All Episodes
April 3, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:05:21
Episode 2798 CWSA 04/03/25

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, President Trump, Trump's Tariff Persuasion, Bill Ackman, MSNBC Chris Hayes, Rand Paul, CNN's Orange Filter, Carlos Gutierrez, Doug Ford, Mitch McConnell, Anti-DOGE Propaganda, Abby Phillip, Uncontrolled Government Debt, US Spending & Debt Crisis, Anti-DOGE Democrats, Elon Musk, Anti-Tesla Domestic Terrorism, Tesla Model Y, NYC Mayor Adams, Adam Schiff, Non-Citizen Voting Support, TikTok Sale, Mike Benz, Justice John Roberts, China's MagLev Train, Mitochondria Dysfunction Breakthrough, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best time you'll ever have in your life.
But if you think you can take it up to a level that nobody's ever seen before in their entire human existence, all you need for that Is a cupper a mugger, a glass a tank, or chalice a stein, a canteen jug, 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.
At the end of the day, the thing makes everything better, except maybe the tariffs.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Terrific.
Did you get it?
It was terrific.
I'm so proud of that.
So proud.
All right.
Shall we talk about all the things?
I guess we should just start with tariffs.
Eh? What do you think about that?
So President Trump, in a speech in the Rose Garden, laid out his tariff situation.
And it's not exactly reciprocal, but there were like different amounts for each country.
Now, if you wondered what the formula was or what the thinking was for why each country had a different tariff and it wasn't just matching the tariffs, let me explain the math to you.
I mean, it's very simple.
You take the interest rate and you divide it by the gross national product of each country, and then you put it on a chart.
Now if you've got a better idea of how the president came up with those numbers, I'm all ears.
But I'm gonna put a A flag in the mountain?
I'm going to stick a flag somewhere.
Which is, I think it's now officially foolish for me to believe any numbers coming out of the government.
I'm not going to believe any of the tariff numbers.
At all.
I'm not going to believe any of the economic numbers.
I'm not going to believe any of the doge claims.
Although I think everything's working directionally correctly.
So I'm going to go with my normal theme that Trump might be full of hyperbole.
He's always negotiating and things are working in the right direction.
But if you think the exact numbers are telling you something, maybe yes, maybe no.
The only thing I know is I can't check them.
And the Democrats have a pushback on pretty much all of them.
So if you didn't know that the Democrats have a pushback, that you wouldn't know if it sounds good or not, you would hear it and go, huh, I know that might be true.
But then again, it might not be true because it's the Democrats.
So no, I'm not going to trust Trump on any numbers.
That's not a good play.
I'm going to trust Trump that he's doing what he believes and the other smart people around him, like Scott Besant.
He's doing what the smart people in his administration would agree is very good for America in the long run.
And there might be some pain in the short run.
So to me, directionally, I think we're fine and we'll see how it all shakes out.
The chart he had, that Trump had, that showed what the tariffs were from the other countries and what ours are, was very persuasive.
Very persuasive.
But not necessarily very accurate or comprehensible.
But very persuasive.
I liked, at least the chart people did a great job.
So I saw lots of theories about how the numbers were derived and where they came from.
I don't believe anything about the numbers.
I don't believe the actual numbers.
I don't believe that they're going to stay the same.
I don't believe that we know accurately what the other countries were charging us, because I think they might have included tariffs, plus VAT taxes, plus any kind of duties.
So it seemed like it was a Grab bag of concepts and we're not going to really understand it, but certainly got everybody's attention didn't it?
And we're already seeing a few companies or a few countries who are making moves to negotiate for example So I think Vietnam and Canada has made a move at least at least part of Canada not the whole country and I think Mexico's responded that they won't try to match it.
So countries are already responding, which is what we wanted.
And I saw a post by Bill Ackman.
This is something that I was thinking, but if I said it, I would be mocked.
Because it sounds like it's just too much in the bag for Trump.
And I'm totally in the bag for Trump, but even I wouldn't have said this.
So Bill Ackman posts, sometimes the best strategy in a negotiation is convincing the other side that you're crazy.
Now, you've heard me teach you that, right?
I've spoken at length about the concept of negotiating from the point of insanity, where you act completely irrational about at least one thing that you're asking for.
And if you can convince the other side that you're irrational, then they're going to give up on trying to rationally change your mind.
And they're just going to say, all right, you know, I'll try to make do with the rest of this contract.
But that one thing that you rationally want, I guess there's nothing I can do.
You're just going to have to, I guess I'll just have to live with that.
So is that what Trump is doing?
Is Trump acting like a madman to convince people That there's no point in negotiating with him?
I would say no.
I don't think that's what's going on.
I think he is causing confusion.
I think he doesn't mind, which is different than doing it intentionally.
I think that the numbers are so complicated and maybe smart people could disagree what the current tariffs are and what they should be and, you know, what's the right number.
If you tried to get the right numbers, it would be sort of a fool's errand, because nobody would ever agree that you calculated it correctly.
There are probably 50 ways you could calculate this stuff.
So, I do agree that trying too hard to get the numbers accurate wouldn't buy you anything.
I do like the fact that putting it out there made every country take it seriously, and You know, he has the attention of the entire world.
Let's compare that to Cory Booker.
Cory Booker spent 25 hours, or what was it?
25 hours speaking in the Senate, and nobody even knows what his topic was, after 25 hours of speaking.
Did you have a point, Cory?
Was there a point?
Was there something you were asking for or you know, I'm missing the point of this Whereas Trump goes out he gives a one-hour speech in the Rose Garden and Causes every country on earth to stop what they were doing and put their full focus on their tariff situation with the United States Now that's the difference between Acting in quotes, which is what Booker was doing.
He was just acting putting on a one-man play versus Trump Who was acting?
He acted on something that's been a concern for decades, and a lot of people have shared the concern that other countries might be taking advantage of us.
So, if you're watching a news program that doesn't start talking about the tariffs as in the first thing you say, that it's a negotiation opening bid, that's not real news.
It's a real good way to know what the fake news is.
The real news would say, this is an opening bid to negotiations, because that's what the administration says, it's what Trump says, it's what Bill Ackman understands, it's what you and I know.
The correct frame is that he just made the entire world pay attention to him and take seriously the things we want them to take seriously and know that they've got to change.
Or it's going to be a problem for them.
Now, one of the things I teach you is that in persuasion, the first thing you have to get right is to get their attention and make them think it's their top thing they have to deal with.
Did Trump do that?
Did Trump get the attention of these other countries?
Yes. Did he make them think it's the top thing that they have to deal with?
Yes. Home run.
If I were to grade him, I'm negotiating.
We don't have a result yet, so I can't give him a final grade.
But preparation?
A+. Are his numbers accurate?
Don't care.
Doesn't matter.
It won't make any difference to the outcome.
Did it make people think he's crazy?
Maybe. Does that help him?
It might.
Does it make people feel really uncomfortable and uncertain and worried about their future?
Yes. Will that help him?
Yes. Cause they're going to want to get rid of the uncertainty.
So he's going to make them negotiate with themselves, which is how about, how about 5%?
No. How about, uh, how about, how about we cut it 10%?
No. That's making somebody negotiate with themselves.
So if you can make the other countries feel uncertain and worried enough, and more uncertain and more worried than you are, which is the big win, then they're going to start moving in your direction even without you negotiating.
So we'll see if that works, but I'll tell you any news that that talks about the tariffs as anything but a negotiating frame Are lying to you.
They're lying, stupid weasels.
Now, the other thing I should warn you about is anybody who's confident that it's a bad idea.
If you're confident that what Trump has done is a bad idea, you're probably an idiot.
Because confidence should not be any part of this.
We don't know how this is going to work out.
I don't know how this is going to work out.
If I told you, oh, this is definitely This is definitely gonna work out just the way we want.
All the tariffs will go away, and we'll make a trillion dollars.
I don't know that.
Nobody knows that.
But I would be equally stupid to say, oh, it's just a tax.
Everybody's prices will go up, and we'll get nothing from it, and everything was fine before then.
Stupid. That's just frankly stupid, because you don't know that.
You don't know what the end result of any of this will be.
But the one thing I can tell you is that he just took control.
So he owns the argument.
He has the high ground because he has at least demonstrated that things were unfair to the United States in however you want to measure that.
So he's made his first persuasive win, which is the whole world was taking advantage of us.
Even if you don't believe the exact numbers he used, And you go back and you look at the numbers for yourself, you're going to say to yourself, Oh, whatever numbers you look at, you could pick any source and it's still going to say, Oh, I guess I see his point.
It looks like these were not, you know, the same.
They were treating us differently than we were treating them.
So he has a complete victory on phase one of persuasion, complete victory.
Are his numbers good?
Nope. I don't believe a single one of his numbers.
Is he causing the markets to go into chaos?
Yes. Yes.
Won't last.
Oh, well, let me put it this way.
I don't know if it'll last, but the play was always that he would roil things up in the short run and then things would calm down as we got more clarity later and there's more negotiating, etc.
So the fact that the markets are roiled Doesn't say it's wrong or right, because that's exactly what he said he was going to do.
Nobody should be surprised by that.
Chris Hayes of NBC, MSNBC, says, quote, that he put these tariffs on people for no reason.
That's a smart guy in MSNBC, saying that Trump put the tariffs on Quote, for no reason, and he's plunging the United States into economic crisis.
Are either of those statements accurate?
No, he definitely had a reason.
It's called negotiating and trying to treat America first.
How in the world could you be a talking head, a lawyer, And smart enough to have a job in MSNBC.
And after all of this, you say there's no reason.
You might not like the reason, but there's definitely a reason.
And it's pretty well articulated.
They're screwing us.
We're trying to stop it.
It's a negotiation.
Boom. Is it plunging the United States into economic crisis?
No. Anything could happen.
You know, I'm not saying that It can't happen.
Because again, certainty is the only stupid opinion.
Let me say that again.
Certainty about how this all works out is the only stupid opinion.
That's just stupid.
Nobody has certainty.
We're all non-experts on tariffs the way they're being used.
The way they're being used, nobody's ever seen.
It's brand new territory.
The only thing we can say for sure is, if it's a negotiation, has Trump set the table correctly?
And the answer is, yes.
From the perspective of setting the table.
Now, can he bring it home?
Don't know.
Don't know.
If I told you yes, I would be stupid.
That would be stupid.
Because I can't know how this turns out.
I can only know that from the perspective of what would a good persuader do, what would a good negotiator do, it would look pretty much just like this.
So I'm pretty happy with the setting of the table.
And Chris Hayes calls it the worst case scenario.
Is it?
Is it the worst case scenario?
I feel like the worst case scenario would be the Tesla protests Taking a Doge and a Tesla and a Trump, I'm sorry, and Musk saying, all right, screw it.
I'm going to quit this whole Doge thing because you're burning down my assets.
That would be the worst case scenario because then we would die from debt, certainly.
That's called the worst case scenario.
Making other countries worry about their tariff situation as their top priority until we work it out with them, that is not even close to the worst case scenario.
It might be closer to the best case scenario.
And do you know what's the difference between being positive that it's the best case scenario or positive that it's the worst case scenario?
They're both stupid.
I don't know which one it is, but I know if you're certain it's the worst case scenario, that's just stupid.
Same as if you think, oh, tomorrow it'll all be fixed and everything will be better.
Also stupid.
Those are things we can't know at this point.
All right, and of course, Chris Hayes never mentioned that it's a negotiating frame.
That is not real news, people.
That is fake news, intentional fake news.
They obviously know it's a negotiating frame.
If they don't mention it, it's fake news.
So Rand Paul is not happy about the tariffs.
He appeared with Democrat Tim Kaine on Fox News to argue his point.
His point was incoherent, which is weird because Rand Paul is one of the more capable, rational people in Congress.
And I like the fact that he is generally consistent with his own principles.
But what that caused him to do in this case Is to act irrational.
So I believe that his take is that all tariffs are bad, but we don't live in a world where we were starting with zero tariffs.
So he's literally reasoning from the imaginary.
So we shouldn't put, we should not add tariffs because tariffs are a tax and they're bad.
And if you're done, After saying tariffs are bad, so we shouldn't add them?
You're just, you're arguing from imagination.
You're not arguing from reality.
Reality is that tariffs have been here forever, and we've been tariffing people, and they've been tariffing us, and we became the strongest nation on earth with tariffs.
If we adjust them again, how does Rand Paul know that it will make things worse?
A tariff is a tax.
Yes, we know that.
And by the way, arguing that it's not a tax, that's not a strong argument.
It's definitely a tax, in effect.
The effect of it is a tax.
It's just that we're in the negotiating frame, and we'd like their tax on us to go away, and we'd like their tax, you know, we'd like taxes both ways to go away.
Rand Paul's other point was that He doesn't like, I guess Trump's administration used the, uh, some kind of emergency rules so that they didn't need Congress to approve what is effectively, uh, uh, a raise in taxes, the tariffs. So that part, I think he is, um, at least he's always consistent about what is the job of Congress and what is the job of a president.
And you can debate that one.
Um, on the other hand, I do like the fact.
The Trump is not being stopped by procedure.
Now you don't want him to go full dictator.
So you should be a little alert to how much rule bending there is.
But as long as he is willing to do what courts tell him is legal and willing to stop doing things that courts say, even if the courts are just totally biased, he's not violating courts.
So I'm not worried about fascism or him becoming a dictator as long as the courts still can call him and As long as anybody has access to the courts to make their case So we'll see maybe maybe there'll be some kind of court case on this one And then we'll see if Rand Paul wins or not But I do like action Over oh,
I can't do anything because the rules There's no way I can fix the whole country because of rules.
Sometimes you gotta bend the rules.
You know, I've often used this example, that if you're an employee of a big company, and you wanted to destroy the company from the inside, the best way to do it would be to follow all the rules.
Because if you follow all the rules in a big company, you would never get anything done.
And then you would go into business.
People have to break rules.
In the real world, bending and abusing and breaking a rule is kind of the only way anything ever happens.
It's the thing that stops weak people from doing anything.
And it's the reason that strong people can consistently succeed, because they look at a rule and they go, hmm, maybe not.
You know the company Uber?
Uh, do you remember that when Uber first launched, it was completely illegal for anybody to, uh, start their own taxi service in the big cities because the existing taxi business had some kind of monopoly on it and they sold medallions and you know, that determined how many taxis there were and Uber had none of that.
So should Uber not exist?
The entire Uber industry is because they, They broke a rule and then they figured out how to keep breaking it and then they got powerful enough that probably they had enough lobbyists and lawyers that they could just keep fighting it and they just beat the taxis into submission over time.
I'll bet you if you were to look at any big successful company, there was at least one point at which they had to beat a rule into submission or avoid it or Or skirt it.
Now, is that bad?
Do you feel that the world is a worse place because Uber is a really good service that you can use?
No. What you do care about is that they were working on your side.
Meaning they were trying to make the world, in this case the United States first, more efficient, lower your costs, make it just an easier, better experience to go somewhere.
And if Trump's doing the same thing, bending a rule because it's the only way to fix the United States, I'm all for it.
You just have to put it in context.
Anything that's good for you or the world or the country or a big company, it's going to come with at least a little something that's a rule-bendy quality to it.
If you haven't lived enough, you don't see that as true.
But if you've lived enough, you know, you always got to bend a little bit, bend some kind of rule.
You just, you know, as long as we're all watching, I think that's a safe situations.
Well, according to Clipkeeper, C-L-Y-P, spelling of clip, CNN is using their orange filter on Trump when he gave his speech.
So the Clipkeeper showed side by side, What it looked like if you were watching on Fox News, and it looked like Trump's skin was normal skin, like an ordinary person.
And if you watched on CNN, he looked like a pumpkin.
Now, do you think that's an accident?
You know, after what CNN did with Joe Rogan when they said he was eating horse paste or something?
I don't know.
To me, it looks like a choice.
But I mean, it could have been an accident.
Could have been different lighting, different camera settings, and they just thought it looked right or something.
But keep your eye on that because the visual makes a big difference.
So let's see some other reactions to the tariffs.
There's a Commerce Secretary under George W. Bush, a fellow named Carlos Guterres.
So he went on CNBC and he said that Trump's tariffs won't be in place by the end of this year.
Because other countries will rush to the negotiating table.
What's that called?
Smart. So the ex-commerce secretary under George W. Bush is treating this exactly the smart way, which is it's a negotiation.
That is the primary way you should look at it, not the secondary way.
It's the primary way you should look at it.
And then he predicts an outcome, which is the most logical outcome, From seeing it as a negotiation, which is all the countries need to find some way To make this work and it's going to be somewhere Somewhere closer to what the United States wants than where it was Meanwhile Doug Ford up in Canada says that That if that they'd be willing to drop all
their tariffs if Trump did and That's exactly what we want.
Now, he's only, what is he, Ontario?
So he's not the head of the whole country.
He's Ontario premier.
So, but he's saying directly and cleanly and without insult, he's saying, we'll drop all our tariffs tomorrow.
Now, I don't think he has, you know, control over all of Canada.
So, you know, his opinion might not matter that much, but that's what we want to hear.
That's exactly what we want to hear.
We love Canada.
We want to be, you know, besties with Canada.
We want to get through it.
We think the best situation is no tariffs.
And by the way, that would remove one of the best incentives for Canada to become a 51st state, because it would remove trade as an obstacle.
So then we'd be able to trade with Canada, just like you would trade across states.
So that's exactly what we want.
Now, does that make a difference?
We'll see.
But you're already seeing that reasonable people in other countries and reasonable people who are not directly involved in the process can look at this and say, oh yeah, let's negotiate.
We'll make this work.
But what about other people?
Let's see.
Mitch McConnell.
What is wrong with that guy?
He just took sides with a lot of the Democrats And voted 51 to 48 to kill President Trump's tariffs on Canada.
Why would he do that?
Is Mitch McConnell so out of it that he doesn't understand that this is a negotiation?
I mean, at least Ontario already just said, hey, okay, how about no tariffs?
That's a complete win.
Now, the vote in In Congress, it doesn't make any difference.
I think it has to be two-thirds or something.
So it doesn't have any practical implications, except that it makes Mitch McConnell look like a pathetic idiot.
Why would he do it?
Like, why is he even doing it?
It's just baffling.
Well, let's talk about some more fake news.
Have you been watching how CNN and MSNBC Continually report as if it's a fact, but it's not, it's a lie, that the Doge Project and Trump want to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Have you heard them report that like it's a fact?
It's the opposite of a fact, because both Trump and Musk have said over and over and over again, we're not even looking at cutting the benefits to people.
We're looking at getting rid of the waste and fraud so that there's a greater chance that there'll be money for the people So it's the opposite of what they're reporting and they fucking know it.
This is the thing that bugs me They know it and and even if like let's say one talking head didn't know it The network knows it the producers clearly know it you don't think that they should do a little self-correcting But no, Abby Phillip on CNN, who's one of the purveyors of the fine people hoax, by the way, so she has no credibility as a news person whatsoever.
But she blatantly lied talking to the governor of, ex-governor of Wisconsin.
She was talking to Scott Walker.
And she throws out that, you know, that Trump would cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Even though he said exactly the opposite, and even though they're saving the benefits, not destroying them.
And Governor Walker, to his credit, would have none of it.
So he fact-checked her in real time.
Do you think she then said, oh, really?
You know, I have different information.
Here's my quote that proves I'm right.
No. Did she say, but?
Ex-governor, you're forgetting that one of them said this, and then say something that was true?
No. No?
Did she say, I'd better take a look at that because I was pretty sure that they said they would cut it?
No. No?
She simply tried to talk over him and make the time go away and then change the subject.
So, but now that she's been informed, publicly, By somebody who you know is credible and knows what they're talking about.
Do you think from now on?
She'll say well, they definitely are not looking to cut the benefits of Social Security and Medicare I used to think that they were but you know after After Scott Walker filled me in I checked it out and found out well, he was right They've never once said that they are actually just trying to save it from going bankrupt so that you can get your benefits fully No.
I would expect her to lie about it the very next time she talks about it.
So, I think Abby Phillip is one of the worst credibility people on CNN.
I'm surprised she still has a job.
Well, I guess I shouldn't be.
Here's my take.
So, I think Elon Musk just reposted this right before I went online.
So I'm just going to read it the way I posted it, because I think I thought about it enough that I think it's worded correctly.
So here's the first thing.
The biggest threat to the citizens of the United States is uncontrolled government spending creating ruinous debt.
Do you agree so far?
Now you might say, well, you know, Russia might go nuclear, but probably not.
I mean, if they did, it'd be pretty, very bad.
But probably not.
But if we didn't do anything about our debt situation and government spending, we are definitely dead.
The whole country is dead.
Do you agree with me so far?
That the debt is an existential threat, as in we're no longer a country, and it's not going to take a long time.
Certainly within just a few years, because we're already way beyond the point where we can handle that level of debt.
Unless we make radical, you know, doge-like cuts.
All right, so if you believe the first part, because it's sort of obvious, that ruinous spending and debt are the biggest risk to the United States, and that we're already looking into the abyss on debt, and so time matters.
We're not solving the 20-year-from-now problem.
We're solving the 18 months from now, you're out of business as a country.
I think it's that close.
It's an emergency.
It's the most important thing that's happening in the country.
All right.
Next, the only possible solution is Doge.
And they're making progress.
Okay so far?
Nobody else has an idea.
We know that the government can't be asked to do it themselves.
We're all confident that that's true.
It's just got to be an external force.
It's got to be a really, really smart external force.
And it's got to be an external force that is unusually capable.
That's what we have.
Good for us.
So we have the most ruinous, dangerous, existential threat in my lifetime.
It's the biggest one I've seen.
I mean, when I was a kid, I was worried about the Soviet Union nuking us.
But since then, this is the biggest threat I've seen to the existence of the United States and my own life, really.
And Doge is the only thing that's making progress against it, and it looks like it's working.
Now, the next thing you need to know is that the main goal of Democrats is to stop Doge.
And no one has asked a prominent Democrat or a Tesla demonstrator to explain that.
Can you explain why you're trying to stop the only thing that could save the United States?
Why would you be opposed to the one and only thing?
Now, I get the whole scalpel, no chainsaw, but since it's obvious that whatever whatever doge started out as, it very quickly self-adjusted.
Well, maybe external force adjusted it.
But they very quickly adjusted to, uh, the cuts will be approved by the cabinet members.
So the government itself will be the making the final decisions, not doge and very scalpel-like.
So it's not really a good, a good critique to say, Oh, they're not even paying attention to what they're cutting.
Now, the other, the other complaints are, uh, they don't even know what they're cutting.
That is a little closer to true, meaning that our accounting systems are so pathetic that you might not know what's going to happen if you cut a particular budget in a particular department, because you wouldn't know even what it was connected to.
But how do you find out?
You cut it.
There's not a second way.
If you're working on, I'll just say, an 18-month, you're all dead if you don't fix this, you cut it.
And if 30 days from now somebody says, oh my God, my God, uh, the gay fish are dying or whatever it is, then you say to yourself, well, I don't really care about those fish.
And you're glad you cut it.
But if they say, what did you know that part of this was used to feed poor children in America?
Then you say, oh, uh, let's quickly put that back in.
So even the, they don't know what they're cutting.
It's just such a weak, low-end, inexperienced kind of a complaint.
It just doesn't understand the real world even a little bit, how anything works.
So that's what I want to see.
I want to see the right-leaning media and the left-leaning media ask the same question.
If you're a Democrat, can you explain to me why you're opposed to the one and only thing that could save this country, which is a major Strong push to reduce our expenses as quickly as possible.
Explain it.
What's your alternative path?
So far, we've let Democrats get away with what I call the half opinion.
A full opinion is, well, there are costs and there are benefits to every decision.
Let's talk about the costs, we'll talk about the benefits, and we'll see which one is bigger.
We don't do that.
We just let the Democrats talk about what might go wrong.
That's dumb.
That's stupid.
That's not doing your job if you're in the media.
If your job is to do the news and to figure out, like, what's going on and inform the public, you better ask the Democrats what their plan is.
Do they have a plan?
Oh, we're going to bring all our scalpels and then we'll let the Democrats decide what to cut.
Does anybody think that's a real plan?
No. Tell us your plan for saving the country that's driving as fast as it can over a cliff that's probably 18 months away.
Tell us your plan.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up about the people who are risking their lives, literally, to save the country from the biggest existential threat of my adult life, And can the media please do your fucking job for about 10 seconds?
Your job is to ask them that question.
It's not my job to tell you what question to ask.
You ask that question.
You know that's the important question.
Why don't you ask it?
And this applies to left-leaning and right-leaning.
Ask the question.
What is your alternative to save the country from going off the cliff in 18 months?
What is your alternative?
If you don't have one, shut the fuck up.
And let the real people who are serious do the work.
And then let Cory Booker do his, oh, I'm so tired.
Oh, what's it been, 18 hours?
Oh, I have a topic, I think, but I don't remember what it was.
I'm so tired.
Look at me.
Everybody look at me.
Look at my play.
It's a one-man play.
Oh, look at me.
We're not serious people.
The newest fake news is that all the anti-Doge, anti-Elon Musk stuff has worked.
It's worked, because he says he might be leaving the project sometime in the near future, which was always the plan.
He had a 130-day contract.
There's some government rule that says 130 days is the magic number.
And that would be late May, and there's no indication whatsoever that he has a plan to leave before late May.
He does say that he thinks he can hit his trillion-dollar target by then.
Again, I'm not going to believe any numbers that come out of any part of the government, doge, non-doge, tariffs, non-tariffs.
I don't believe any numbers.
But it does look every Every indication is that they're making massive movements in the right direction.
So yeah, that's just the latest lie.
Because imagine how embarrassing it would be to be the Democrats and they put all of their effort into taking the legs out of Musk and all he's going to do is serve out his term exactly like he said and be successful when he's done.
And what are they going to do after he leaves?
Because he would just be leaving on the agreed timeline.
Trump and he would thank each other and think that they both did an amazing job.
The Republicans would say, that's just the greatest American contribution I've ever seen.
That's what I would say.
I would say, you know, other than the military, which of course stands alone in terms of their service to the country, you can't compare to that.
But for a citizen, There's no bigger risk.
There's no bigger contribution than what you're seeing from both Trump, who's risked his life, and Elon Musk, who's risking his life and his companies, his legacies, his reputation.
He's risking it all.
If he does that and gets the win, it will be one of the greatest things that's ever happened in the history of the United States.
It will be a rebirth that you've never seen before.
Anyway, so I'm hoping that the Tesla domestic terrorists have decreased.
It feels to me like I'm seeing fewer of them as I'm seeing more stories about prosecutions.
And that's the way it should work, right?
If enough people get prosecuted, there should be enough people who say, uh, I don't think so.
Because it feels to me like the Democrats are so in such a bubble about what's true and what's not true and what's right and what's wrong that they think that destroying other people's property is perfectly acceptable.
But they don't want to get caught.
So you can't change the fact that they think that destroying private property is acceptable.
But you can definitely change the risk profile by giving 20 years to somebody who set one on fire and making sure that we see endless videos of somebody trying to key a Tesla and then getting caught because it's always on video.
So I like that.
In the meantime, the new Tesla Model Y, according to Nick Cruz-Pattain, I saw this on on X, The new Tesla Model Y was the best-selling vehicle in China in the month of March.
Now, if you haven't seen the Model Y, the new one, apparently people just love it.
Now, it is the car I bought for a family member, and it looks great.
You know, I haven't always liked the design of just the physical design, outside look.
Okay. Until
I saw the new Model Y. So apparently the Chinese are having a similar experience, and that's the one they most wanted in March.
Here's some other good news.
This is before the tariff information dropped, so maybe it'll change.
But Breitbart News' John Carney is reporting that hiring accelerated in March.
We were already worrying about the tariffs before we heard the details.
But it didn't stop, uh, hiring according to ADP.
So that's good.
All right.
Here's the, the weirdest story of the day, or I don't know what it is, but mayor Adams of New York, you know, that he was being lawfared and, uh, the case against him just sounded suspiciously weak.
Like it looked like somebody going after Trump with a, well, you know, technically this might be illegal, but nobody would be.
Pursued for it.
And then he met with Trump and they, they got along great.
And then I guess there was a push to have all the, at least the federal charges dropped.
And it looks like they have been dropped, um, with prejudice.
So dismissed, dismissed by the judge with prejudice.
Now Simon Kent, also Breitbart is writing about this.
Now with prejudice means that it's such a bullshit case.
That the courts are saying don't even try bringing this again later so that they can't even bring the same case up again It was so weak.
That's that's with prejudice So so that happens and That came two months after the Trump administration sought to drop the case.
So I finally got done And then Mayor Adams has been talking to some podcasts and whatnot.
He was on some losers podcast.
You can see I have an opinion about that loser.
It's a loser who has said some bad things about me when I got canceled.
So fuck that guy.
But, uh, so I'm not even going to mention him.
But Mayor Adams was on there and he said that Trump derangement syndrome is real.
Um, He said, you could like or dislike Elon Musk, but you don't have any right blowing up someone's Tesla.
You don't have any right breaking the law.
Who do you think you are?
Now, that's what we've been hoping Democrat leaders in general would say.
But Mayor Adams is in this weird zone where, at least until yesterday, he was a Democrat.
And, you know, he's saying what we expect Democrats to say.
How in the world do you explain that he's one of the few people who are willing to say what Democrats are afraid to say?
Oh, he just, he just said he's not going to be a Democrat anymore.
So he's going to form an independent party and run for mayor again.
Now, I don't know how often an independent wins any race, but given that he has a hundred percent name recognition and he's done the job and the Democrats are a You know, disgraced, ridiculous party with ultra low approval.
This might be one of the situations where you could win.
It might be.
So we'll see.
I guess he also, Mayor Adams, by defending his, let's say dismissal of his case, he was trying to make sure we understood that that was part of a deep state move against him.
And he ended up recommending, of all things, FBI Director Cash Patel's book on the Deep State.
I guess Cash Patel wrote a good book that if you didn't understand what the Deep State is, it would lay it out for you in terms that are really clear.
So, Mayor Adams was recommending a book by Cash Patel.
How many of you predicted that?
Well, I didn't.
So, when I see somebody violating, like, everything that they're supposed to do, but instead of doing what they're supposed to do, doing what is smart and makes sense, and when you hear it, you go, uh-huh, uh-huh, okay, that makes sense.
I love that.
Love it a lot.
And then, if you're wondering, Scott, are you being too kind to Mayor Adams?
And maybe he's a weasel and he's just doing a good job of public relations.
Hmm. How could we, how could we be sure?
Is Mayor Adams a good guy who's making all the right choices, even though they're tough ones?
Or is he a weasel who's just doing a great job of, you know, weasel explaining his way out of his troubles?
Which is it?
If only there were some reliable way to know.
Oh, Adam Schiff just made a video to make fun of Mayor Adams and especially as reference to Kash Patel's book.
Oh, there's my confirmation.
If you're doing a bunch of things that makes Adam Schiff do a video just to attack you, you, ladies and gentlemen, are on the right track.
There is no better indication that you are on the right side and telling the truth Then Adam Schiff taking the other side aggressively.
Perfect. Perfect.
All of my questions have been answered.
I can't think of anything that would be a better endorsement than Adam Schiff making a video against you.
I hope he makes a video against me.
I mean, that would be like the highlight of my life if Adam Schiff decided Ladies and gentlemen, I just have to talk to you about this disgraced cartoonist.
I'd be at home listening to it saying, yes, yes, I'm absolved from everything.
Anyway, according to the Libs of TikTok account, the DNC, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries are all suing Trump over his executive order To block non-citizens from voting.
It sounds like I misspoke, doesn't it?
Let me say it again, and I promise I'm not misspeaking.
I don't know if this is real, by the way.
I feel like there's something in the story missing, because I didn't see a full source.
I just saw one page of a document.
So, I could use a fact check.
I guess I'm not 100% confident this is a real thing.
But do you think the DNC, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries were suing Trump to make sure that non-citizens could continue to vote?
Because if they are, that would certainly give up the game, wouldn't it?
The game being that the Democrats are just looking for anything to win, and they're not concerned with anything else.
They're not concerned with action.
They like acting, but not action.
And they will bring in people into the country and give them, I don't know, social security numbers and tell them they can vote, and some of them will.
I guess my brain is having a hard time believing it's even real that they would go on record and sue So that they're on record as wanting non-citizens to vote.
I don't know.
I don't know about that.
In other news, Amazon's made some last-minute bid to acquire TikTok, and now there are several entities that want to acquire it.
Some smart people are saying that the most likely outcome is that the current investors will just Keep owning it and they'll just roll it over into some kind of new international entity with no Chinese connection.
But that would involve China saying yes.
So I'm going to be consistent with my prior prediction.
There will be no sale of TikTok and it will just close operations in the U.S. and China is smart enough to know that Trump would be blamed for that.
Now, Trump might be smart enough to delay it again and say, oh, well, maybe I'll delay it six months, you know, just to keep that out of the news cycle.
But I don't see any way this gets sold.
Do you?
Do any of you think that China would ever sell it as opposed to just eating the several billion dollars of value that it might provide to them?
I don't think they're going to sell it.
I think they're going to just say, if you cancel it, you're going to have to deal with the political fallout of canceling it.
Good luck with that.
And it would be a really big fallout.
It would be a big fallout.
So I think China is going to call Trump's bluff.
And I don't know what, I don't know what exactly Trump would do if they do that.
So I don't see a sale happening, but we'll see.
Here's something that Mike Benz has alerted us to, and I'm pretty sure it's true, just because Benz is such a reliable source, but according to him, at one point sometime between 2011 and 2014,
Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court, and he was in that job at that time, he traveled to the Czech Republic And he lived for a week in the home of Norm Eisen, who I believe was the ambassador to the Czech Republic at that time.
And they spent a week together, allegedly, quote, working on American and European rule of law issues together.
Now, I know a lot of you have said, there's something wrong with Justice Roberts.
We don't trust him for one reason or another.
And I've never bought into any of that.
Because I didn't have any evidence of anything that sounded suspicious.
You know, I just thought he was independent and he had his own opinions and he couldn't always predict where he was going to go.
But that's part of the process.
But when I hear that he lived in the same house intentionally with Norm Eisen, I'm just going to tell you to do your own research on Norm Eisen.
If they are close, And they spent a week together in the same house, and they were working on the same project.
I don't trust Justice Roberts one bit.
His reputation is absolutely garbage now.
Now, that's how bad Norm Eisen's reputation is, at least among people on the right.
Now, some would say And I have to be careful because he's a lawyer and I don't want to get sued.
So I'll just say what other people say about him, that he is an expert on regime change, both internationally and locally, and that he took his expertise on color revolutions and regime change, which he apparently allegedly practiced on other countries on behalf of the United States.
So it would all be authorized and legitimate.
And that he took those skills and just applied them against Trump.
And that he continues to do it.
And that he's the main purveyor of lawfare and one weasel technique after another.
And that he is far from being a patriot.
And he's closer to being whatever is the opposite of that.
Now, if that's the guy that Justice Roberts spent a week with in his house, talking to him about Rule of law for American and European people.
You should be alarmed.
Like, uh, what is the highest alarm fire, uh, for alarm fire?
That is absolutely damning to the Supreme court.
Absolutely damning.
I can't think of anything that'd be worse.
Um, I think my Ben said something about, he would be less concerned if Roberts had spent a week on Epstein Island.
Now, that's hyperbole, but I get it.
I get the point.
If he had spent time on Epstein Island, he didn't, by the way, that didn't happen.
But if he had, I'd be worried about his personal character.
But you spend a week with Norm Eisen in his house talking about the rule of law in the US and Europe, that's a five alarm fire for, you know, everything that you care about.
Basically. Anyway, what else is happening?
So apparently, according to Fox News, the FBI has been flooded with a record number of new agent applications under Kash Patel.
I wonder if that's just because there were a lot of conservatives who thought the FBI would be a great place to work, but not under the old leadership.
And that as soon as Kash Patel came in, they said, oh, this might be a good place to work again.
It might be just that.
So that's a hell of a good sign for Kash Patel and for the, uh, for the FBI as well.
Uh, another good news, the Daily Wire, Todd Bensman's reporting that, uh, Trump's war on fentanyl is off to a strong start.
Apparently they've only caught half as much fentanyl coming across the border.
Now I always, I always mock that statistic because the amount you catch isn't the important part.
It's the amount that got in.
You can't really tell how much got in by how much you caught.
But we will say that the amount that got caught is down by about half.
I do think that given that there's a reasonably good argument for why it's happening, You know, Mexico has decided that they don't want to be tariffed into extinction.
So they said they would, you know, work harder against the cartels.
So maybe that's working.
We've heard that our Reaper drones flying over the cartel territories is causing them to have sleepless nights and maybe have to relocate their labs.
So there might be a production problem that you can't relocate a lab and then start it up quickly enough.
to produce the same amount you used to produce.
So maybe that's it?
I don't know.
But at least it's an indication in the right direction.
According to the Daily Wire, Spencer Lindquist, the Bill Gates Foundation, and a few other non-profits you haven't heard of, might lose their tax-exempt status over anti-white discrimination in scholarship programs.
And I guess the Gates Foundation Foundation has some scholarship programs that are not available to white people.
So yeah, they should lose their non-profit status, if that's the case, if they don't immediately correct that.
I wouldn't want them to lose their status if they correct it.
But yeah, how about being less racist, Bill Gates?
That'd be great.
By the way, when, you know, I've said this a million times, Racism against white people is mostly driven by white people who are already successful.
And what they're trying to do is protect their own position.
So if you become a billionaire and then you say, Oh, my new current most important thing is diversity.
Then people say, Oh, well, you're not such a terrible monster.
You're, you're looking to give stuff away and, You know, make sure it goes to diverse candidates.
Yes, you can keep your billion dollars.
It has, I think it has very little to do with what they're actually thinking or feeling or their character.
I think it's just pure cover your ass stuff.
So I'd like to see Bill Gates cover his ass a little bit better by being less racist.
Well, let's talk about China.
Apparently they've got under development a new one of these maglev speedy trains.
That would go 621 miles per hour.
So that would be way faster than their fastest train and they would have Wi-Fi and everything else.
Now, here's where I worry that the United States can't build stuff anymore.
The success that China has in building stuff, I mean, they can build so well that they can build cities and then knock them down.
You know, it wasn't their first choice to build it and knock it down, but they can build so fast.
Building a maglev train?
I mean, that's got to be the highest level of complexity.
And yet they're just pounding on it and they'll get it.
So it's very impressive.
Yeah. I got to say China is one impressive country.
They also have this, uh, this breakthrough on, uh, mitochondrial, on mitochondria.
Now, this won't sound like a big deal until I tell you why.
So, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, I guess.
Some scientists have figured out a stem cell-based method to bruise high-quality mitochondria at a scale.
And what it would do is allow you to effectively treat things like osteoarthritis and other diseases linked to mitochondrial dysfunction.
So, I'll take a barrel of that, please.
I wouldn't mind a nice barrel of good mitochondria for my osteoarthritis.
But I also don't believe I've seen any Chinese medical breakthroughs that have turned into products in the United States.
So, I'm not going to get excited about that one.
Meanwhile, in my last trip to U.S. News, The U.S. has banned government workers in China, I don't know how many government workers we have in China, from dating Chinese citizens because they might be spies.
So the U.S. has put a strict rule in place that American government workers and their families, even the families, even if they're not the family of the employee, they can't have relations with Chinese citizens.
Now, my first question would be, even the really hot ones?
Come on, there should be some kind of an exemption for the really hot ones.
No? All right, well, at least they're consistent.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, now you understand everything about tariffs and everything else, how's the stock market doing right now?
So give me an update in the chat.
I expect it to be on at least most of today.
It might recover if a number of countries say we're going to negotiate, but I wouldn't worry too much about what it is doing today.
That seems like it's temporary no matter what.
All right, I'm going to talk privately to the local subscribers for a few minutes and The rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
Export Selection