Democrat monopoly.
And he talks about what causes all these law firms to be not just a little bit Democrat, but seriously Democrat.
And he kind of draws out the whole picture.
Our education system, managed by Democrats mostly.
So kids are being raised to be Democrats.
And then they go to law school, and their law professors are all Democrats, pretty much.
And then it just turns them into Democrats, if they weren't already.
And if they were conservative, and if they somehow get through the system and join a big law firm, they have to kind of pretend they're not.
Because it would be terrible for their career in the current situation to be the lone conservative in the law firm.
That's just not going to work.
So the conservatives have had to hide and just pretend they're not conservatives.
And by the way, I have dealt with a lawyer not too long ago who said that directly to me.
Yeah, I'm the hidden conservative.
I don't tell people I am.
In the real world, somebody told me you had to hide.
His political opinion.
Yep. And he was eventually not allowed to work with me.
Let me say that again.
There was a lawyer for a local law firm who had agreed to work with me until the rest of the law firm said, you can't work with him.
And he had to pull back.
That's a real thing.
So if you think that...
Conservatives are getting the same legal services as Democrats.
They're not.
Not even close.
And they went so far as to try to blackmail, not blackmail, but maybe put pressure on people who would have tried to help Trump during his prior iterations.
So if you've got only one party that controls the entire big law firm situation, They would be able eventually to have the power to control everything.
Because if you didn't have a fair fight within the legal community about things that are Democrat versus Republican, and it's just always Democrats defending things, and if you tried to get a Democrat or anybody else to defend you,
they would be losing their career.
Jeff Clark has a really good case here that we were very close to losing everything because, as you know, Soros had this idea of funding DAs and attorney generals so that if you had the DA, the attorney general,
the judges, and then all the big law firms all being anti-Republican, that would very quickly turn into there's only one party.
Because the other party would just get sued out of existence and they'd lose every case and just everything would go in one direction.
So Trump winning and putting some pressure back on the legal community of, you know, stripping people who were a little too political and, you know, stripping them of their security clearance might be the only thing that saved us.
We might have been...
Just this close to having nothing you could do to ever recover.
If the entire legal system that mattered became just aggressively Democrat, you wouldn't be able to change that.
That would be way too much pressure all the way from judges through lawyers.
So we came very close.
I'm not sure it can be reversed because all it would take is...
You know, the next president being a Democrat, and everything goes back to the way it was.
So we're very close, even with the Democrats being the most disliked group, at least their own congressional members.
Even with that, we're right on the edge of them owning everything and just having complete control.
Anyway, how else do they have control?
Well, You know, the New York Times said that what we think is fake news about Musk having a meeting in which he would be told about our plans for military action against China if there were ever a China war.
And that apparently was completely fake news, according to Musk and according to the Pentagon and according to Trump.
And I believe him.
I believe that was fake news.
So I remind you that the New York Times is not like a regular publication.
It's not just one of them.
It's the newsmaker.
So if they say something's true, it allows all the other publications to just quote them and say, well, it's the New York Times, and they've got these anonymous sources.
So the media is anti-Trump, and apparently I think there's enough evidence to show that they know when they're lying, and they do it anyway.
So imagine that.
They know when they're lying, and they do it anyway.
So it's pure propaganda.
It's pure power.
And it's definitely not news.
Meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson is calling out Chuck Schumer for, I'll just read what Johnson said on X. He said, in his desperation, Chuck Schumer has now crossed a serious red line.
By telling PBS he is organizing and encouraging radical activists to, quote, go after Republican members of Congress and, quote, force them to either change their votes or face the consequences.
His recruits are now crashing and disrupting private gatherings and even local school events, screaming profanities and physically assaulting people.
In other words, Chuck Schumer told his base to haunt Republicans.
To actually hunt them.
To find them and then harass them in ways that, you know, even if you said don't break the law, of course some of them are going to be physically assaulting people.
So that's one way the Democrats try to control without having policies and without having popularity.
They can just make it too dangerous to be a Republican.
I mean, it's already ridiculous.
That you can't wear a MAGA hat outside without getting beat up.
That's ridiculous.
But that's where we are.
And Chuck Schumer is making it worse.
Now, to me, he should go to jail for that.
Because that seems clearly an organized, RICO-like situation which is guaranteed to have physical violence, even if he didn't say so directly.
And, of course, that can't happen because the legal system is exactly what Jeff Clark said.
So there's no way he's going to go to jail, but it seems like the offense of even asking people to harass one political party in public and private, I feel like that should be a jailable offense.
I don't know exactly what it would be, but it feels jailable to me.
It will never happen.
Meanwhile, on CNN, they had the former representative, Jamal Bowman, who called Elon Musk a thief and a Nazi on live TV, and nobody corrected him.
They just called him a Nazi, like, it's just a fact.
So Elon said, I've had enough, lawsuit inbound.
So he's just going to sue him.
You know...
Musk must have access to all the lawyers who are remaining, who are willing to do things that are not just entirely Democrat things.
So, yeah.
Go ahead and sue him.
I think every time he's accused of giving a Nazi salute, that he should sue the person who did it, if they're a public figure.
He should sue them.
Because I don't think, you know, I have talked to people who genuinely believe That he did a Nazi salute.
Can you imagine being so brainwashed that you actually literally think that happened in the real world?
And it's just shocking when you talk to somebody who believes that is a real thing that happened in the real world.
Unbelievable. Incredible.
It's the power of propaganda.
So, meanwhile, so here's the big situation.
You've got Tesla charging stations and dealerships that are being hit with incendiary devices and fires are being set.
You've got Teslas that are being keyed.
We've seen lots of videos of people keying Teslas.
We've got Tim Walsh, who literally laughed at a gathering about Tesla stop dropping, even though it's part of the retirement plan for his state.
It's one of the companies in it.
And he tried to explain that as just a joke.
And he said that the Republicans don't have a sense of humor.
People were not confused about the fact that he was joking.
Everybody knew he was joking.
That was the problem.
If you joke about this kind of action against an American company, where the employees had nothing to do with anything, You're encouraging it.
So you're making it fun.
So he acted as if he wasn't encouraging it and that we just don't get the joke.
It wasn't a joke joke like I'm going to laugh at it.
He was making light of the damage to a great American company, which absolutely has the effect of making people a little more interested in doing some more of that.
Because, hey, it's funny and it's fun and I got some attention.
We also have all the...
So we've got Schumer sending out people to harass Republican lawmakers.
We've got the conservative podcasters who are being swatted like crazy.
We've got the media allowing people to go on the air and call Trump and Musk Nazis and Hitler without being challenged, amazingly.
And I gotta say, and then of course there's Nicole Shanahan's thing about they're trying to get rid of a mayor and the bad guys turned it into a race thing so that you can't even get rid of a bad mayor.
So I'd like to compliment conservatives because if you think about it, conservatives are the most armed group of people maybe in the world and they have not.
Become dangerous.
They have not in any way retaliated.
They have not threatened to retaliate.
I mean, beyond stuff you see on social media that's not serious.
But nobody seriously said, this is too much.
We're going to take to the streets or we're going to go get our guns.
And that's good.
Do not go get your gun.
And taking to the street is probably just going to end up with you in jail.
So, I'm very impressed that the political right has this much self-control.
But there certainly needs to be some kind of response, ideally non-violent and completely legal.
But I guess we'll depend on Trump.
Meanwhile, there's a little drama with some of the right-leaning influencers.
So you probably know that the so-called SNAP payments, which is a program to allow low-income people to buy food with government funding, it's called the SNAP program.
So at the moment, you're allowed to buy soda with your government-funded SNAP payment.
And there was a conversation about maybe that should be banned, but of course Big Soda wants to...
Make billions of dollars because they make a ton of money on the snap people buying soda.
But it turns out that there was an influence company called Influencible that had been paying right-leaning podcasters to say that these people should be able to have their freedom to use the money for what they want.
And if they want to buy soda, that's their business.
Now, I'm not going to name any names.
Because I'm not into destroying the right-leaning podcasters.
But apparently there was a lot of money involved.
And the money involved was different by each person, I guess, depending on the size of their audience.
But they were asked to do their own posts on Axe and to say that...
Trump has a button for buying soda, so why can't other people buy soda?
And I remember reading it and thinking to myself, these don't look like real opinions.
Because I thought to myself, who thinks that it's just a question of freedom?
It's more a question of, should I pay somebody to buy soda?
And that's a good question.
Should I pay somebody with my own The taxes I'm paying.
Should I pay for soda?
What else?
Candy? What other things should I be paying?
I like the idea of keeping alive and keeping healthy people who have low income.
That's appropriate.
But do I have to feed their addictions?
What else am I supposed to pay for?
So I was very...
Very, I guess I was alerted when I saw some of the posts.
And I never commented on them because I was just puzzled.
Because I saw a bunch of, it seemed like there were a bunch of people at the same time saying, hey, Trump's gone too far.
Let people buy whatever they want.
We're a free country.
And I thought, really?
Are those real opinions?
Turns out they weren't.
They were not real opinions.
They were paid opinions.
So, if you care about who is spreading those opinions, I'll refer you to the internet.
It's not my business, but if you want to figure out who it was, that might be interesting to you.
According to Scott Pressler, again, somebody named Susan Espo, she works on New Jersey early voting registration, so she must be working with Scott.
Is registering voters at Tesla charging stations.
So, this seems like maybe one of the best ideas ever.
Imagine going to a Tesla charging station, and you're maybe a Democrat who's had enough, you know, because you don't want your own car being threatened, you don't want your charging situation to be threatened, and just having somebody say,
you know.
You can register as a Republican, and then you would be opposed to all those things that are opposed to you.
So I don't know if it works, but it's a heck of a good thing to try.
Mike Benz is warning on a podcast recently, maybe it wasn't recently, that the Doge situation is going to get a lot more exciting when the Pentagon has to explain where its $35 trillion went into a black hole.
And that's about the size of the entire national debt, $35 trillion.
So do you think that the problem with the Pentagon is that they just have bad accounting, but that serious people were doing the right things to make the country safer?
Or do you think it's possible that the Pentagon is 60% defending the country and 40% a scam?
Where people in power or certain positions simply know how to hide money and launder it and just take their cut.
To me, it looks like almost certainly with this lack of accounting and accountability, anytime you have that much money involved and that many people involved and there's no accounting, that should lead to massive fraud and theft.
Every single time.
If the only thing you knew was there's no accounting, huge amounts of money, and lots of people involved, you wouldn't have to wonder if there's massive fraud because it really can't go any other way.
That's the way everything goes all the time if you have those situations.
Anyway, speaking of the U.S. Navy, Fox News says that The U.S. Navy is deploying a second guided missile warship to patrol the waters near our southern border.
So these would be anti-cartel warships with guided missiles.
So my question for you is, are those guided missiles going to be used against the cartels?
Or is it just the ship is being used more generally, maybe for, I don't know, Monitoring things or stopping ships that look suspicious.
But maybe they don't plan to use the missiles.
But on the other hand, one of the things that Trump brings to the party is that you never know what he's going to do.
So imagine you're a cartel fentanyl lab and you hear that a second U.S. Navy ship with guided missiles just pulled up to the border.
At the same time that Trump has warned, if fentanyl doesn't stop coming across our border, we're going to light up Mexico.
I feel like that would cause the cartels to have to move their operations every night because they couldn't keep it in the same place twice because they know our Reaper drones are flying over looking for them.
And I feel like at this point we can spot them pretty easily.
So it could be that the Trump uncertainty, Will so disrupt their operation because they think one of these guided missiles is going to drop on their head any minute.
It might be making a real difference.
Not a permanent difference, but it could be disrupting things quite a bit.
Well, here's a question that I finally decided I was going to look into a little deeper, which is the question of, can you trust Putin?
Now, what do you think?
Can we trust Putin?
If we made a deal with Putin and we signed the deal and everybody was happy with it, do you think he could keep the deal?
Or does he have a history of breaking deals?
So I asked Grok to list me the deals that Putin had made that he broke.
And immediately I found out this is not so easy.
Because... For most of the deals that got broken, the one that broke it says, well, I didn't break it first.
You know, you did something to break it, and then, of course, I broke it.
And I'm not sure I'm smart enough to adjudicate each of those cases, but let me just tell you what Grok said.
So Grok said there was this Budapest memorandum in 1994 about the annexation of Crimea and that there was some agreement that Russia would not...
Go after Crimea.
But in fact, they did in 2014.
However, I think they may have said that somebody else broke the agreement first.
There was a Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement in 2008.
Russia has since maintained military presence in Georgia.
So without getting into the details of each of those.
At least Grok thinks that he violated the agreement.
There was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty that was originally signed by the USSR.
And in 2014, the US accused Russia of violating it, basically.
Now, I think that's another one where he accused us first.
So each of those have this quality that you can violate any agreement.
If you can make any argument that the other side was doing it first.
Then there was a Minsk Accords aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
But then Russia supported separatist forces, so they broke that, according to Grok.
There was a NATO-Russia founding act.
So, anyway.
So without getting into the details of all these acts, so there were a bunch of examples.
But then I said, just for completeness, I said, hey, Grok, give me a list of agreements that the United States violated that had something to do with Russia.
And it said the Budapest Memorandum, the Russia-Georgia ceasefire.
Wait a minute.
These are the same ones.
Intermediate range, nuclear force, the Minsk Accords.
So in other words, there's just an argument on both sides.
In one case, we said something was...
Let me see.
I think that was the same.
I'm getting confused with some of these treaties because I'm not familiar with all of them.
But generally speaking, there's an argument that we...
Lied to Putin, and there's an argument that Putin lied to us, and it looks like neither of us keep any agreements.
So how in the world could you make a deal with Russia when Russia quite reasonably thinks we won't keep our deal, because we do have a history of that, and we quite reasonably think he won't keep his deal, because he has a history of that?
Neither of us could be trusted.
So the only way you can get a deal is if both sides had an overwhelming advantage in keeping the deal.
Can we make that kind of deal?
I'm going to say again that I don't think peace in Ukraine is going to come anytime soon.
I don't see a big announcement in two or three weeks that actually sticks.
It might be a big announcement, but it might be just to put Ukraine in a box.
And if Ukraine says no, we can say, all right, well, we tried.
You're on your own.
So there might be some of that.
Anyway, so Meta, the company Meta, that owns Instagram, they're experimenting with putting AI-generated comments on Instagram.
Now, the example given was if somebody puts a picture of themselves, they've just redesigned their living room.
And they're doing a thumbs up, that the Meta AI would give you a bunch of comments that you could just click.
And some of the comments would be, this is just their example, a great photo shoot location, or a cute living room setup, or love the cozy atmosphere.
And then instead of coming up with your own comment, you could just click one, and that would be the comment you leave.
Now, here's the problem.
If you imagine that, you know, that exists, you're always going to pick that, aren't you?
Like, 90% of the world are just NBCs anyway.
And so they're going to say, I'll just pick one of these comments.
And at that point, what's even the point of the comments?
It's just somebody picking one that sounds good.
It would be more like spam than it would be like a common.
So they're just testing it.
So it doesn't mean it's going to be a permanent feature, but they're testing it.
Meanwhile, according to interesting engineering, China's made a big breakthrough in EV battery charges, and they can charge something in one minute, and 77% of the initial capacity stays there after 500 rapid charges.
Almost every day, I see a new story about batteries being improved by adding some capability to them.
I'll tell you, there's just going to be a huge revolution in the next few years in battery technology.
It's going to change everything.
You're going to be flying your electric car faster than you think.
All right, people.
That's what I've got for you today, on this Sunday.
And I'm going to say hi to the locals people privately.
