All Episodes
April 11, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:06:16
Episode 2806 CWSA 04/11/25

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, SAVE Act, Sunny Hostin, Voter ID, Dept. of Imaginary Concerns, Hakeem Jeffries, Dramacrats, IBM DEI, Robbie Starbuck, Greenland Options, Panama Deal, Inflation Decrease, Oil Price Decline, 3D Hologram Manipulation, China Restricts Stock Sales, China Abusive Relationship Options, Chris Cillizza, Brooke Rollins, Tulsi Gabbard, Voting Machine Vulnerabilities, Autism Rate Spike, RFK Jr., Russia Collusion Hoax, John Brennan, General Flynn, Law of Slow Moving Disasters, 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
All right, almost ready.
There we go.
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 understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup of munger, a glass of tanker chalice, a 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.
That's right.
Go. Oh, thank you, Paul.
Everything's working today.
Good to know.
Well, I wonder if there's any science that they could have saved some money by asking me.
Ah, here we go.
According to SciPost, Bianca Setianago is writing, there was a study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, and they found that simply imagining natural environments Can reduce your stress and promote relaxation more so than imagining an urban setting.
Uh-huh.
That's right.
Imagining nature can make you feel better than imagining an urban setting.
Huh. I wonder if there's any way they could have gotten to that result faster and with less expense.
Any way?
Any way?
Oh, yeah!
You could have asked me.
Or you could have asked anybody who's ever been trained as a hypnotist because it's lesson number one.
I think it's literally the first thing we learned.
That if you make somebody close their eyes and imagine a nature scene, that their body will relax.
Literally, I think it's the first thing you learn.
So yeah, you could have just asked me about that next time.
Next time do that.
According to Zero Hedge, the House has passed a bill, which means it hasn't passed the Senate yet, requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
So it's called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE.
And it passed with a little bit of margin.
Yeah, even four Democrats joined in.
Interesting. So Chip Roy is the sponsor for this.
And it would amend the National Voter Registration Act also to require states to obtain proof of citizenship in person from people registering to vote.
So you better bring your ID.
But it even goes further, and it requires states to establish programs to remove illegal immigrants from existing voter rolls.
And it allows U.S. citizens to sue election officials who don't adhere to the proof of citizenship requirements.
Oh, that's interesting.
So it allows individuals to do the suing.
Now, I saw somebody's comment that this will never fly.
Even if it gets passed, the Supreme Court will knock it down, some say, because the states have, I think what was described as an Ironclad control over how voting is done.
But I'm not so sure.
I'm no Supreme Court expert.
But it does seem to me like the federal government, in its role of protecting the country, I mean, just as a national defense issue, could require that the only people who vote are American citizens.
So other than that, I could see that the states would have most of the control.
But we'll see.
I don't know what the predicted fate of this is.
Whether it gets completely passed by the Senate and whether it can survive a challenge.
But anyway, it's got some Democrats on it.
So that's not the worst thing.
Let's see what the View host Sonny Hostin says about this.
Well, she says that requiring voter ID is bad for many blacks and women who will not be able to vote.
I love how crazy she sounds.
When I watch Sunny Hostin, I like looking at her eyes and her face as she says things that probably every person knows is bullshit.
We're still looking for that one That one person who doesn't know how to vote, or doesn't know how to get an ID, but still wants to vote.
Now, I do believe there are people who don't have IDs, but I don't think they're clamoring to vote.
So we're still looking for just one.
Just one person who says, and you know what would happen if one person came forward and said, I don't know how to get ID, but I'd really like to vote.
What would happen?
Whoever they were talking to would tell them how to get an ID and help them vote.
So as soon as you find anybody who's in that category, the first person they talk to solves their problem.
It's like, oh, well, just go down to the DMV.
Well, I don't know where the DMV is.
Oh, well, let me check.
Okay, here's the address of the DMV.
Just go down there and get an appointment and get your ID.
But now it's extended from, if you require ID, it used to be that it was a way to suppress black vote, but now it's extended to divorced women.
Is there a big problem with divorced women who want to vote, but they've got the wrong last name on some of their documents?
Is that a big problem?
Can we see one example of that, please?
I think Hillary Clinton waited on that, too.
Still waiting for that one person.
I'm going to delegate this issue to the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
Because if we can't find one person in the real world, what would that make that issue?
Imaginary. That's right.
But it is an imaginary concern to a lot of citizens, so we can't ignore it.
We should delegate it to the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
Let's see what else we got going on here.
Over on MSNBC, former Attorney General Eric Holder says that what's happening now with Trump and his administration is, quote, remarkably similar to kind of what happened in Europe in the 30s.
And if you don't stand up and fight now, it's going to be too late.
It seems to me that the Dramacrats, they only wrote one play.
I mean, if you're going to be a Dramacrat, you should have more material than this.
But they only have one play, and it's called Everything is Hiller.
And everything I see is Hiller, and all I want to talk about is Hiller.
And by the way, have I mentioned Hiller?
Now, it seems to me that if you're imagining Hiller, but there is no Hiller, and there's nobody really acting like Hiller, what would be the department that that should be delegated to?
I've got an idea.
Let's delegate it also to the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
Let's see what else the Dramacrats are up to.
Representative Hakeem Jeffries says that Donald Trump and the extreme MAGA people are Doing everything they can to tank our economy.
Hmm. Are they?
Are they doing everything they can to tank the economy?
By negotiating trade deals and lowering regulations and lowering taxes and yeah, that's exactly what you do to tank an economy.
Making energy more affordable, lowering inflation.
Yeah, that's how you do it.
And it's going to drive us, according to Jeffries, drive us toward recession.
And gut the health care of the American people.
So it's going to gut the health care of the American people.
Now, I can imagine at least two ways that that could happen, gutting the health care of the American people.
One would be to do nothing and just keep the way we're going, because that would lead us to a bankrupt country that couldn't pay for health care or anything else.
So the path we're on guarantees the end of healthcare along with the end of the country and the end of everything.
Really, your life, probably.
But at the moment, there's no suggestion that the Trump administration would do anything to your healthcare benefits.
So what would be the right department to assign this imaginary future concern?
Oh, I've got an idea.
How about the Department of Imaginary Concerns?
Does anybody see a pattern?
The biggest, most effective attacks from the Democrats?
All imaginary.
Every one.
It's not based on anything that's happening in the real world.
That's their best take.
Here's some good news.
Activist Robbie Starbuck has another big win.
He got IBM to end their DEI policies.
Now, I would read you the list of all the things that IBM decided to stop doing.
It was a whole bunch of woke stuff, like requiring proper pronouns for people and stuff like that.
But the list was so long, it just wouldn't work in this kind of a podcast.
So just take it from me.
IBM was just massively entangled.
It seems like they had wrapped this ball of string called DEI around everything, and unwrapping it is a pretty major project.
So a whole bunch of things had to be changed to un-woke IBM.
But the good news is, and I'm going to give IBM some credit for this, that when they were confronted with...
Let's say the argument and the activism and Robbie Starbuck's apparently very effective approach, they decided to unwind it and probably there was a lot of volunteering of what parts needed to be unwound.
So I'm going to say my standard for judging people and my standard for judging companies in this case is not if they make a mistake.
Or do something I don't like or something doesn't work out?
But how do they deal with it?
Once you know you've messed up, do you correct it?
Do you ignore it?
Do you say it never happened?
This looks like IBM fully embracing that it wasn't a good idea and then fully embracing the steps it would take to unwind it and being somewhat transparent about it.
So I'm going to say IBM A+.
You've reached my highest standard of ethical behavior.
I would never judge you that you once made a mistake.
I suppose if you were a slaver or something, I would still judge you.
But under the normal behavior of companies, I judge the prior behavior to be completely irrelevant.
I judge the current approach, working with Starbucks to do something productive.
A+. A+.
Good job.
I saw a report, I don't know how confirmed this is, but somebody said the New York Times had a story that the White House is considering, they're just considering, using government money,
your tax dollars, to give $10,000 per year to every person in Greenland.
Do you think that's going to happen?
So somebody must have calculated how much Denmark is contributing and then figured out how much could it cost if we were to essentially outbid Denmark so that the people of Greenland said,
oh, I wouldn't mind $10,000 a year.
I wasn't getting that much from Denmark.
But I don't know if Denmark is doing more than that.
Maybe they are.
But there's something like 60,000 people in all of Greenland.
So 10,000 times 60,000 would be 600 million.
So that would cost us 600 million per year.
Is that something you want to do to have control of Greenland?
I don't know.
When the story is that they're considering it, I don't take that too seriously.
Because what the White House should be doing is considering all the possibilities.
If they just have it on a list of possibilities, perfectly acceptable.
It doesn't mean they're going to do it.
And it doesn't mean it's the only thing they're going to do.
It doesn't mean that we're going to do it with nothing in return.
Maybe there's some rare earth minerals we can get in return or something like that.
But I like the fact that the White House would be looking expansively at all their options.
So, again, good job.
Just looking at the options.
Doesn't mean I'm in favor of it.
I'd have to see a lot of details to know if it makes sense.
But I like the...
I just like the noodling of it.
So that it's not...
We've looked at all the options, basically.
Meanwhile, P. Hegseth reports a big success to the Panama Canal.
So he was down there dealing with Panama.
And I guess the deal involves Panama hosting more American troops so that we've got more military presence there.
And that our military would be essentially a guardian against China ever having control over who goes through or how much it costs for them to go through.
And then I guess Panama agreed to end their Contribution to the Belt and Road Initiative coming out of China.
Their contribution would be just being part of the Belt and Road thing.
So that all looks like a big win.
And this would be, if this is a stable and workable plan, and it looks like it, it all looks pretty stable and workable, then this would be an example of Trump making a first big offer.
And then negotiating for something in the middle that just makes everybody happy.
Because I don't think that Panama loved the potential of being dominated by China.
I don't think they loved it.
And they know they can deal with the United States and that our military is not there to conquer them.
We're there to make sure that we have access to the canal.
If that's the case, then that would be another big win for Trump and his style of negotiating where he goes big and then he's got room to negotiate.
CNN is reporting that the consumer prices, the inflation, it went down a tiny bit in a month over month, but this is actually the first time we've seen this since COVID.
A month-over-month drop.
Month-over-month drop.
So it's very unusual.
And they say that the reason for it, the big driver, because normally you'd expect it to go up at this time of the year, is gas prices didn't go up.
So energy costs allowed inflation to stay put and slightly, slightly go down.
That's exactly what Trump promised us.
That's exactly what he promised.
That he would loosen up all of the energy sources and that when energy goes down, inflation would be impacted in every domain.
Now, I'm not sure that this is 100% because of Trump changes, but it could be.
Yeah, it could be.
So we'll see.
That's good news.
Trump, along those same lines, Trump is reversing a bunch of Biden policies about Alaska and energy.
So this is the center squares reporting this.
So he's reinstating a program to make a whole bunch of acres up there in the Anwar region.
Available for oil and natural gas.
Now, I guess he did that in his first administration and Biden canceled it.
So we'll see if the oil drilling companies are willing to take the risk that it gets canceled again.
Because I suppose if you get another Democrat president, things would look dicey.
But at the moment, it looks like there's going to be a bunch of changes that are making it easier to get energy out of that part of the world.
Which could make a big difference.
Speaking of which, according to Newsmax, Lee Barney is reporting, there's a big drop in oil prices from a year ago.
Oil is 28% lower than it was a year ago.
And oil went down another 3% just recently because of the fears of the trade talks.
So, oil going down is a pretty big deal.
And so Brent oil is trading around $64 per barrel.
And somebody who knows what they're talking about says that by the end of 2026, by the end of next year, we could be at $55 per barrel.
So the direction for inflation looks pretty darn good.
And by the way, this would be a counterbalance to whatever the tariff problem is.
So if you're going to have a tariff fight with China, the very best environment you could do it in is where inflation is under control and there's a gigantic probable lowering of energy costs during the same period that you're negotiating.
So that would certainly take a lot of sting out of any tariffs.
I mean, it's going to affect people differently, so the people who are most affected by the tariffs may not get most of the benefit.
But at least on a country level, that would be a pretty strong negotiating position.
Here's some science that's kind of cool.
According to Live Science, Roland Moore Collier is writing.
That there's a breakthrough to allow you to physically manipulate 3D holograms so that you could touch them and move them around with your hand.
I'm not sure if you could feel them.
That was a little unclear.
But you could physically manipulate them.
Now, apparently, it's sort of in the early experimental stage, but they've created a demonstration.
So if they can do it in a demonstration, it's probably pretty real.
Assuming the demonstration is not fake, it could be.
But imagine that.
Now, what do you think would be different if we could manipulate holograms?
Do you think that people are going to have a hologram boyfriend?
Because if you add AI to a physically manipulative...
Manipulatable hologram.
It's even better than a robot because you can just turn it off and it'll go away.
But you can have like a living room boyfriend that's only in the living room because that's where your 3D hologram is.
And you can make your boyfriend only a few inches tall in case you want to not be bothered too much.
I don't know.
I still think there's some possibility that the UFO sightings are some kind of hologram.
I'm not going to commit to that, but let me broaden that to say one possibility for the UFOs is that they're somehow projected from somewhere else.
And they look like physical objects, but maybe they're something like a hologram.
Why? I don't know.
But I wouldn't rule it out.
According to news reports, well, Trump is saying this, Mexico owes Texas like 1.3 million acre feet of water, and he's going to tariff Mexico if they don't pay up.
So apparently there's some kind of long-term agreement, 1944 treaty, that says that South Texas farmers get a certain amount of water that must flow through Texas.
Through Tijuana area, I think.
And so at the moment, that's been cut off.
I'm not sure why.
But Trump says if they don't fix that really fast, he's going to escalate with tariffs and maybe even sanctions.
So we'll see.
Were you wondering if the Chinese investors would panic before the American investors?
Well, American investors, according to today, they're just saying, well, our stock market's sold enough and it's kind of stabilized.
Now, that doesn't mean it'll last to the end of the day.
I'm not predicting anything.
And I'm not predicting it won't wildly jump around as there's more negotiating.
But if you want to know what's happening in China, according to Reuters, the government just told the biggest money traders That they can't sell too many Chinese stocks in a day or they'll shut them down.
So if you're a big investor in China and you were thinking, hmm, this would be a good time to sell all of my China stock while you're a Chinese company, China just told you, yeah, if you do that, we're going to put you out of business.
So is China panicked?
And that's pretty good.
Pretty good threat, isn't it?
That will put you out of business.
So it looks like China can control the selling of their stock market.
I guess you shouldn't be too surprised by that.
But that would give, in theory, that would put a bigger risk on the American side because the Americans don't do that sort of thing.
And I guess U.S. Put that 125% tariff on China, and they just reciprocated with 125% tariff.
So we're going to tariff each other like crazy.
But according to AFP, the US dollar has dropped kind of hard, dropping nearly 2%, just last day, I guess, at least against the euro.
So is that a big deal?
That the U.S. dollar has gotten weaker?
2%?
I don't know.
I suppose if it keeps going, it's a big deal.
Yeah.
So anyway, the trade escalation continues.
So we'll see how that goes.
Here's a story that's hard to believe, but it looks like it's true.
The New York Post is reporting, Ronnie Reyes is writing about this, that some time ago, I think it was during the Biden administration, there was a meeting between China and the U.S. in which China acknowledged its role in years of cyber attacks against the United States as retaliation over its support for Taiwan.
Now, it's not surprising that it was happening.
It's surprising that the Chinese said it just directly, you know, a complete confession right to the Americans in a private meeting.
Now, that's kind of mind-blowing, isn't it?
That years of cyber attacks, they're like, yeah, we've been cyber attacking you for years over your Taiwan policy.
Now, obviously, the implication is that you can't stop us.
And that we have this ability to hack you anytime we want.
So that is one scary kind of a threat.
And you have to throw that threat into the tariff negotiations as well.
And to me, this is just one more evidence that our relationship with China is an abusive relationship.
If it were a personal relationship, you would say, you need to get out of that relationship.
You know that you're being abused over and over, right?
They're just cyber hacking you and then bragging about it.
They've got trade policies that are bad for you and they don't care.
They're stealing your IP every time they can get near it.
If you try to challenge them in court, there's no way to challenge them.
If that were a personal relationship, what would all of your friends recommend?
They'd recommend you get out of it.
So we'll see what happens.
But here's a more risk.
According to the Epoch Times, Jan...
Let me try to get his name right.
Jan. He's posting today that they talked to an author, the Epoch Times, and there's an author that says that China controls 95% of the key components necessary for our generic drugs.
So if China were to shut down export of those chemicals, our healthcare system would basically collapse.
We just wouldn't be able to make drugs.
So that's how dependent we are.
Now, it seems to me...
That that looks more and more like an abusive relationship.
It's like, well, there's an implied threat that if you were to leave me, bad things would happen.
Oh, yes.
Bad, bad, bad things would happen.
Your health care would collapse.
An abusive relationship.
That's, I guess, the author of the book China Rx is where that came from.
So here's what I think.
So using that same frame, I do believe that we're in an abusive relationship, meaning that not only are things, you know, unbalanced and unfair, but like an abusive relationship,
You can't negotiate your way to a better situation.
If you're with somebody, let's say you're living with somebody who's an abuser, have you ever tried to negotiate with them?
How'd that work out?
It doesn't work.
There's no such thing as a negotiation with an abuser.
They're just abusers.
And China seems very intent on continuing to be the abuser.
I think our path with China is very similar to the path that you would see in an abusive personal relationship.
You can either put up with it because you think the risk of not putting up with it is too great.
You might lose your health care.
You might get cyber attacked.
They might take Taiwan 10 minutes later.
All of our costs would go up.
I mean, these are real serious, seriously big problems.
So what do you do?
Stay in the abusive relationship?
Is that how you'd play it if it were your personal relationship?
Because it's the same thing.
If you leave me, I will hunt you down and beat you up.
You'll never get a job.
You'll be poor forever.
Your children will starve.
Sound familiar?
So you can either put up with that, and it might even worsen over time, because why would the abuser fix anything?
Because the abuser's happy.
Or, you can risk everything to stop it.
You can risk everything.
That's what it's looking like.
So our two choices, you know, under a normal situation, and I'll take you to an abnormal situation in a moment, but under a normal situation, you either put up with it forever, and it just gets worse, and that's what we were doing, or you risk everything.
You risk everything to get out of it.
Trump is pushing us to risk everything to get out of it.
Is he wrong?
What's the thing that the Democrats hate about Trump?
He's a bully.
He's a strong man.
He's a dictator.
Right? But boy, do you need that now.
Because if you're in an abusive relationship with someone else, Who do you call to help you get out of it?
You call somebody who's a bigger bully.
There's no other way because you're not going to be able to do it.
You need a bigger bully.
Trump's a bigger bully and we've never seen anybody like it.
Now, is it a good idea to risk everything?
I'm not even going to say this.
I'm just going to say those are your choices.
Suck it up.
And be abused for the rest of whatever's left of the United States, which might not last long, since China seems to have designs on controlling the world.
Or you risk everything.
Doesn't mean you lose everything.
Doesn't mean you lose everything.
Because sometimes you can scare a bully away, but you have to be the bigger bully by far.
So, what do you do?
So those are two choices you don't want, right?
And it's really easy to do the do-nothing choice and just put up with it and just...
It gets worse, but then you get used to it.
You just put up with it until your country is toast.
But you hope it's not today.
You're just trying to get through today.
Or you risk everything to put an end to it.
Now, I have a hypothesis that the way, and this wouldn't be for every single person, but if you don't have a direct trading relationship with China, in which case you would be biased toward your own business interests,
which would be fine, I think how you see the situation of this abusive relationship is that you would handle it the same way you would do it in person.
In other words, if you're the kind of person who says, God, I'm just going to put up with the abuse, then you're probably the same person who says, why can't we just get along with China?
Just sort of do what we were doing before and keep asking if they'll do better.
That's probably what you would do in your personal relationship, because that would be your level of risk for that sort of thing.
But there are other people who would say, you know what?
I've reached the end of my...
Patience. I'm going to risk everything.
Might he kill me?
Yes. But it's better than this life.
It's better than this life.
And there are a lot of you like that.
How many of you have dealt with a bully the only way you can?
Some of you.
How many of you have been in an abusive relationship and said, you know what?
I'm going to walk out of here with my bare fucking feet.
Because I'm done.
I'm just fucking done.
That's some of you.
So, it's just a hypothesis, but I'll bet you the way you would deal with an abusive relationship in person has a lot to do with how you're looking at this China situation.
I'll bet there's a pretty good Venn diagram overlap.
And so I'm going to offer you a trap door, an escape.
I'm going to offer you another option, one that's not on the table right now.
So this is the hypnotist take.
So if I were in charge, I would use my hypnosis background to say, all right, if you only have two choices, put up with the abuse or risk everything to get away.
How could you invent some new options that just don't seem to exist?
And I'll give you a couple.
One option would be to negotiate with China and say, here's the deal, China.
We'd like to treat you more like a peer and treat you with complete respect.
So you have a take on trade that you think whatever you're doing is fair.
We think it's not.
Let's negotiate in public.
Let's put all of your trade practices in the public domain, maybe the UN, maybe some other kind of public structure, and we're going to show what it is that you have been doing, and then we're going to tell you what we think would be a fair situation.
Will you negotiate with us in public?
What are they going to say?
They're going to say no.
And then you keep at it.
No. Let's do this in public.
Because China, we don't want to be your enemy.
We want a good trade deal.
If you can't do it in public, that's going to say a lot.
We're going to put all of our terms in public.
Everything we want, we're going to publicize, we're going to explain why, and we're going to tell you what the context is.
Will you do the same?
And put them in a position...
Where they simply have to defend their position.
Because right now, if you say, China is giving us bad trade deals.
Maybe somebody knows what a tariff is.
Maybe they don't.
Maybe some people know how bad the theft of IP property is.
Maybe they don't.
Maybe people know that if you went to China and tried to use their justice system to fix, let's say, an IP theft, you wouldn't even get...
A phone call return.
There's no process at all.
And so, and if you looked at other restrictions and other risks, and if you looked at the surveillance that they do of any American who goes over there, you can't even bring your phone.
I mean, imagine a country where you can't even bring your phone or your laptop because there's a 100% chance they're going to hack into it.
Imagine dealing with a company that if you...
Make a product that is successful, but you're making it in China.
The very first thing they're going to do is steal it.
And they're going to make that same product.
They're going to run the factory all night to make more of the fake one than you're paying them to make the real one.
And then they're going to compete with you.
And you're going to say, hey, it looks like you just ran my own factory that I was paying you to make my stuff.
It looks like you just ran it for extra hours and then put it on Amazon and you're just competing with me with my own stuff against me.
And you know what China would say?
Take it up with our courts that don't return your phone calls.
Ever. Not sometimes.
Ever. There's no path.
So, how many people know that?
How many people know how unsafe it is to do business in China?
Well, some people know it.
Let's do it in public.
Let's put it all in public.
Now, if they fight the idea of doing it in public, that would be kind of embarrassing.
And it would also sort of force us to be the ones who described their practices in public without their defense.
They wouldn't have any defense to it.
Here's another one.
So we could do that, but we could also do the following.
We could tell China, China, I think we've been maybe unnecessarily disrespectful to you.
Wait for it.
Just wait for it.
We've been a little bit insulting, and we've been a little bit disrespectful.
And I think that we've been trying to get you to change.
In ways that you don't want to change.
And we're not the boss of you, China.
China's a great nation with a great future and a great history.
And China should be allowed to be China.
So this would be the let China be China approach.
And you say to them, we think you should be China and just be China any way you want to be China.
Just continue to be exactly like you are.
However, we'd like to announce that our long-term position is to do a friendly, friendly, respectful unwinding of all association with China.
We'd like to unwind all of our business, but some of it's going to take years, such as the pharmaceuticals and the drugs business, and some of it might happen a little faster.
But there's no offense.
We're going to do this with complete respect.
We agree that your position is one that you can take.
So rather than trying to embarrass you or bully you or negotiate you into a compromised position that you don't want to do, we think that was a big mistake.
Because it didn't really understand the power and the interests of China.
And from now on, we'd like to let China be China.
Alone. Without us.
And if you don't mind, we'll continue buying things from you where it makes sense, but we're going to unwind as much of the business as possible, as quickly as possible, in the friendliest way possible.
So we'd like to remain good, let's say, good relations, but without any trade.
Because let China be China.
China is an aggressive, tough, highly respected country, and if you'd like to be China without any pushback from the rest of the world, we accept that.
So we accept your terms, and we hope you don't mind if we unwind completely.
So, two possibilities that are not on the table.
Negotiate in public or agree to a friendly, completely respectful, complete unwinding of business over time.
So that's how a hypnotist would approach it.
So you'd give them some options that were never on the table.
Because if you deal with the options that are on the table, you're going to get the same result everybody ever got, which is, do you want to do a deal?
No. We don't have to.
But please?
No. But it's bad for us.
We know.
But it's super good for you while being bad for us.
Do you understand that?
Yeah, we got it.
You can't live in that frame.
You have to change the frame.
So if China wants to be China, let's let China be China.
We don't need to change them.
All right, let's get back to America here.
I'm loving watching the news people explain why they were so bad at doing their jobs.
And the best example, of course, is the Biden brain situation where they pretended they couldn't notice.
So now we've got Chris Silliza, who used to be on CNN.
He's not anymore, but he was...
He was what I'd call an anti-Trump specialist.
I used to talk about him all the time in the first term, in the first election.
And he said that the reason that he didn't cover the Biden brain story was it wasn't any kind of intentional activism.
He said that we simply didn't push hard enough to get around the smokescreen from the Biden people.
What smokescreen?
You and I and everybody with a television set could see Biden was falling apart from, I think I started saying it in 2019, and I wasn't alone.
There were plenty of other people saying, what are we seeing there?
That doesn't look right.
And then they started hiding him.
I don't think that could have been any more obvious.
And his schedule was basically...
The schedule is he's not doing any work today.
He's going to go to the beach again.
It could not have been more obvious to everybody watching, and you're telling me that the only people who couldn't notice were the people who, quote, didn't push hard enough to get through the smoke screen?
The fact that the news is trying to blame the insiders for protecting them is unbelievable.
I mean, I wonder how much of this they believe on their own.
Like, in their own minds, do they think that's true?
Or do they know that it's like a ridiculous rationalization?
I don't know.
So Trump had a cabinet meeting yesterday, and I saw a summary by Insurrection Barbie on X about some of the good news out of there.
And there was some news.
Some pretty big news.
So Brooke Rollins talked about the terrible position that Biden left the farmers in.
She explained that there's been a 30% increase in input costs and that the previous administration left them with a $50 billion trade deficit, even though that was zero when Biden took office.
$50 billion deficit when it started at zero.
And so they're working on overcoming those issues.
So basically, the Biden administration, with Biden's broken brain, just let our food supply just be in tatters by the time he was done.
And the Trump administration is working hard to fix that.
Brooke Rollins appears to be a superstar in the administration, so that's looking good.
Then Tulsi Gabbard had some updates, which were all individually interesting, especially about things like RFK files and the JFK assassination files.
Those are being prepped for release.
I don't know when, but that's interesting.
But the most interesting part, this is from Tulsi Gabbard, so this is your government talking.
So this is not Podcaster.
This is not some rogue person with an opinion.
This is your government.
Your sitting government says that the electronic voting machines have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and that they've been vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation of election results and they're continuing to investigate.
That's the government saying that.
The voting machines were vulnerable and have been for a very long time.
And I think there was something said about they were not even designed to modern cybersecurity standards.
Now, that does not mean that they've identified any problems with other elections.
So one of the questions you can say, but wait, the voting machine people have sued people who said that.
There were problems.
They've sued people who said there were specific problems, like there was a specific manipulation.
That's not what Tulsi Gabbard is saying.
Tulsi Gabbard is saying that by their nature, by their design, they would have some vulnerabilities.
So it's not about a specific claim.
And she puts it in the context of working toward Trump's goal of having a paper ballot, kind of a same-day election, because if you don't debunk the safety of voting machines, it's going to be hard to talk anybody into getting rid of them.
So, to me, that's a big deal.
It's a really big deal.
Now, how long have I been telling you...
That there's no way to protect a cyber device like that.
To me, it just seems obvious.
You wouldn't have to be some expert in cybersecurity to know that these older machines that have been hacked by hackers in a variety of different forums, you wouldn't have to know the specifics.
If you knew anything about technology, you would say, I don't think they've invented anything you can't hack if you had access.
A lot of hacking involves somebody, a physical person being let in to do a physical thing, or an insider who just has access as an insider.
So whenever you've got insiders or the possibility of physical access, it just seems like you have a hackable situation.
It wouldn't matter if you're talking about election machines or...
ATMs or any other machine.
RFK Jr. at the same meeting said that he's going to have an answer on the likely cause of the spike in autism by September.
He points out that the autism rate when he was a kid was 1 in 10,000 but now it's 1 in 31. Oh my God.
1 in 31?
I mean, I've been sort of tracking this issue forever.
But 1 in 31?
1 in 31. There's clearly something in the air or the water or the food or the medicines or something.
Clearly. But his promise that we'll know by September what is the likely cause of it?
I don't know about that.
Don't know about that.
Because that would assume that we have the right kind of data.
Do you believe we have, or that we could have by September, the right kind of data?
I'll tell you my, let's say my, I don't want to say common sense, but based on the totality of my experience working with data, because I used to do that before I did this.
I think there are too many variables.
It might be possible to tease out the right answer.
But by September?
I don't know.
It's pretty aggressive.
So you might think he already knows the answer and maybe there's a domain in which there is data if you just took the time to look at it.
So, I mean, I have a high degree of trust that RFK Jr. wouldn't say it unless he meant it.
And that he really believed that we could do that.
So that would be a hell of a thing.
Just imagine that.
Honestly, that would be one of the greatest achievements in American history.
If he pulls that off.
Do you think he will?
He might.
He might pull that off.
But by far it would be the most useful thing anybody in the Kennedy family had ever done.
Would you agree with that?
That there would be nothing in the entire Kennedy legacy from, you know, the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Pick whatever you want.
That would be the most important thing that any Kennedy had ever done.
So I'm rooting for him.
Rooting hard.
He also wants to get soda out of these SNAP programs so that poor people can't use your tax money on soda.
He wants to get fluoride out of the water.
Apparently there's evidence that it lowers IQ and he wants to improve school lunches.
Those all sound pretty good to me.
Pretty good.
So that's going on.
According to Just the News, they've got some good article there on there's some new declassified material about that Russia collusion hoax from long ago.
That Kash Patel just gave to Congress.
Now, I don't know how much of this is new-new and how much of it is sort of telling us what we already knew, but I didn't know about this.
So apparently Grok was asked to summarize it, so here's what Grok said about it.
One of the documents contains handwritten notes by former CIA Director John Brennan in July 2016.
So carefully note the date.
July 2016.
And it details a briefing to Obama and senior officials.
So what Brennan knew in 2016, Obama knew, because he got briefed, and the senior officials did.
So they all knew this.
And it suggested that Hillary Clinton's campaign approved the plan to tie Trump to Russian interference in the election.
Allegedly to distract from her email scandal.
And the notes outline the concerns about Russian knowledge of this strategy and indicate discussions within the intelligence community about its implications.
So in 2016, Brennan, Obama, and their closest top advisors knew that Hillary Clinton was running an op.
And the thing they were worried about is that Russia would find out about the op.
Brain exploding.
Really? The thing they were worried about is that Russia would find out about the op?
They weren't worried about the op?
They weren't worried about an insurrection to remove or to change the election?
I don't even know what to say about that.
It's exactly what you thought it was.
From the very beginning, I said to myself, that John Brennan guy, there's something wrong there.
Does he really think the Russia collusion thing is real?
And the answer was, apparently not.
Apparently not.
And I won't get into the rest of it, but let's say some of the highlights are they knew that the Carter-Page thing was, they went too far and they knew this stuff was left out.
Trying to drag him in there.
Let's see.
They knew that the case that they were trying to put together about General Flynn.
They knew early on that there was no evidence that he'd done anything whatsoever.
None. And yet they talked about continuing it based on no evidence.
Not a little bit of evidence, but based on none.
They continued to say maybe they should keep looking, which suggests that they were just trying to jail him as opposed to worried about actually any crime.
Un-freaking-believable.
So that was exactly what you thought.
Yeah, there were notes from some FBI official expressing concern about the FBI's approach with Flynn, suggesting internal unease about the investigation's tactics.
Yeah, there was a little unease about that.
There should have been.
In other news, you remember the Central Park Five story?
I won't give you the whole background there, but you remember that long before Trump was in politics, he did a editorial.
He bought a page of the New York Times and said that the death penalty should be brought back.
Now, he didn't mention the Central Park Five.
But the news assumed that that's what he meant, and they acted like he had essentially blamed them for being guilty when they were later cleared by the courts.
Now, when I say they were cleared by the courts, that doesn't mean that I know that they were guilty or innocent.
I wouldn't know.
I wasn't there.
But there was not evidence, according to the court, to convict them.
So, the lawsuit, is about what Trump said during a debate in 2024.
And the courts have ruled that the lawsuit can go forward because Trump said something about this situation during the debate that can be objectively determined to be false.
Now, that doesn't mean that you broke a law or anything, but it suggests there's enough of a...
Enough meat there to have a trial.
So here's what Trump said when, I guess it was Kamala brought up the Central Park Five.
Trump said during the debate, quote, they admitted, they said they pled guilty.
Now that never happened.
They never pled guilty.
And I said, well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately.
The person was not killed, but was badly injured.
And he said, and if they pled guilty, and they pled, we're not guilty.
Anyway, so he was basically just riffing on it, and it sounds like he didn't remember the details.
Can you be sued for defamation if you're just honestly wrong about the details of a thing that happened?
I think you have to have intent, don't you?
Or... Or if it's not intent, you have to show some kind of seriousness about not defaming somebody, basically.
Some seriousness that you're trying to be accurate and you're not haphazardly just throwing things around.
I don't think they're going to be able to show that anything happened other than he remembered it wrong.
Because it doesn't even sound like his normal hyperbole.
It literally just sounds like he remembered it wrong.
So I can't believe that he would lose that.
But again, lawsuits are endless.
The lawfare.
According to Sky News, Tom Clark is writing that the amount of electricity needed to power the world's data centers, mostly because of the AI load, Is expected to double in five years.
Do you think we're going to have twice as much electricity in five years?
Well, probably not.
So what are we going to do?
I'm going to add my prediction to this.
I predict that there will be sufficient innovations in energy reduction for AI specifically.
In other words, that the technologists will find ways...to not need nearly as much energy for AI.
And that will be fine.
Do you know the law of slow-moving disasters?
It's called the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters because I named it after myself.
It says that if you can see a disaster and everybody can see it, it's not like some secret two people see it, but if we can all see it, if we can all see the problem coming...
We have a really good record of dealing with it.
Really good.
100%. We're still here.
So this would be on the border of an existential threat if we didn't have enough energy to run AI.
Because even if you said, but Scott, we'll just turn off the AI and everything will be fine.
Well, then you lose to China and somebody else has AI and that's an existential threat.
The fact that we have at least five years suggests to me that we'll be fine.
How? I don't know specifically.
But I think I've told you, I don't know, maybe ten different stories recently about some breakthrough or some potential breakthrough to lower the energy you need to do AI.
And then DeepSeek apparently found some workarounds too.
So I think that...
If you just straight line how much energy we'll need, that's misleading because it's hard to know how many innovations will be in lowering energy need.
Nagoya University discovered that they can instantly cure motion sickness with a 100 hertz sound, which is well within normal hearing levels.
So it wouldn't hurt you.
And apparently it's been tested.
So, this is after you already have the motion sickness.
All they do is strap on the headphones and play the sound, and it just instantly takes away your motion sickness.
Now, that's the claim.
But I get, you know, obviously they'll do some more testing.
But wouldn't that be cool?
I don't have motion sickness, but I've always said I'm so lucky.
Because how many times have you gotten in a car or a vehicle with somebody who does, and you know they're not happy at all?
It's pretty common.
A lot of people have motion sickness.
So even though I don't, this seems like a big deal to me.
If they could fix it with a sound, because then you could just put it on your phone and put your headphones in and instantly feel better.
Wow. New York Post says there's some new footage but it's from 2023 of another tic-tac shaped UFO that's on military radar.
So do you think they found another UFO that looks like a tic-tac?
Tic-tac?
I don't know.
I'm going to say no.
I don't believe the tic-tac stuff are UFOs.
I don't know what they are.
But I'm going to guess anything but a UFO.
Or at least anything but an alien ship.
They might be unidentified, but I don't think there are any alien ships that look like Tic Tacs.
I might be wrong.
Never know.
The Trump administration is not going to crack down on the NVIDIA's HTO chip.
That's their advanced chip for AI.
And there was some thought that they would limit Their ability to sell it to China, for example.
China's a big market for these chips.
But apparently NVIDIA was smart enough to develop a crippled version of the chip.
So there's a lesser powerful one that they've already developed that they would sell to China instead of the best one for America.
So I guess that would be good enough.
As long as it's crippled, Trump doesn't have to block it.
That's good, because that's a gigantic market.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.
I think we've solved everything from the economy to inflation to how to feel better by thinking about nature.
I may have come close to solving some of your motion sickness.
All right.
Very successful day, I would say.
So I'm going to talk to the local subscribers personally and the rest of you.
I'll see you tomorrow.
Same time, same place.
Thanks for joining on YouTube and Rumble and X. Come back tomorrow.
Export Selection