God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Letitia James, Mortgage Fraud Criminal Referral, Bill Pulte, Melinda French Gates, Biden's Angry Dementia Lying, Harvard Funding Battle, AI Companions, Cory Booker, Abrego Garcia MS-13 Dispute, MAGA Hat Student Attacked, Tariff Progress, Hong Kong Mail, China's New Trade Negotiator, China Boeing, Pharma Tariffs, Deep State Stalling Strategy, Trump Fascism Allegations, General Flynn, Lee Zeldin, Sulfur Dioxide Geoengineering, US Debt Default, US Debt Doom Spiral, 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.
In Skull& Coffee with Scott Adams, you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of can, a tank of Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine today, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. The technology is not working today.
That's the way I like it.
Well, I wonder if there's any science that looks sketchy.
Turns out there is.
So, according to The Guardian, British hospitals have decided that if you give the patients way more medication than they used to, they could cut deaths by 62%.
They say it's a game-changer, and it might be.
What is the first question you would ask if you saw a study that says, oh, it turns out if you just gave people way more of the stuff you're already giving them, that would be even better?
Well, I would suspect the companies that are making those drugs, you're already giving them.
But somebody did some research when I posted on this and said, no, it's just a data entity.
So an entity that's just trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
But the data entity is part of a bigger pharma.
Do you think that anyone in that larger pharma...
Do you think any of them provide any drugs that you give to people for heart failure?
I don't know.
But my pattern recognition says, did you see the study about, was it OxyContin?
And when people were getting bad results with OxyContin, they decided that the solution was to give them way more.
Whenever you see science that says, you know what?
You should take way more of this medication.
I just automatically say, I don't know.
I'm going to need to know a lot more about who did that study.
So that's the first thing you should ask.
All right, here's another one.
I wonder if they could have done this in a faster, more efficient way.
But according to Eric Dolan on SciPost, Political overconfidence worsens polarization in online debates.
So apparently, if you believe you know a lot about politics, but you might be sort of exaggerating your own ability, you get extra mad when you talk to people who have different opinions.
Do you know what they could have done instead of this study?
They could have just asked me.
Just ask Scott.
Yes, if you talk to somebody who's really sure that their view of the world and politics is correct and yours is not, they will get quite worked up if you give them an encounter to what they think they believe.
Yep, it's the Dunning-Kruger for politics.
The overconfidence effect, they call it.
Yeah, you don't want to talk to somebody who's overconfident about politics.
High blood pressure mystery.
I've always believed that high blood pressure was not fully understood.
And I don't know if this explains it, but since it agrees with me, I'm going to tell you about it.
So according to the University of Waterloo, generally speaking, if you had high blood pressure, they tell you to eat less salt.
Has anybody had that experience?
Eat less salt.
And apparently that works, or they wouldn't recommend it.
But apparently the University of Waterloo figured out that maybe what's more important than less salt is the ratio of salt to dietary potassium.
So if you eat bananas and broccoli, which have potassium in them, you might be better off than lowering your salt.
Because what you need is a good balance of potassium to sodium.
So I don't know if that's true.
Half of all scientific studies are not reproducible.
But I like this one because I like bananas and I like broccoli.
It's a perfect example of how people accept or don't accept science.
If this is said, yeah, you've got to eat...
I don't know.
Some kind of food I don't like.
I couldn't even think of anything because I like pretty much all food.
But I really like bananas and broccoli.
I eat a banana and a broccoli almost every day.
So, yeah, I believe the science because I like bananas and broccoli.
Well, this one surprises me.
The UK Supreme Court...
Just ruled that transgender women are not legally defined as women, according to the Telegraph.
I don't know what they are defined as, but they're not going to be defined as women in the UK.
Now, doesn't that surprise you?
Because I thought the UK was so cooked that they would just go for every woke thing in the world.
But apparently not.
So they said transgender women are not legally defined as women.
Don't you wonder if there's any kind of Trump effect?
You know, do you think that the things that are happening in the United States just sort of bleed over into the consciousness of other countries?
I just wonder if they would have had the same ruling if things were different in the United States.
All right, here's my favorite story.
I just love this story.
Now, I don't want to do, you know, full schadenfreude.
Where you feel good about bad things that happen to other people.
But if those other people are bad people, I feel like a little bit of schadenfreude wouldn't be terrible, would it?
Would it?
So here I'm going to feel good about something that's bad for somebody who is a bad person.
Do you remember Letitia James who went after Trump in New York?
Because Trump...
Allegedly inflated the value of some of his properties to get good loans.
Now, the bank that gave him the loan said nothing like that happened.
They said they'd do their own research to figure out how much the properties are worth.
They don't take the word of the applicant.
So there was nothing really like that that happened, but she still managed to get her away, and Trump was Find a tremendous amount of money.
Now it turns out that Bill Pulte, his new job is U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director, and that gave him apparently access to some records,
and he's referred New York Attorney General Letitia James to the Department of Justice for alleged mortgage fraud.
So here are the three things she's accused of.
One, calling her home in Virginia, her primary residence, because that gets you better treatment.
But of course, it couldn't be, because she's literally the Attorney General of New York.
So she has a New York home.
But the New York home, I don't know if this is the one she lives in, but she has a New York property that she says has four units.
It really has five, but apparently you get better treatment, I think, for taxes if you say it's four.
So she lied and said it was five.
That's fraud number two.
And then I listened to Jonathan Turley this morning talking about it, and for one of these applications, she listed her father as her husband.
Which somehow should have gotten her better terms.
I don't know how.
Just saying she's married, maybe.
So, and also according to Jonathan Turley, it is completely normal that these exact crimes, if they turn out to be real, that these exact crimes people are prosecuted for all the time.
So, it might be the ideal situation.
That the person who went after Trump with a bunch of lawfare was doing the same thing.
You know, in a different way, but mortgage fraud, basically.
And I would argue that hers is different than what Trump did, because it doesn't look like anybody was going to do their own work and check on her stuff.
So with Trump's stuff, if he says my building's worth this or that, he would know that in that situation the bank would check for themselves to see what a piece of property is worth.
But I don't think anybody was checking that Virginia was her primary residence or wasn't.
I don't think anybody's job it was to check that she had four units instead of five in a New York property.
And probably nobody's job was to check to see if her husband was her father.
So Trump was in a situation where he couldn't have possibly defrauded anybody because the normal process that everybody knows, everybody knows, is that the bank checks for themselves on the value of a property.
But they don't check on this stuff.
Sounds like they take your word for it if you say it's four living units instead of five.
Although I'm surprised they don't check on it, but it looks like they don't.
Well, Melinda French Gates was on CNN.
We're talking about Bill Gates X. And you know there's nothing more dangerous than a divorced billionaire because they have unlimited money and they feel like they have to do things with it.
And my God, does it not work out.
But one of the things that Melinda French Gates said on CNN was, quote, This is part of the reason for her activism, that she wants to be involved and kind of an activist, because, quote, my two granddaughters don't have as many rights now as I did growing up.
Now, she didn't give any examples, but I don't want her granddaughters to have fewer rights than she did.
Maybe she could give us an example?
Is it all about...
Abortion? Because if you happen to be the granddaughter of Melinda French Gates, I'm pretty sure you could take an airplane anywhere you wanted to get the treatment you wanted from anybody.
I don't think it's a problem if you're this rich.
So, do they really have fewer rights?
And then I saw somebody replying on X saying, well, her granddaughters can't have automatic weapons like she could when she was a kid.
And I thought, huh, that's actually a pretty good example.
We don't have the right to automatic weapons, at least as easily.
So that's probably not what she was thinking, though.
But I keep seeing these weird Democrat accusations without details.
It's like, ah, he's a fascist.
Anyway, did any of you see the...
The recording of Joe Biden, his first speech since he left office.
Oh my God, I forgot how much I hated him.
I hate him.
I just have full hatred for him.
Now, of course, he's dumb old Biden.
So he goes up when the loud music is playing.
And he starts his speech while the loud music is still playing.
And somehow he was the only person in the entire place who couldn't tell.
That nobody could hear him because he was talking at the same time as the really loud music that introduced him.
He was so out of it that he just starts talking over the loud music as if anybody could hear that.
It was like, oh, God.
And then he did his angry dementia lying.
Let's see.
Here are some of his best ones.
He said that Trump is going to cut your Social Security.
There's no evidence of that whatsoever, and Trump says exactly the opposite, and so did Doge.
But he just gets up there and he just says it, you know, like it's a fact or something.
And you forget what a liar Biden is, like just a shameless liar, because that's not true.
But if the ex-president says it's true, people are going to think it's true.
Just shameless.
And then he basically said that Doge is moving fast and breaking things.
And, oh, sure enough, they're breaking things.
And it says they want to break everything so they can steal for their friends and get them lower taxes.
Like, that doesn't even make sense.
What exactly are they going to break to give their friends lower tax rates?
How does that even work?
Is there something in the government I could break?
Like, if I figured out what it was, they would give me lower taxes.
It's just ridiculous.
It's just ridiculous lying.
And it's old man yelling at the sun.
Oh, my God.
I'm so glad he's not president anymore.
Well, as you know, President Trump and his administration have a little battle with Harvard.
So before giving Harvard the funding that the government normally gives it for research, and some say that research is super valuable and provides way more value to the economy than the annual funding.
I don't know about that, but that's a claim.
But what Trump wants is he wants them to get rid of their DEI and work harder against anti-Semitism.
And have hiring and standards that are based on merit as opposed to DEI.
But Harvard has decided that it will fight this.
And it got two really good lawyers.
And so they're going to fight it.
And their argument is we're a private business.
And you can't tell us what to do or say.
It's up to us who we hire and why.
And it's up to us what we say or allow people to say and why.
Because we're private.
To which I say, you know what, I agree with that.
I agree with that.
So I think the funding should be entirely based on whether it's good for the public.
So if they want to be terrible, I feel like they have a right to do that.
I do feel that this is a bit of an overreach for the government to tell this private entity how they should be operating.
Now, I do think the private entity is operating in a terrible, destructive, just horrible way.
But they do have the right to be horrible.
It's not illegal.
Now, the DEI part is illegal, but...
They argue that they should be able to have their own standards and blah, blah, blah.
But here's the funny part.
So Trump did this extended post on truth.
And he's just so wonderfully insulting that I just want to read the whole thing, if you don't mind.
So this is Trump on Harvard.
Harvard lost its way.
Defund it.
Trump says...
Everyone knows that Harvard has lost its way.
They hired from New York Bill de Blasio and Chicago Lori Lightfoot at ridiculously high salaries and fees, two of the worst and most incompetent mayors in the history of our country, to teach municipal management and government.
Now, I'd never heard that before.
Had you heard that Harvard had hired the two worst mayors in the history of the country?
To teach the rest of the students municipal management and government?
That doesn't even seem like it could be true, does it?
But if it is true, it's funny.
And then Trump goes on.
He says, these two radical left fools left behind two cities that will take years to recover from their incompetence and evil.
Harvard has been hiring almost all woke, radical-left idiots and birdbrains who are only capable of teaching failure to students and so-called future leaders.
Now, I agree with everything he's saying, but, you know, there are certain rights you've got to accept.
He goes, look, just in the recent past, that they're plagiarizing president.
Who so greatly embarrassed Harvard before the United States Congress.
When it got so bad that they just couldn't take it anymore, they moved this grossly inept woman into another position, teaching, rather than firing her, on the spot.
Since then, much else has been found out about her, but she remains in place.
Many others, like these leftist dopes, Are teaching at Harvard, and because of that, Harvard can no longer be considered even a decent place of learning and should not be considered on any list of the world's great universities or colleges.
Harvard is a joke, teaches hate and stupidity, and should no longer receive federal funds.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Now, you might disagree with something that Trump wants to do, but he's the best writer we've ever had.
You know, I used to think that probably Thomas Jefferson was the best writer.
I mean, he wrote most of the...
I'm sorry, what was it?
What is the thing that's not the Constitution?
Well, you know.
The thing.
The thing.
I'm going to go full Joe Biden here.
I'm on some pain meds.
They're slowing down my brain quite a bit.
But I don't think it was Jefferson.
I think it was Trump.
He's the best writer.
All right.
Let's check in on AI.
Apparently, Grok.
Declaration of Independence.
Yes. Thank you.
So yeah, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, most of it.
And that was pretty good.
Sometimes I like reading the Declaration of Independence just for the writing.
And I'll read it like three or four times.
And every time I'll be like, wow.
Wow. How do you write that?
Just amazingly written.
Amazingly written.
But when I read Trump...
It's also magic, so it would be hard to compare them.
Well, Grok has a new capability.
Now you can take your documents that are in Google Drive and drop them in, and it will fully interact with your documents.
You can ask it questions, and you can have a help at it.
It can summarize.
It can refine the presentations.
And if that works...
I'm going to be using it today because I've been waiting for this.
The problem had always been, you know, ChatGPT for a long time has been able to handle a file.
I don't know if I could do Google Drive, but you could upload a file.
The trouble is that it would hallucinate what's in your file.
So it made it kind of useless.
So the thing I want to know is if Grok is going to hallucinate what's in the file.
If it doesn't, this would be a gigantic move forward.
I'm like, this would be a really big deal.
So I'll test it out later and let you know.
Did you know that Apple, of course, they turned their SIRI, I don't want to say it so it activates your devices, but they turned it into an AI version.
And apparently it's just a joke within Apple.
Even the Apple employees think that their own AI, which is barely AI, is ridiculously bad.
And I would agree.
It is ridiculously bad.
According to an article in Futurism by Frank Landymore, that they floundered so much that I don't know what they're going to do.
They're going to have to start over or something.
Now, the one thing it does do is it understands what you're saying way better.
Apple is not even in the AI space, it seems like.
So, I don't know.
I feel like they could be in a lot of trouble if they don't own AI, you know, at least have the best version of it.
And it doesn't look like they're even close or even trying to be.
So, I don't know.
I think Apple's got some real problems with AI.
Here's AI news that you knew was coming.
This is the most predictable one.
So there's a pilot program that's launching in New York State that will turn your TV, let's say you're a senior, it turns your TV screen into a personalized hub for caregiving, communication, and connections.
The New York Post has an article on this.
So if you're a qualifying older adult, You'll get devices from on-screen ink that can transform any TV into a smart caregiver platform.
So in other words, AI.
And there will be an AI person who talks to you.
But they can do things like medication reminders, daily check-ins.
They can help you connect to your loved ones, you know, phone-wise.
And then they've got this program called Joy, an AI-powered virtual companion built into it that interacts with the seniors.
Now, given the loneliness factor of seniors, this feels like, I don't know if it'll be this specific product, but don't you think that it's guaranteed that seniors are going to have some kind of AI companion helping them out?
It's just always on the TV.
It's sort of the perfect place to put it because the TV is kind of central and maybe you have more than one.
So I feel like I want one.
How many of you would want one?
Like, immediately I wanted one.
I'm not qualified because you'd have to be in New York.
But if you could have an AI personality...
That would just be taking care of you, making sure you took your meds, and maybe set up a phone call and stuff like that.
How many of you would want that?
I feel like how much you'd want it depends on how good it is.
Like if it could really have a conversation like it's just a regular person, you're going to want it.
Even if you say you don't, you're going to want it.
So I'm just going to admit, I want it.
I might prefer having it on my phone, but I want it.
Not even close, huh?
All right.
So Senator Cory Booker, who's trying to get attention, apparently talking for two days straight or whatever he did, didn't get him enough attention because nobody knows what he said.
To me, that's just hilarious.
I've got this great idea.
I'm going to talk for, how long did he talk?
How many hours?
He broke a record, right?
He talked for like 44 hours or something.
And I'm thinking, if you talk for 44 hours and literally nobody knows what you're talking about, that's the best fail you'll ever hear.
That's a complete fail.
But now, because that didn't work
Because that didn't work out.
He threatens that he's going to lead a trip to El Salvador to push for the release of that one guy from Maryland.
Kilmer Abrego Garcia, Axios, is reporting this.
And he's going to try to get him home.
Now, meanwhile, Senator Chris Van Hollen from Maryland is trying to do the same thing.
So he's also talking about traveling down there and trying to get this guy home.
Now, here's the funny part.
I haven't talked about this story at all.
And probably you wondered because it's just all over the news.
Just all over the news.
Now, the first reason is I tend not to talk about one-off stories.
Because whatever there is about this specific story, it doesn't feel like it's generalizable.
It's weird, and it's tragic, perhaps, but it doesn't feel like it's telling you anything you need to know.
It's just one situation that's unique.
But everything about what you think about that situation depends on the question of whether he's MS-13 or not.
So the Democrats say, No, he's been found not to be MS-13.
And Steve Miller will tell you, oh, he's definitely been found to be MS-13.
I guess two courts have decided that he was.
Now, it could go either way.
I admit that just because some courts found he was MS-13, that doesn't necessarily mean he is, does it?
Can people ever quit?
Is it possible he was MS-13 when he was 17 years old, but now he's in his mid-30s and hasn't had even any contact with him since that whole time?
At his core of that, I don't know.
So I don't have an opinion about whether he should be brought back or not, because it would all depend on whether I knew he was an MS-13.
And how could I possibly know that?
So I'm just watching.
You know, I'm not going to be traveling down there to free him because I just don't know.
But there is a question of whether he got due process.
As far as I know, he did because he already had deportation orders.
That sounds like pretty due process to me.
But I don't know.
I would be open to that argument that he didn't get enough.
But as far as I know, if Cory Booker...
Let's say Cory Booker leads an expedition down there.
And against all odds, he succeeds.
And they come back and the...
What's his name?
Abrego Garcia.
He's with them and he's all smiling and he's like a free man.
And then they land in the United States and ICE picks him up at the airport and just ships him back to El Salvador because apparently there's a standing deportation order.
So if he comes back, he doesn't get to stay.
He has a standing deportation order.
So ICE is just going to ship him back the minute he lands.
So I don't know.
But then I guess you could say, does he get life in prison just because he's here illegally?
Well, that seems kind of too much.
So I don't have an opinion about this whole...
Kilmer, Abrego, Garcia case, because all the things that would determine what my opinion was can't really be known by me.
So I'll just keep watching.
But I think it's hilarious that Cory Booker, he's not getting enough attention, so he's going to go all in on the MS-13 person.
Now, is it my imagination, and I can't tell if this is accidentally happening, Or the Democrats are just doing it to themselves.
Or the Republicans have found a clever way to do it to them.
Which is, every time you see that the Democrats are advocating for something, it's for something that you don't like.
It's like, are you advocating for an MS-13 guy?
Well, but it's about due process.
Okay, but it's really you advocating for an MS-13 guy, right?
Well, we don't think he's MS-13.
We don't know if he got due process.
And next thing you know, they'll be shipping Americans down to that prison.
To which I say, really?
An American citizen who didn't commit any crimes?
I don't know.
We'll talk about that.
Trump has some ideas about that.
Washington State, the college, An instructor was arrested for assaulting a student wearing a MAGA hat.
The Post Millennial is writing about this.
So apparently this guy Mahoney has strong ties to the democratic socialists of America.
So some would say a communist, but I don't know if that's fair.
But apparently he saw some guy wearing a MAGA hat and just...
He and another guy just brutally attacked him.
Now, I can't even imagine any conservative brutally attacking any Democrat for their political opinion.
Have you ever even heard of it?
But it seems rather routine for the left to attack and brutalize the right for wearing a hat.
That's crazy.
All right, let's check in on how tariffs are going.
According to Newsmax Money, Honda has decided to make 90% of its cars in the United States, the ones that are selling in the United States, and they're going to relocate their Mexico and Canada plants to the U.S. Now, that sounds like exactly what Trump wanted,
and I guess he'll be able to do this probably before the end of Trump's term.
So you're going to see at least one big company who probably can just move the machines and put them in a new facility.
So maybe Honda's just really good at the process.
So that's good.
That's exactly what Trump wanted, and it's happening.
Apparently Hong Kong is mad at Trump because he wanted to put tariffs on mail.
And then Hong Kong said, forget it, we just won't send you any mail.
So the Hong Kong Postal Service said, it won't be Washington's tax collector, and it will stop all service mail to the U.S. How many of you were getting mail from Hong Kong?
I actually do get mail from Hong Kong.
Every now and then, for business reasons.
But I feel like they could find me.
They could also email me.
Like, everybody who sends me anything physical for Hong Kong, they also have my email.
So, I don't know.
Maybe the stuff is just irrelevant.
I saw this on the Mario Knopfel post.
I get a lot of my best stories from Mario Knopfel.
And then, according to Newsweek, Trump has increased his tariffs on China to 245%, a new high, and he signed an executive order to block risky imports of processed minerals.
I don't even know what that means.
Why would imports of minerals be risky?
Is there something I don't know about minerals?
Anyway, so I'm sure there's a reason for it.
But there's one little line in the story in Newsweek that I thought was the most important one.
Now, obviously, the 245% tariff is just a response to China.
So China is acting like it's not going to quit and you can't hurt us.
And Trump is just matching their energy and saying, well, I don't know, maybe I can hurt you.
How about this?
How about that?
So it's up to 245%.
Buried in the story was this sentence, China assigned a new trade negotiator.
China assigned a new trade negotiator.
Does that sound like they don't want a deal?
Not to me.
To me, it sounds like they do want a deal, and they needed their best person to put on it, and they felt they didn't have their best person on it.
Now, of course, I'm reading between the lines.
I don't know why they...
Assigned a new trade negotiator.
But if you see it in the context of a 245% tariff, I feel like they do want to negotiate.
They want to do it quickly.
So maybe that'll work.
I saw a post by Kimball Musk, who's Elon's brother, that Boeing is now canceled in China.
So he says the great decoupling has begun, or so it seems.
So this was a post on X. So I'll just read it because he says it well.
So Kimball Musk says, the reality is that Boeing's planes that are manufactured in America for Americans include about 10,000 Chinese-made parts in each plane.
It's hard to even believe that that's possible.
So a Boeing plane has 10,000 Chinese-made parts?
Which parts?
Is it like every part of the seats?
And then the other way, in China they use American-made avionics and engines in their planes, as Kimball says.
Pretty important parts.
And then he says, the trade war shows a stunning misunderstanding of how global supply chains work.
While it's theoretically possible to decouple, trade is also a major driver of peace.
Meaning that if they want planes and we want planes, it's better if we don't tariff each other to death.
Because we won't get their 10,000 parts and they won't get our avionics.
Now, I completely understand what Kimball Musk is saying.
So his argument is clear.
But I just don't think you can let somebody abuse you.
Forever. At some point, you have to choose war over peace.
If the person you're having peace with is just abusing you every day.
So, I don't know.
I don't quite agree with this.
I do agree that if we could find fair trade with China, it would be way better to trade with them than not, wouldn't it?
And then we could slowly, if we wanted to, we wouldn't even want to with these...
Airplane parts, probably.
We could slowly repatriate businesses that we wanted to have.
The good ones.
The car companies and the big ones.
So, yeah.
As long as we have fair trade deals, you can get anything done.
You can get peace, etc.
So, we'll see if this new trade negotiator from China can make that happen.
At the same time, according to The Hill, the White House is launching this national security investigation into pharma and semiconductors.
Now, the read-between-the-lines part of that, according to the story, is that it's sort of the first step before Trump's going to put major tariffs on pharma.
Now, that one scares me a little bit because I don't know if I would have even noticed.
If Boeing made fewer planes for a while, I just don't even know if I'd notice.
But if I can't get, you know, normal pharmaceutical stuff, I would notice that.
So this is a tough one.
You know, the only thing that makes sense is if Trump is assuming...
That we would do some serious trade negotiations in the next few weeks so that whatever he's doing with these tariffs, they don't last that long, which would be good.
It would also be an indication that he was using it just as a negotiating tool, not as something that's a permanent situation.
So, yeah, the pharmaceuticals, that one scares me a little bit.
According to the post-millennial, The cargo going through ports in China has dropped by 9.7% in the second week of April.
So that would indicate that the tariffs that Trump is putting on China are brutally effective because 9.7% drop, that's going to get their attention.
That is not a normal drop in things.
So that's definitely got to be the tariffs working on them.
But those are some of the things our ship would be to us, so the joke's on us too.
But we'll see.
So maybe China will get a little bit closer to wanting to make a real deal.
Breitbart News says that chipmaker AMD has decided to manufacture their chips in the USA for the first time ever.
So I didn't know that.
AMD has never made chips in the United States.
I thought it was just an American chip company.
I assume that's the only place they made them.
But apparently they've never made them here.
But now, and I assume this is because of the tariffs, they're going to make them here.
So what I'm thinking is that we're going to need two paths.
One path is for stuff that you can.
Fairly expeditiously move to the United States, like cars and chip making, apparently.
And the other would be for things like the Boeing airplane parts, where it just sort of doesn't work to have a tariff on that.
It's not getting you anything you want except no airplanes.
So maybe there should be exemptions for certain businesses that...
Like pharma, pharma and airplanes, where it's not going to be very fast for them to move to the United States.
But I asked the following question.
Are the pharmaceutical companies operating in China?
Are they American-owned or European-owned, and they're just operating in China?
Or are they Chinese companies that are making the drugs and shipping them to the U.S.?
Which is it?
Now, I've heard that China leads on pharmaceutical equipment, so they can make equipment that makes pharmaceuticals better than we can.
But if we own the companies, can't we just say, all right, just everything that's on the floor here that we use to make stuff, pack it all up and move it to the United States?
Because they would own the equipment and they would own all the assets, right?
So I don't know how easy it would be for any pharma company to move to the United States.
But that would be a big question.
If there's some that can just sort of move their equipment here and then wherever the equipment is, you can make the pharmaceuticals.
But I think there's also a question of the precursors and the materials that go into making it.
And that might still be from China.
So I think China's got us on pharmaceuticals for a long time.
Well, apparently here's an accused leaker, Dan Caldwell.
He was one of the top advisors for P. Hegseth.
And he was escorted under the Pentagon, I think it was yesterday or today, after being identified during an investigation into leaks at the Department of Defense.
Now, I thought everybody leaked.
Haven't you heard that before?
There's no such thing as nobody who leaks.
Like every person in Congress, they've all got somebody they leak to so that they can get good press.
So they're basically buttering up people in the press by leaking.
So I guess he got caught, allegedly.
Laura Loomer has that scoop.
And she points out that Dan Caldwell was listed as a point of contact for the Department of Defense.
In the Mike Waltz's Signal Gate chat.
I don't know if that means he did anything wrong, but he was a point of contact for that.
All right, here's a big question that I've been asking myself lately.
Has Trump turned fascist or turned dictator?
So the arguments would be he's going after Harvard and the colleges, essentially trying to change their free speech.
By getting them to be less anti-Semitic, and that would be, you know, Trump's take on it.
So if you're going after free speech in our institutions, are you kind of a dictator fascist?
You decide.
Then there's the talk about the third term.
Now, I don't think that, I think Bannon, Steve Bannon's the one who's been saying that.
That he could serve a third term under some conditions.
Now, I don't think that's true.
I don't think he can serve a third term.
And I think it would be a huge, a huge problem if he did.
You know, it's already unsafe to be a Trump supporter, especially if you wear a hat.
But imagine how unsafe it would be if he somehow stayed in power for a third term.
That would be really, really dangerous.
Because at that point, people would say, all right, there's the proof.
You know, he violated the Constitution.
He's just going to stay.
And it wouldn't matter how clever the argument was.
You know, even if the Supreme Court said, all right, you know, it's a good point.
You found a workaround that we can't argue with.
I don't think that would happen.
But what would that look like to his supporters?
I don't want to be a supporter.
Who says he can serve a third term?
I don't want that on my record.
You know, I don't want to have a conversation with somebody who says, so, you know, are you a Trump guy?
And then I say yes.
And they say, what do you think about that third term?
I don't like it at all.
But I especially don't like it if it happens, and then the reputational damage accrues to me.
And those of you who are Trump supporters as well, that's just dangerous to me.
Like, physically, that's dangerous.
So I'm not for that at all.
I do think it might be a strategy, though.
The strategy would be that people could never be sure if they can just wait them out.
Because I think a lot of what the deep state is trying to do is like...
We can do this.
We can just wait four years, and then we'll just reverse everything with our candidates.
We'll get the Congress back.
So just hang tight.
I think that maybe Biden's strategy is to say that he might be here for a third term, so if you're going to wait him out, it's a bad strategy, because you don't know how long you're going to wait.
I don't know.
I'm just...
I'm trying to put the best face on it that I can think of because I can't read anybody's mind.
And I think Trump probably likes it because it's provocative and it makes the Democrats talk about it.
But so far, the Democrats have not really leaned into that one.
And it's the one that I think you could lean into the most effectively because it's something he's really floated.
Like the idea is actually, you know, it's out there.
Question of Trump sending Americans to El Salvador jail.
So Trump actually said to Bukele, apparently, of El Salvador, that he'd be interested in sending homegrown, meaning American criminals, to an El Salvador jail.
Now, I hope not, because again, I would be very against that.
Sending our criminals to some other country, especially if they're never going to get out, which is what I think those jails are about.
So I don't like that.
But of course, he's just speculating, right?
It's like the third term.
It's just something he's noodling on.
He's not leaning into it.
And then there's the question about whether he's friends with dictators like Putin.
And it doesn't look like it.
At the moment, it doesn't look like he's being too friendly to Putin.
He's just not able to get any kind of a deal.
I don't think there will be a deal, honestly.
The Ukraine deal.
How many of you think that there will be an actual peace deal between Russia and Ukraine while Trump's in office?
Because I don't think so.
I think it's literally an impossible situation.
Because we can't really lean on both of them as hard as we'd like to.
To force them into a deal?
And if we force them into a deal, is it going to last?
I mean, I feel like it has to be a deal that they both hate, but they know that they were the ones who made it.
And then maybe it might last.
But if oil prices get low enough, it could squeeze Russia?
Well, there are a million ways we can squeeze Russia harder.
But I don't know that that's going to make them change their strategy.
You know, because every day Putin has a good day.
I don't think Putin's having trouble paying his bills, so he seems a little insulated from that.
Anyway, I think the argument that Trump is a fascist is weak, but there are some warning signals.
There are some warning signals.
As I just mentioned.
All right, so the other day on my podcast, I was talking about the fact that Kash Patel unleashed a bunch of documents.
Now, the one I talked about was a handwritten note from John Brennan, who was head of CIA at the time, to Obama, detailing that the Hillary Clinton's campaign was going to run a Russia collusion op on Trump to distract from her own email problems.
And that their biggest concern was that Russia would find out about it.
Their biggest concern was not that it wasn't true and that Hillary was going to run an op saying it was true.
Their problem was that Russia might find out.
Now, some people said, but this is not new news.
If you'd watched Dan Bongino, you would know all about that.
And I do vaguely think...
I knew about that handwritten letter before, so I don't know that that's new.
But on my post about it, somebody clipped off, you know, did a video clip of me talking about it, and General Flynn commented on it.
So he reposted me talking about it, and he said, immediately rest for conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government the following and bring them in for questioning.
So he wants to arrest and bring in for questioning Barack Obama, John Brennan, Jim Clapper, he says he'll talk, Susan Rice, Jim Comey, and General Flynn says he'll talk, and Andrew McCabe, he'll talk.
He says, this is full-blown treason.
Yes, you're damn right.
I'm biased about this, but if these people aren't held accountable, they'll do it again and again.
Now, what exactly would be the crime?
It feels criminal.
That the sitting government was organizing essentially an insurrection against the rising candidate.
It feels kind of illegal, like maximum illegal, but I don't know exactly what crime it would be.
Do you think it will ever come to pass that Barack Obama will be brought in for questioning and John Brennan will?
If it hasn't happened yet...
I don't know.
So, I agree with General Flynn.
It seems like if you let this go, it's just going to get worse.
I think he's right about that.
But I just don't see it happening in the real world.
Do you?
Well, apparently, according to Lee Zeldin of the EPA, there's a small startup called Make Sunsets.
And apparently they're geoengineering the planet by injecting sulfur dioxide into the sky and then selling, quote, cooling credits.
So I guess that's something they can do with climate change economy.
So I guess people buy cooling credits.
That's the thing.
Anyway. Lee Zeldin says, this company is polluting the air we breathe.
I've instructed my team that we need to quickly get to the bottom of this and take immediate action.
Is that Chemtrails?
Well, if it is, this is a new company doing it.
So, whatever the old Chemtrails were, don't know.
But Lee Zeldin's all over that, trying to shut that down.
Here's an economist's view of our debt situation, which unfortunately matches my own.
And it's not good.
So this is a real working economist who goes by Dr. Insensitive Jerk.
And let me just read what he says about our debt.
Because you know how I said, I don't think Doge got anywhere close to helping us with our debt.
I mean, $150 billion is not nothing.
But it's not in the realm of helping us get out of our debt.
So this is what Dr. Insensitive Jerk the Economist says.
He says, it doesn't look like Doge will cut government enough to stave off default, but they did accomplish something unexpected.
He says, I'm an economist, and I don't know what will happen when the U.S. defaults on its debt, either overtly or by hyperinflation.
So basically, default is built into it now, because we found that we couldn't cut our expenses.
If you can't cut your expenses, you'll eventually default.
Now, you would do it either by hyperinflating, so that the people who we owe $1 will still owe them $1, but $1 will be worth 10 cents.
So that's not ideal, because everybody who had $1 for their retirement would find out that it was worth only 10 cents.
But at least we'd pay off the debt, hey!
So that would be terrible.
And of course, just saying we can't pay it off would be catastrophic.
And he says, when we default, and keep in mind it's a when, because we don't have any plan for not defaulting.
And to me, the fact that we're not talking about this every day, all day, I don't even know how to understand that.
It's by far our biggest problem.
Anyway, he says, when we default, it may happen quickly, because safety is the only reason the U.S. Treasury debt...
Commands such a low interest rate.
Yeah, so when safety goes away, boom.
When rumors of default or hyperinflation start swirling, interest rates may spike to 10% or more, which we cannot pay.
Even at the current 4% rate, the interest on the $35 trillion debt, he does a little math here, would be $1.4 trillion, which already consumes 60%.
Of the $2.4 trillion total income tax revenue.
A 10% interest rate, like we saw in the 80s, the interest on the debt will be 150% of income tax revenue.
That means it will be 75% of all government revenue.
Since people know we can't pay 10%, they won't accept 10% and will demand even more.
That's the doom spiral, and it could happen overnight.
Now you might say, but Scott, what do we do about that to protect ourselves against default?
And I have no idea.
I have no idea.
I will tell you I own Bitcoin because I like diversification.
So Bitcoin as a diversification play makes sense, but I don't know that that gives you safety.
And I don't know how much you should own to be safe, if it gives you any safety at all.
But I can imagine a time when the dollar is worth nothing, but would that make your crypto worth anything?
Because you usually have to turn your crypto into dollars to buy stuff.
So... You say Bitcoin is a scam?
Lead and whiskey.
Yeah. Well, I wish somebody in our government would tell us the truth and get us ready for whatever's coming, because whatever's coming could be pretty extreme.
All right, last little item here.
According to The Hill, legacy broadcasters account for just more than 10% of TV viewers' viewership in March, 10%.
So I guess we're talking about ABC, NBC, CBS.
Only 10% of TV viewership.
Now, I was trying to think, when was the last time I watched anything on NBC, CBS, or ABC?
I've seen clips of people who were on it, but I don't think I've watched it in months or years.
And it used to be the main thing you watched.
So, I don't know.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is my show for today.
I'm going to briefly talk to the locals people, and then I will see the rest of you tomorrow, same time, same place.