God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, California Voter Satisfaction, Tesla Terrorism Task Force, David Axelrod Persuasion Skills, Rosie O'Donnell, Southern Border Buffer Zone, Migrants Surge Canada, Kamala Harris 2028, Rand Paul, Due Process Legal Conflict, District Judges Nationwide Rulings, Missouri COVID Judgement, Wordsmith JD Vance, Greenland Territorial Interest, AOC Bernie, Kash Patel, FBI Top 10 Arrests, Epstein Files Release Prep, Democrat 29% Favorability, Theatre Kid Democrats, General Flynn, DOGE, Keir Starmer, UK Troops Ukraine, China's Ukraine Interest, Mike Benz, 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.
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 a mug or a glass of tank or gels, a steiner 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. Divine.
Godlike. Well, let's start with science.
You know, science is important because there are many things we don't understand about the world.
And thanks to our intrepid scientists, they can fill in the gaps for us.
Let's see what they've got for us today.
According to SciPost, Eric Nolan is writing, physical attractiveness far outweighs other traits in online dating success.
So it's a good thing they studied that, because I was thinking that physical attractiveness was way down on the list of things that...
No, I wasn't.
They could have saved a lot of money if they just asked me, Scott, what do you think about physical attractiveness on the list of things that people care about in online dating?
Let me confer with every sentient being in the entire universe.
Everybody? Okay, we're all on the same page.
It's the biggest thing.
All right.
I've got a special theme for you today.
The theme is all the Trump stuff is working.
Everything's good.
You okay with that?
So we're going to ignore any bad news.
There might be some.
I didn't see much bad news today.
But there's a whole bunch of stuff that will make you happy.
Some of it may be happy for entirely wrong reasons.
So this one's...
It'll make you happy that the anti-Trump people are not doing well, but you shouldn't be too happy, and I'll tell you why.
So, for example, De Niro, Breitbart is reporting on this, De Niro has a new movie out called The Alto Knights, and it will only gross around $3 million.
That's about as bad as you can get, $3 million.
Meanwhile, Rachel Zegler, who is no fan of President Trump, her Disney movie has opened, and it looks like Snow White is going to make, it's the worst opening of a live-action Disney movie ever, or in a very long time.
So it's one of the worst things ever.
Somebody sent me a picture of Disney's board of directors, and I'm going to say a good thing about Disney.
You know, usually lately I've been piling on.
But I've got to say, they're nailing the DEI stuff.
Their diversity on their board is excellent.
Their movies need a little work.
Now, this is good news, bad news for me in California especially, because I really, really, I really, really, really want Hollywood and movies and TV to work.
Because it's a big part of our economy.
And it used to be a big part of my entertainment.
So I want it to work.
But it looks like they're doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't.
But how would you like some more good news about California?
You ready for this?
I don't know if I can even believe this next thing.
So Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, is reporting.
There's a statewide poll in California.
This says that in 2026, well, let me just read it.
There's a statewide survey from Decipher AI, and it says that a staggering 48% of likely California voters are now open to voting for a Republican governor in 2026.
Only 25% of Californians.
A registered Republican.
And yet, 48% are looking at, you know, if it's the right candidate, we might go for a Republican this time.
Why? Well, here's an example.
So these are some figures also from the polling, I guess.
83% of voters say gas prices are too high in California.
What are your gas prices?
Because our gas prices are well over $5 a gallon.
But I understand that the nation is closer to $3.
Yeah, we noticed.
69% think California's political leaders have not done enough to bring down energy utility costs.
Yeah, we noticed.
We noticed you're doing a terrible job in California on energy costs.
71% believe the governor and legislative leaders have not addressed California's high cost of living.
Yes, that's exactly what we think.
73% support fully funding anti-crime Prop 36, which has not occurred.
Yeah, we'd like to fund anti-crime.
Can you please stop the crime?
How about 72% feel homelessness still is a big problem?
Yes. I'm amazed that it's only 72%.
60% oppose free health care to undocumented illegal immigrants.
62% support a fully independent investigation of the recent LA wildfires.
And only 24% of Californians think that biological male transgenders should compete in female sports.
That's pretty much running the table.
You know what I mean?
So the Republican policies have completely run the table.
The majority of Californians are Republican.
They just don't realize it yet.
You know, they're sort of caught in their little inertia.
But this really does suggest that the right candidate, and it would take a special candidate, you know, it would take a, you know, Reagan, Trump.
DeSantis, kind of a quality person.
But it's winnable.
And I don't want to see another weak Republican candidate for governor because I've usually not even known their names.
Are you telling me that in all of California, we can't find one legitimate political superstar?
Somebody who can walk and talk and just agree with these things that the public agrees with.
You don't even have to be smart.
You can just look at the polls and say, all right, I'm running for governor, and I'm going to lower your gas prices.
You can just go right down the list.
You know, the policies write themselves.
Well, meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi has said that they've created a Tesla Terrorism Task Force.
Specifically to look into the domestic terrorism against Tesla assets.
They've got three people in custody right now, and she says this is domestic terrorism.
That's exactly what I want to hear.
I don't want to hear, oh, the biggest problem in the United States is white supremacist terrorism.
No, it's not.
Not even close.
However, according to Zero Edge, Tesla has added a new threat-detected mode, maybe just to the truck.
I don't know if this is for all the vehicles or maybe just the Cybertruck.
But it's going to be a louder-than-normal alarm, and it could be music, I think, if it detects some foul play.
So if it looks like somebody's going to vandalize it.
Or it does get vandalized.
It's going to get really loud.
Now, the question that's unanswered, is there any AI involved?
Because wouldn't you rather catch it before it happened?
And here's my question.
Do you think that Tesla's AI could not detect who's going to vandalize it just by seeing them coming?
I feel like it could.
I feel like you could detect a vandal about at least 10 seconds before they vandalize.
Because the videos I've seen, they all have that look, right?
They've got a mask on, or they've got that classic lefty look.
They always have a backpack.
It seems like they've got a backpack too often.
And then there's always some preparation.
And there's always something in their hand, like a key.
I feel like the AI could detect that before the vandalism.
And it would be kind of funny if it started yelling before it happened.
Now, that would be awesome.
I don't think that's the feature.
But it feels doable, which is weird.
Anyway, according to the Babylon Bee, they've got a headline that says, Democrats say fire a Tesla facility likely caused by climate change.
That's not true.
So the Babylon Bee is a satirical publication, if you didn't know.
So it's not true that Democrats think fire at a Tesla facility is caused by climate change.
That would be silly.
They believe it's caused by DEI being improperly implemented.
No, I'm just making that up, too.
That's satirical.
But here's what I observe.
Does it seem to you that it's extra obvious that our opinions are assigned to us?
Now, you might say, okay, but not the Republicans.
Maybe there's a difference.
I don't know.
But you can see on the Democrat side that they immediately snap the grid on whatever the new message is, and they just go, uh, uh.
It's going to be a scalpel.
We need a scalpel, not a chainsaw.
And they just immediately embrace whatever the assigned opinion is.
And, you know, you could argue maybe that happens on both sides.
Maybe. I don't know.
But I saw an interesting article.
I wish I could remember the author, so I feel bad talking about it.
But I saw an expose about...
Maybe that's too strong.
About... David Axelrod and his wizardry with the Democratic Party and Obama.
And apparently he pioneered the persuasion that would get you to do something you weren't inclined to do.
So instead of just giving you the usual, we're great, the other side's bad, the normal political stuff.
He figured out how to get people to vote for black candidates, and Obama was one of his first experiments.
And it was sort of this weird permission thing where he would give them a reason to do the opposite of what they would normally do.
Now, in the Obama case, the reason was if you were being blamed of being a racist, Or you're worried about being a racist.
Or you just wanted to make sure everybody knew you weren't.
The easiest way to do that would be to say that you supported Obama.
And here's the thing I hate about that.
That's sort of the reason that I was pro-Obama back in those days.
And I'm aware of it.
I'm aware that it was a social signaling thing.
Not entirely.
You know, the argument I would use mostly when I talked about it is that wouldn't it be good to get past never having a black president?
And I thought, well, he seems very capable.
He speaks well.
He presents himself well.
I didn't have a big problem with it at the time, but I also didn't know how much destruction would be coming out of it.
So I call that the fake because.
The fake because...
It's giving you a reason that just allows you to do the thing you wanted to do.
And so the fake because was, oh, he's very capable, speaks well, he's inspiring, makes people feel good.
So then I could say, oh, okay, look at me.
I'm not a racist.
I'm supporting a black candidate for president.
So I was a little shocked.
That I might have been dragged into that persuasion net that was very intentional.
And it turns out that Axelrod has, you know, some family background in advertising, and I think he comes by his persuasion skills legitimately, meaning he was exposed to it early and, you know, he marinated in it for a long time.
A lot of what we see is sort of an axelrod-driven situation.
Now, you could argue that the Obama term lasted longer than Obama, and that he was still kind of in charge, even though he wasn't president.
But it feels like that era has ended.
It feels like Trump just ripped that up by the roots.
So we'll see.
Anyway, according to Breitbart, Rosie O'Donnell has given an interview in her new home in Ireland.
So, as you know, Rosie moved to Ireland to get away from all the horribleness that is Trump.
And she's now an election denier, and she thinks that somehow Elon Musk stole the 2024 election because he owns the Internet.
She actually said that.
That he kind of owns the internet, so he fixed the election.
I love how crazy she is, because it just puts everything in perspective.
So I decided to go to Perplexity, my favorite AI, and I asked her this question.
Huh. You know, she moved to Ireland, of all places.
And I said, what are the percentage of white?
Versus black residents or even just non-white residents of Ireland.
If perplexity is right, there's only 1% of Ireland that's non-white.
Did Rosie move to the least diverse place on the entire planet?
Is there any place that's less diverse than that?
Now, I don't know if maybe the data is wrong.
I got it from perplexity.
But it does seem that she went to a place that would be the opposite of her own philosophy, wouldn't it?
Interesting. Maybe she'll have a new president soon.
We'll see.
Anyway, according to The Daily Wire, Ryan Saavedra.
He's writing.
The Pentagon is well on its way on this plan to create a buffer zone on our southern border.
Now, when I read that, I thought, hmm, buffer zone.
This could be interesting.
What do you need a buffer zone for?
And then I saw that the buffer zone is only going to be, let's see, its width would be only, what, 20 yards?
Kind of a tiny little buffer.
Yeah, it's only 20 yards deep.
Now, how many of you, if you haven't seen the story, how many of you know why we want to create a buffer zone that's only 20 yards?
It turns out it's really clever.
Because if you make the buffer zone a military base, so you can just, you know, designate it a military base, it just happens to be only 20 yards wide, then the military...
Can hold people until the authorities get there to process them.
So at the moment, because of the current laws of the land, if you're in the military, you can't be doing domestic law and order stuff.
So the military can only do military stuff.
They're not allowed to do, you know, just arrest somebody.
And they can't hold somebody.
So even if they cause somebody at the border...
They wouldn't be allowed to hold them unless that person was trespassing on a military base.
So apparently this is some kind of clever end run to make as much of the border as possible a 20-yard wide military base.
So if the military catches somebody on that 20-yard swath, They can hold them until the, I would say indefinitely, but there's probably some limit.
But they wouldn't have any reason that they have to release them.
They can just wait for the border control to come and process them.
So that is so clever that I have to give some props to that.
Now, they haven't quite implemented it, but it looks like they're well on their way to doing it.
And they can't do the whole border at once.
There's some kind of rule that says they can only do, you know, a piece at a time, but they could do a piece at a time, and then they can get there.
Well, according to Rusty Weiss, who's writing for Red State, Canada is seeing this huge crush of illegals fleeing the U.S. because of Trump's border policies and his immigration policies.
So, kind of makes sense, doesn't it?
That if you were in this country and you were...
You're high on the list of people to be deported.
You would immediately escape to Canada, where the rules are maybe a little friendlier.
And even actually a member of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, a smuggler, confirmed that business is booming in the opposite direction of the illegals.
So a lot of them are self-deporting to the Great White North.
I guess the 60 Minutes Overtime segment had that news.
Now, I have a message to Canada.
Canada, you know what would cause that not to happen?
If you were a state.
Because if you were a state, the immigration laws would be the same above the border as now.
But because you're not a state, and because you're not controlling your border, You're going to get big tariffs, apparently, and you're going to get a tsunami of criminal migrants.
So, I mean, we don't want that to happen, but there's a way to avoid it.
If only you were a state.
All right.
I don't think Canada will ever become a state, but...
The argument for it may continue to strengthen.
We'll see.
According to the Post Millennial, they're writing about a morning console poll that 36% of Democrat voters still favor Kamala Harris for the 2028 presidential nominee.
Do you know what I say to that?
I'll drink to that.
Remember, I'm only giving you good news.
Good news for Trump supporters.
Can you think of any better news than 36% of Democrats are still looking for Kamala Harris, which would be way more than whoever is in second place?
I think Buttigieg might be in second place.
So I'm pretty sure that a stronger candidate will emerge, but maybe not.
Maybe not.
So Senator Rand Paul did a great job of explaining something that I wondered about.
He was on Face the Nation.
And Rand Paul is really good at this.
He's really good at explaining things so you can understand them.
So here's what I didn't understand.
So there are two, I guess, rules or constitutional things or laws, whatever you want to call them, that are in conflict.
One of them is that if you're in the United States, you don't have to be a citizen to be eligible for a full trial and process like a citizen.
So you would get your day in court.
You would get the same rights as anybody else would as long as you're in the country.
So I like that.
To me, that seems fair that anybody gets caught into our legal system should have the same protections as everybody else in the legal system.
So, you know, that might let some bad guys get away with stuff.
But we accept that.
We accept that just so we don't put in jail some good people who, you know, wrongly got into the system somehow.
However, that's in conflict with the fact that the president, according to the Alien Enemies Act, can deport people who he thinks are alien enemies.
So those two things can't exist together.
So it can't be true that everybody gets their day in court and proper process.
At the same time, the president can say, well, not these ones.
These ones don't get proper process.
As long as we think they're gang members or bad guys, we'll just send them back.
So that's what the Supreme Court might decide.
Now, Rand Paul, Senator Paul, says he predicts the Supreme Court will uphold the Trump administration enacting the Alien Enemies Act.
But that might be optimistic.
And I also wonder, I'm a little confused about, oh, he also thinks that the Supreme Court might limit the district judges from having nationwide rulings.
And I'm wondering, does that happen at the same time?
So I need somebody who's smart about the Supreme Court and process to tell me that.
If the question of a fair trial And due process versus the alien enemies thing where the president can just say, you're done, get out of here.
If that gets decided, does that at the same time automatically decide that the district judges from all over the country can't do these nationwide rulings?
Or does that have to be a separate case that's more specific to district judges and nationwide rulings?
So I'm a little unclear about that part.
But Senator Paul thinks that maybe both things could go Trump's way.
Speaking of things going Trump's way, Rolls-Royce, the British engineering giant, they're in a lot of military stuff, and they also make small nuclear reactors for commercial use.
They're going to move some of their manufacturing to the U.S. And why is that?
Because of tariffs.
So the ones that they're moving to the U.S. might be things that they're making in China.
So if there's tariffs on Chinese goods, they don't want to be a Chinese good.
Because if it's made in China and then shipped here, it's a problem.
Tariff-wise, it's a problem.
So they're going to move some of their manufacturing out of the countries that are getting tariffed and into the United States, which is exactly what Trump was hoping would happen.
According to Just the News, John Solomon's writing about in Missouri.
I hadn't paid a lot of attention to this, but Missouri had this court case, a legal, I guess, a lawsuit.
In which they were blaming China, the country, for COVID and for bad behavior and not telling us what was happening and acting like a monopoly and hoarding the masks and stuff like that.
So apparently China didn't bother to show up to defend themselves.
They were just going to ignore it.
And the lawsuit went Missouri's way.
So yeah, Attorney General Bailey.
And there was a $24 billion judgment.
So according to the Missouri legal system, China owes Missouri $24 billion for just COVID-related damage.
But as you can imagine, China is just ignoring it and they have no intention of paying.
But now it turns out...
That Missouri is moving to seize Chinese-owned farmland and other assets that are in their state.
But here's my question.
Are the farms owned by the country of China?
Are they owned by individual Chinese investors?
And can you take from individual Chinese investors assets because you won a case against the government of China?
So I guess I have some questions about how that works, but that fight is going on right now.
Here's a comment that J.D. Vance made about Denmark, and his choice of words is what is terrific.
I'll tell you, when it comes to choosing your words, J.D. Vance is one of the best.
So I don't know yet that he's got the full persuasion stack.
You know, he doesn't have a Trump-level persuasion stack.
But wow, is he good at choosing words.
So listen to this.
He's talking about Denmark on a recent interview.
And he said, Denmark is not doing its job, not being a good ally.
If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do.
Listen to that phrase, territorial interest.
Isn't that just the perfect, doesn't tell you exactly how it would happen, so it leaves open the mechanism, but territorial interest makes something that could sound scary just sound a little bit ordinary.
And then he frames it as Denmark not being a good ally, which would include not being a good ally to Greenland, which they control.
Now, do you think that Denmark is doing a good job of protecting Greenland?
Not even close.
Do you think Denmark is doing a good job for its allies in America, Canada, the U.S., of protecting us by making sure that Greenland is defensively adequate?
No, they're not.
Maybe those are not a good enough reason to take over or to buy or to merge with another country, but these are facts.
You know, and there's sort of plainly obvious facts that Greenland is not defensively adequate and that it needs to be.
And I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
No one who's paying attention disagrees.
But here's the second smart thing.
At the same time that JD is talking...
I'm going to say provocatively about Greenland.
His wife, Usha Vance, is going to visit with one of the kids going to Greenland.
And here's what I love about this.
If that seems like just a stunt, it really isn't.
Because you remember when Charlie Kirk and Don Jr. brought some people to Greenland?
Here's what this feels like to me.
It feels like showing respect.
Because she's going there and she doesn't have a particular goal, except she's going to visit some historical landmarks in Greenland, essentially just paying respect.
Now, how smart is that?
To have your, in the case of Don Jr., to have the president's son trek all the way up to Greenland, where it's not like he was going to be there anyway.
And, of course, he's got a big personality, Charlie Kirk, big personality.
And they just sort of impress the locals as just good blokes and show their respect.
Don't ask for anything.
They didn't ask for anything.
They just showed their respect.
And then they left, said good things.
And now J.D. Vance's wife and kid are going to go up there and just show their respect.
This is so smart.
So smart, persuasion-wise.
But also defense-wise, also politically-wise, just personally.
Just, you know, how would you like to be treated if you're in Greenland?
You're going to have to lead with respect.
If you want to do anything, you're going to have to lead with respect.
And I like that the Trump administration understands that.
And so they're going to make sure that respect is just right at the top.
I like that.
Anyway, you know about AOC and Bernie Sanders' anti-oligarch tour, which I call a one-man show, because a lot of you don't know that it's being played by the same character.
So there's one character who's playing both Bernie and AOC.
The only difference is they wear the same shirt.
It's this white button-down tuck-in shirt.
So the quick change when they go from the Bernie to the AOC really is just you throw on the wig, you take off the jacket, there's no necktie, so you just take off the jacket, and then you slather on some makeup.
Now, I think most of you know that you could turn a bowling ball into a living human if you had the right makeup.
So you just slap on the wig, take off the jacket, put on some makeup, boom, AOC.
No, not really.
But they do kind of remind me of the same person.
But Bernie recently said about the border, he said, nobody thinks illegal immigration is appropriate.
So he seems to be happy with Trump's pressure on fentanyl, happy with Trump's efforts on the border.
And I ask you this, weren't there, should there have been more Democrats?
Saying we should do more on the border.
This seems like a complete capitulation.
Yeah. But I don't know.
He's anti-oligarch.
Pro-border security, anti-oligarch.
Kash Patel, and I don't understand this story at all, but apparently the top 10 FBI's most wanted during the entire Biden era, I think zero were arrested?
Zero of the top ten?
How many of them do you think that Kash Patel has already caught?
Of the top ten most wanted?
All ten.
What? What were they doing?
It's the top ten.
He caught all top ten in, what, just weeks?
Are you telling me that wasn't possible before?
Well, I don't even understand.
How is this even remotely possible that Biden's administration got zero and then cash in a few weeks got all 10?
What? Here's the other story that's got me wondering.
Gateway Pundit is talking about a, I guess there's an article in Vanity.
So not, I wouldn't say the most reliable source, but...
According to them, the FBI's flagship New York field office has reportedly shifted his focus to a single mission.
So they're just going to work on one thing, which is redacting and reviewing the Jeffrey Epstein case files for public release.
They say there are over 1,000 agents and civilian employees who are sometimes working 12-hour shifts overnight.
Trying to get this stuff ready to be released.
Now, let me ask you this.
Why would they apply that much resources to getting this done?
Because they could have said, the only way to get this done is it's going to take us 1,000 employees and we're going to have to let our other work dangle for months.
So we don't want to do that.
So if you don't mind, we'll give you a, let's say, a five-month deadline, and we'll try to do as much of our other work that's important, too.
But, you know, we'll put 200 people on it, not 1,000.
Would you have accepted that?
We would have had questions, but if it got done in five months and then it was actually really released, you would say, all right, I get it.
Some things just take a long time.
But why would they instead, given that Cash is very mission-focused, he got all 10 of the top 10 most wanted, why would he put so much resources into doing this as fast as possible?
And then I'm going to add another factoid.
Patel and Probably Trump.
Know what kind of impact this is going to have.
Meaning they know what names are the big ones.
They know how bad it is.
And they know how it will be received by the public.
And at the same time that they know what the impact would be, and they know what the names are, they've decided to go as fast as possible.
What does that tell you?
I'll tell you what it tells me.
There's nothing in there about Trump that's damaging.
Do you agree on that?
Now, we'd like to think, oh, but Scott, the FBI is independent.
Kash Patel has already denied the White House some cuts.
He said, I'll do the cuts, not you.
So he's already shown independence.
So he's not being influenced by the government.
But he's put a thousand people on it.
Working 12-hour shifts sometimes.
I don't know.
If you assume that by now they know exactly what the bad news is in there, it suggests that this would completely destroy the Democrat Party.
That's my take.
It must be way worse for Democrats than it is for any Republicans.
And I think...
That the reason that they're working so fast is to make sure those people don't leave the country.
And they want to make sure that there's as little time as possible for the bad people to make a move.
So, I don't know, but it sort of suggests that this would be the end of the Democrat Party.
That the news is going to be so bad.
Just so bad that it changes life in America.
It might.
That's what the indication is to me.
I mean, I'm just reading the tea leaves here, but that's what it feels like.
Meanwhile, as you know, Democrat Party favorability, according to some new polls, CNN was talking about it, is 29%.
Now, just to put this in perspective, I asked perplexity, how many Democrats and how many Republicans are there, voters are there right now?
And if you count the leaners, the people who reliably vote one way versus the other, so that would include some independents, there would be 49% Democrats in the country and 48% Republicans.
Now, those are close enough to be identical, right, because of errors and stuff.
So basically the same number.
Basically half the country, Republican, half Democrat.
Now, that doesn't mean they're registered that way.
It just means they reliably vote in one direction or the other.
So if you've got 49% Democrats in the country, or Democrat reliable voters, and only 29% favorability, that would suggest that 40% of the people don't like their own party.
That doesn't sound survivable.
At all, politically.
But, to be fair, even the Republicans have 30% who don't like their party, so there's a lot of people who don't like each party.
But the difference between 30% and 40% does seem pretty big to me.
Not just percentage-wise, but one of them seems like business is normal, everybody complains about everything, including their own party.
And the other seems like turn out the lights.
I mean, 29% favorability when 49% of the country votes that way or would like to vote that way.
And California is looking at a Republican being competitive for governor.
Wow. I've got a feeling that reality is starting to make a dent.
Because a lot of politics is not based on reality.
It's based on theater.
And once people realize that the Democrats are and always have been since the days of John Wilkes Booth, who was literally an actor, once they realize that the Democrats are a theater group who pretend what's important for power, and they're not at all about fixing anything.
You know that book, Abundance, that we keep talking about, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's book?
It's talking about how the Democrats have to stop being the ones who brag about getting stuff funded when nothing happens, like charging stations and high-speed rail in California and internet to remote areas.
These are all areas where the Democrats, they took a victory lap for getting it funded.
And then nothing happened.
And so even Democrats are saying, you can't just be a theater group.
You can't just pretend you did something.
You actually have to do things.
And I don't even think that message is taking hold of the Democrats.
I think the Democrats, by inertia, by whatever reason, are absolutely firmly entrenched.
Entrenched? Entrenched?
In the idea that messaging is what matters.
Do you know what that means?
The theater.
Yeah, the theater.
Now, the thing that Trump has that they don't quite understand is he has a full talent stack.
So he can go full theater and run a rally and entertain people and say things that don't pass the fact checking.
Full theater.
But it's sitting on top.
Of real accomplishments, especially in his first term, and clearly in his second term, where even the other side can say, you're really good at theater, like really good, like better than anybody's ever been.
Nobody's ever been better at theater than you are.
But you're also really good at making things happen in the real world.
Once the Democrats figure that out, that they've only been...
They've only been involved with the theater only.
No talent stack.
It's going to be hard for them to keep any kind of a ruling majority for federal stuff.
I think they'll still rule in the cities, etc.
But I don't know.
They seem doomed to me.
Of course, it would only take one good federal candidate to change everything, but I don't see that person happening.
General Flynn has made an appeal to Elon Musk on X. I'll just read it.
He says, please, in capitals, pull the thread on one of these all the way to the end.
One of these being, you know, the Doge discoveries about bad funding behavior.
He says, pull the thread on these all the way to the end to show who is actually receiving the money.
I'd like to know, and millions of other Americans would like to know.
True. We deserve to see who the hell is ripping us off.
You are correct, General.
Who is benefiting from this corruption?
We the people sincerely appreciate you and the entire Doge team exposing them, but the more important question that is clearly bubbling up across our beautiful country is, will anyone ever be held accountable?
Help us out here.
Thank you.
Now, I fully embrace and agree with that.
However, I would bet that the recipients don't have any crime to answer to.
I feel like the system was just built so that they could easily satisfy the, let's say, the letter of the law while still being completely criminal in intent.
For example, if somebody hired a million-dollar-a-year consultant who happened to be their own spouse, And that person didn't do much at all.
Is that illegal?
I don't think it is.
It would be criminal in intent and criminal in outcome in terms of criminal-ish.
But I don't think it would be technically illegal.
And to me, that's what all of this looks like.
It all looks like this thin veneer of, well, we gave some of it to...
Battle AIDS in Africa?
Well, how much?
Well, 5%.
But where did the rest of it go?
Well, there's a lot of administrative overhead to get money to Africa.
I mean, it's not easy.
And it would just look like normal incompetence and normal bad behavior, but not exactly illegal.
But I'm in 100% agreement with General Flynn that we should be...
We should know who it is.
Because if it turns out that 80% of it is going to spouses of Democrat leaders or something like that, I'm not assuming that that's going to be the actual outcome.
But I think it would tell us a lot.
Now, I don't think that Doge is necessarily tasked with that.
So I don't know if that's in their domain.
If it's not in their domain, I don't know if I'd put it there.
Because they have enough to do.
You don't want Doge to be like a legal arm of the government.
You want them to be cost-cutting, fraud, and abuse.
And if they stick to that, maybe their credibility is the best.
But somehow, whether it's Doge or somebody else, wouldn't you like to know who's spending your money?
Well, over in Great Britain, you know they have this Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
I don't pay much attention to British politics, but this caught my eye.
Apparently, you know, Starmer said that Great Britain might be willing or would be willing to put boots on the ground to be a peacekeeping force in Ukraine if necessary.
And his own military apparently is saying, you know, you really should have talked to us because that's bad shit crazy.
So it sounds like the military was not advised or did not advise on the idea of putting boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Now, of course, the military is not in charge of that decision.
So if the leader wants to say it and the leader wants to do it, I believe he would have that authority.
But the military dismissed it as, quote, political theater.
So they've got a left-leaning...
A liberal leader who their own military says is involved in political theater.
Huh. There it is.
Theatrical. I remember when I first heard it, I thought, really?
You think the country of Great Britain is going to be all in on boots on the ground in Ukraine?
Really? You think that that's a survivable idea in terms of politically survivable?
Probably not.
Probably not.
It looks like it was just theater, which, once again, we see the pattern.
But here's a related topic.
And by the way, the funny thing about Starmer is that although he would be the liberal leader, he seemed really very pro-Trump because he was one of the first ones to come over when Trump got elected.
Putting boots on the ground in Ukraine sounds pretty darn warlike.
So he's an interesting character.
We'll keep an eye on him.
So according to TVP World, I've never heard of them, but they say that China is thinking about putting peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.
I guess that's German media says that.
They've only asked about it.
So Europe, as you know, Europe is considering the idea of maybe some kind of UN peacekeeping force or a European peacekeeping force.
And, of course, Putin is all completely no on that.
No, no, no, no, no, and big no, and also capital no and all caps no.
But they're still talking about it.
Now, China has never been considered a potential force to have boots on the ground.
But let me just talk about that for a second.
Your first impression to China putting boots on the ground as a peacekeeping force in Ukraine would be what?
Crazy, right?
Just insane.
You don't want China to get a foothold in Ukraine.
And also China is considered to be pro-Russia, so maybe they wouldn't even do the job they were sent there.
Maybe they're...
Maybe they'd be like agents working against peace so that Putin can do what he needs to do and they'll just get out of the way.
So your suspicions and the risk of it seems sky high, right?
Let me give you the alternate argument.
What does China want?
Because China is very predictable in pursuing what's good for China.
If you could predict one thing about China, it's like, okay.
What's good for China?
That's what they'll do.
And that's not wrong.
I mean, I think even Trump would say, yeah, that's why Xi is a strong leader.
He's doing what's good for China.
And he should.
So what's good for China?
Is it more war?
Is China better off if Putin takes the rest of Ukraine with all the risks that come with that?
Nope. China is better off if everybody else just stops fighting.
Because they want markets.
They want Russia to do well so they can make more oil that they can buy.
They want to do trade with them.
They probably want some of the resources that come out of Ukraine.
They might need some food, maybe some wheat.
I don't know if they currently consume it or not.
But China is never in favor of other countries being at war.
So the weird thing about this is, this might be the best idea I've heard.
Now, I'm not blind to the fact that you can't trust anybody.
I'm not blind to the fact that China and Putin are seemingly a little bit close, although realistically, I think there's got to be some friction there.
We just don't hear about it.
They are the one entity that, in my opinion, purely want peace.
And I'm not sure about Europe.
Europe seems to want to keep fighting, and Putin seems to want to keep fighting.
But China?
China definitely doesn't want more fighting.
There's not the slightest chance that they want Russia to dissolve as a country with all their nukes exposed.
They don't want a nuclear conflict, because nothing good about that.
It's not good for markets.
It's not good for business.
It's not good for surviving.
So, whatever happens that works in Ukraine is going to be so far out of the box that you're going to say, whoa, that never occurred to me.
This is wonderfully outside the box.
I'm not going to say it's a good idea, because maybe smarter people who can see around corners will say, oh, Scott, you're forgetting about this or that.
But if you could make sure that the Chinese presence wasn't so big, That they could somehow militarily dominate Ukraine or something.
I don't see any chance that Putin would bomb Chinese troops.
Do you?
I think this might be, weirdly, one of the better ideas about Ukraine.
High risk, but every path is high risk.
So if you say that's too risky...
You have to compare it to all the other paths, which are too risky.
So what we're trying to do is find the least of the too risky paths.
And it might be the least risky, weirdly.
So anyway, and again, the thing that would make it possible is that China is so darn predictable.
And I predict that the last thing they want is war.
And if they think they're the only thing that could prevent it, I think they'd be in for the right reasons.
Speaking of a Starmer, Just the News is reporting that Starmer wants to do a doge-like thing with the British bureaucracy.
Remember I told you he's weirdly Trump-like for somebody who's a liberal?
So he wants to do a doge-like thing.
And what do you think the locals are saying about that, the anti-Starmers?
Well, they're saying that he wants to take a chainsaw to the...
So they're using the chainsaw thing against him.
All he wants to do is reduce the bureaucracy.
He just wants to save some money for the taxpayers.
Oh, you should use a scalpel instead of a chainsaw.
Chainsaw, chainsaw, chainsaw.
All right.
Well, Mike Benz had a video that I was listening to yesterday that...
You know, every time I listen to him, I go away just saying, oh, you know, my whole worldview is altered again.
Apparently, the CIA has long had, let's say, a toolkit that included if they couldn't get enough congressional support to do something they wanted to do to another country, let's say Cuba,
that one of the ways they would deal with that Is to support massive immigration until there were enough concentration of Cubans, let's say in one place, that they could elect a representative to Congress who could help push the idea of getting tough with Cuba.
And that they may have actually done that.
And that another example might be that the CIA wanted to do some things around Somalia.
So they...
Somehow may have inspired a bunch of immigration into one part of the world which would elect Ilhan Omar.
Is this real?
Is the CIA really manipulating the Congress by mass immigration and then concentrating them in one place so they can elect their own congressperson?
And then the CIA would back them and give them enough power and attention.
That it would be driving the CIA's agenda instead of the American agenda?
Is that real?
Like, I still want to believe that's not real.
But it could be.
Certainly could be.
It would explain a lot.
Anyway, apparently the Department of Education, which we think is going to go away, It's spent hundreds of millions of dollars, or at least $100 million, on DEI for grade schools as well as universities.
This is according to Just News.
And now that that's banned, we're wondering if they're going to figure out some clever way to do it or if they're going to stop doing it.
But can you even imagine that?
That the Department of Education was going to put $100 million?
Into DEI.
To make the world a worse place.
Unbelievable. So that certainly makes it easy to get rid of the Department of Education.
And my last two stories are technology.
So the New York Police Department is sending drones wherever there's a 911 call.
So Futurism publication is writing about this.
Noor L.C. Bay.
And what will happen is, I guess if there's a 911 call, it automatically will, or somewhat automatically, they'll quickly dispatch a drone that will have high-end surveillance so it can get license plates and give faces and spot people.
I don't know what percentage of 911 calls are outdoors, or maybe something starts indoors and somebody escapes outdoors.
I'm surprised that wasn't already a thing.
To me, this seems like the most inevitable thing you could ever have.
Don't you think that 10 years from now, every city will be dispatching a drone to a 911 call?
I feel like it's just going to happen everywhere, and it will be sort of normal.
So I'm not going to put a judgment on it, whether it's good or bad.
It's just inevitable.
And then NVIDIA.
It's just said that robotics could become the world's biggest multi-trillion dollar industry.
It could, if they ever figure out how to make an AI that will really drive a robot, which they haven't done yet.
Given the complexity and the improvement in robots, so you've seen lots of robots who have hands that work almost like normal hands, and they have full articulation.
They have balance and they can do tricks and stuff.
So I'm going to say that the robot bodies are now complete.
They will keep improving, of course, but they are now complete.
In other words, if they had the right AI brains, they're already ready to go.
But they're not ready to go.
And I'm going to say again, I'm the contrarian here.
I don't think there's any AI that can drive a robot.
And I don't think that we have even the flavor of AI that no matter how much you tweak it would make it safe for a robot.
I feel like AI will have to be a whole different invention that hasn't happened yet.
So maybe it's a year away?
But it could be never.
I'm not going to predict that.
But it could be never.
However, since I think it's likely that they will get there, I wondered if there's any kind of robot investment fund.
Has anybody put together a stock fund, which is a collection of just the best robot-making companies, so you don't have to guess a winner, because if any one of them is a winner, it'll be a trillion-dollar company.
So I would definitely put money into a robot fund.
Because that's diversification.
By the way, I don't recommend investments.
That's not what I do.
The only thing I recommend is diversification.
So the best way to diversify is not to invest in one robot company, but to invest in some kind of a collection of them, but also make sure that's not your only investment.
So this is how I...
Give you advice that's useful, but it's not investment advice.
Because 100% of all experts would tell you diversification is really important.
So as long as you're doing it with diversification in mind, I don't mind recommending you do it.
But I'm not going to recommend a specific company or even a specific fund.
I'm just curious if one exists.
So there are funds like that for nuclear power.
So if you wanted to invest in that, you'd have the option.
Again, I don't recommend it.
It's just, it's there.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you today.
I hope that was enough positivity for you.
It does look like things are looking pretty good in the Trump world.
I'm only worried about whether Doge can get to the big numbers they need to get to.
To me, that's the only thing that looks like a problem, like a big problem.
So we'll see.
I'll be optimistic about that as well.
All right, I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately.
The rest of you, thanks for joining.
I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place, every day, for X and Rumble and YouTube.