All Episodes
April 25, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:19:46
Episode 2820 CWSA 04/25/25

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Judge Cano Arrested, Remote Interview AI Fakery, National Archives UAP UFO Website, Waymo Self-Driving Cabs, Tesla Potential, Self-Driving Car Federal Regulations, Pete Hegseth, ActBlue Allegations, Public Frustration Nobody Arrested, Leticia James Allegations, Democrat Infighting, Adam Goldman, Trump 2028 Hats, Trump Jeffrey Goldberg Meeting, College Accreditation, Military Recruitment, Anti-Trump District Judges, Constitutional Crisis, Darrell Issa, Fake NGO Fraud, UK Trade Deal, China Trade Deal, Biden Admin Anti-Netanyahu, Ukraine Negotiations, Easing Energy Regulations, Trade Imbalance Explained, Worldwide Debt Crisis, 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
Come on in here.
We got everything happening today.
Do do do do do do.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better day.
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 a mug or a glass, a tank or a chelsea, 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, the dopamine in it of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens right now.
Go. Go.
Go.
We're working on all cylinders now.
Yes siree, things are looking good.
I wonder if there's any sketchy science we can laugh at.
Oh yeah, here's some.
Sketchy science.
According to Drexel University, there's a link between proximity to green space, meaning trees, and how healthy your baby is.
So apparently living near newly planted trees is linked to healthier birth outcomes.
Now, do you think that's real?
Do you think that they can really measure that?
Well, apparently it was not a randomized controlled study.
Big surprise.
But don't you think there are more trees where people have more money?
Just generally.
I mean, you know, it's not going to apply to Appalachia.
But generally speaking, don't you think trees are a bit of a luxury item?
Do you have a lot of trees in the porous part of the inner city?
No.
So if you even have the wherewithal to plant a tree, or anybody wants to plant a tree near you, Probably you're doing better than people who are desperately poor.
So I'm going to say I do not believe that study.
Here's one from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
They found that bridging political debates, that's what they were trying to do, they found that giving people factual knowledge about a political topic can make people...
Less polarized.
Now, does that surprise you?
If you took a citizen, and let's say two people were on different sides of an issue, but you educated both of them, so you gave them both the maximum amount of information about the topic, apparently,
the study says that they become less polarized, and they become more reasonable, and they're more, oh, okay, I can see both sides.
Here's what I don't trust about it.
I'll bet that only works for people who weren't paying attention to politics that much.
The people that I, I guess I have the most contact with, are the people who are super partisan.
Do you think if you give a super partisan person information that says maybe they're wrong, do you think it makes them friendlier?
I don't think so.
I think it just makes them angrier.
Damn it.
You and your information.
So I think maybe the study is correct because most people are not paying that much attention to politics and to policies.
But I'll bet you the most partisan people get the angriest when they see information that disagrees with them.
Here's one of my favorite stories for the day.
So apparently Seattle has some kind of a park where there was a lot of nudity.
Like, why would they even have that?
But it was a nudist park.
But now it caused so much public masturbation in the nudist park that the Post Millennial is reporting on this, that they put on a request for a proposal.
For what they call public masturbation deterrent infrastructure as part of a half-million-dollar improvement plan.
Now, if you were going to respond to the request for proposals for whatever you believed was a good...
Implementation of a public masturbation deterrent infrastructure.
What would you build?
Would you just build a big wall?
Because it's a park.
He can't really have walls around everything, right?
So I don't know how a wall would work.
But here's the good news.
I think Hillary Clinton is finally going to get that statue she deserves.
Oh, that's a cut down on the public masturbation.
Oh, what else is happening?
I wasn't going to talk about this story because I don't like the stories about, you know, one element of crime or, you know, some weird thing happened to one person or one family or something.
But I guess everybody wants me to talk about this.
So, so many people have contacted me about it.
It's like, all right, all right, I'll talk about it.
So, the Gateway Pundit is reporting on this, among others.
So, apparently the FBI has arrested this New Mexico judge who, for reasons we don't totally know yet, was harboring a gang member at the casita behind his house.
Now, I guess the guy's wife was using the gang member.
He was one of these Trenda-Aragua guys, Venezuelan gang.
And I guess the wife was using him as a handyman.
Do you know how much you would need to have a handyman?
Like, really be a handyman?
If you would take a Trenda-Aragua gang member?
I feel like, you know, part of the reason I don't like stories like this is that there's always some information that's critical to the understanding of it that's missing.
So I'm just going to take a guess what's really going on.
Some of you are going to guess, oh, it's some kind of sexual thing.
You know, the wife is, you know, having an affair with him or something.
Some of you are going to guess, Oh, maybe they're doing some kind of criminal thing together.
Some of you are going to guess maybe he was just a do-gooder, and he thought, okay, you're a member of a gang, but maybe if I give you a place to live and, you know, some money from some handyman work, you know,
maybe you can straighten your life out.
Maybe.
Maybe one of those things.
But do you know what I think it is?
I think the wife was angry at her husband because she's not good at fixing things around the house.
And so she said, all right, if you're not going to fix things around the house, I'm going to get somebody who will.
And that the whole thing...
The whole thing is driven by the wife being really pissed off at her husband because the husband doesn't fix stuff around the house.
So she got a Trinda Aragua gang member to live at the house to fix stuff up.
So that's just my guess.
I don't know what's really going on there, but apparently the FBI has arrested him.
All right, this is funny too.
According to CBS News, something like one in four remote job applications, because I guess a lot of job interviews are being done remotely now by Zoom or whatever.
Apparently, there's a lot of scammers using artificial intelligence to pretend to be somebody that they're not so they can be a fake person who gets a job.
And then once they get the job...
They might be scammers or hackers or looking to sell information or something.
But basically, apparently in one case, somebody was interviewing somebody live and suspected that they might be AI, the actual image of the person on the screen.
And so the interviewer challenged the person to put their hand in front of their face because that would be a little bit hard for AI to...
You know, keep that clear.
And the person refused to do it, so they didn't get the job.
But, you know, when I read about this, I thought to myself, well, there's a week of Dilbert comics that just wrote themselves.
Because I can imagine Wally applying for hundreds of different jobs as an AI.
He would be the richest person in the company.
Well, in other news, apparently the National Archives, the U.S. National Archives, has put up a website where you can see what they would claim to be all of their UFO and UAP information.
So it would show all the documents and the videos of alleged UAPs and all that.
Now, does that tell you that maybe the UAPs and the UFOs are real?
Because the National Archives put up a webpage dedicated to what they know?
Or does it look like a steaming pile of bullshit like it always has?
So I'm still waiting.
I'm still waiting for the video of the captured UFOs and the dead aliens.
I think they're keeping them under the pyramids.
With those gigantic structures that they found under the pyramids?
No?
Alright, I love fake news.
Alright, let's give you an update on self-driving cabs.
Now, you might know that a company called Waymo already has a very fast-growing business of...
Driverless cars in just certain cities, San Francisco and Austin and some other cities.
And you can already use them.
So you can use your app and a driverless car will pull up and you can take your little driverless taxi somewhere.
And apparently it's doing pretty well.
Waymo is providing nearly, according to Sawyer Merritt, I saw this on a post on X, They're already doing almost 36,000 paid robo-taxi trips per day.
Per day.
36,000.
Per day.
That's a pretty robust business.
So, and according to the whole Mars catalog account, Waymo rides per day just grew 30% in less than two months.
So, I only know one person.
Who actually used the Waymo and was very happy with it.
It was a totally good experience.
But not to be outdone, Tesla, of course, is going to be launching their version of the AutoCab.
And on top of that, you could use an app to turn your personal Tesla into a cab.
So all you do is park it on the street and Turn on your app, and I guess anybody can summon your car to drive itself to them and give them a taxi ride with no driver.
But according to Elon Musk, he says the Teslas probably cost a quarter or 20% of what a Waymo costs, and the Teslas are made in very high volume.
And so Elon says that I don't see anyone being able to compete with Tesla at present.
Well, at the moment, Waymo is way ahead because they just started earlier.
But I do see Tesla kind of just owning that market pretty quickly.
Now, it's a really weird time for Tesla, isn't it?
Because on one hand, because of Doge and Trump and all that, Elon Musk is at his lowest popularity, as is Tesla the company.
Because the lefties are rejecting it.
But it's the weirdest time in history for that to be happening because their product offerings are unbelievably strong, like incredibly, ridiculously, historically strong.
So these autocabs, I think, are going to be a really big deal.
The full self-driving...
Feature within the Teslas.
Nobody comes close.
And they're a really big deal.
And then you've got the Tesla robots coming.
And the robots are going to be maybe the biggest deal of all time.
And at the same time, Tesla is doing, I guess, the best job of being a mostly American-made car.
And they even have the ability to make the batteries.
I think the Model 3 and the Y, they can do it entirely in the United States.
So if you were to look at Tesla's efficiency, what they can build, how fast they can build it, the quality of the products, how well those products meet the obvious needs of the public,
it's unbelievable.
It's never been better.
I've never seen any company who had more Upside potential than what Tesla has right now.
But the only drag it has is that people have a politically bad feeling about it.
My guess, and this is hard to predict, but my guess is this will not be a permanent stain.
I think all it will take is for Elon to pull back from politics a little bit, focus on the products.
Maybe one year goes by.
It might be one year more of depressed sales.
But you put a few Democrats in the self-driving car, or a few Democrats rent a Tesla, or they just experience the Model Y. I don't know that they go back.
I'll use that same analogy about...
Apple computers and IBM computers way back when they were competing.
And Apple used to say that nobody goes from IBM to Apple.
No, nobody goes from Apple to IBM.
But a lot of people will go from their IBM computer to an Apple and stay there.
And if you live or work in Silicon Valley and you are in any kind of a...
Let's say a technical environment or a technical company.
It's 100% Apple laptops.
So that was very predictive of where that market was going to go.
People only went one direction.
Same with smartphones.
Except for some senior citizens, when people moved to a smartphone, they weren't really thinking of moving back.
You know, even though the smartphone was terrible.
When it first launched, it was just terrible.
It was just, it was barely a phone, and you still couldn't go back.
So I think the Tesla is in that same category where you just have to be exposed to it, and you're like, ah, damn it, can't go back.
Meanwhile, to make that whole self-driving car thing work better, I guess Secretary Duffy, Transportation Secretary, working with the Trump administration, is looking to lower the regulatory barriers for self-driving cars.
And one of the big problems is that each of the states might have their own standards and it would just be too hard to, you know, do business.
So they're looking to make one national standard for what is acceptable for self-driving cars and to make it not so onerous that you can't meet the standard.
So that seems to me Like a really good thing.
Now, obviously, the critics are going to say, oh, Trump is just doing that for his friend Elon Musk.
To which I say, what part of that don't you want?
You don't want a federal single standard for self-driving cars?
Isn't that what you want?
Forget about what Elon Musk wants.
I'm sure he wants that.
But don't you think Waymo wants that too?
Don't you think every car company that's looking at self-driving cars, which is probably all of them at this point, don't you think they all want it?
Don't you think every single consumer wants that?
So, yes, it could be that Elon Musk's attachment to the current administration might have made it more likely, but we all want it.
It's not like it's just for him.
Well, the Agricultural Secretary, Brooke Rollins, says that they're no longer going to be giving billions of dollars to illegal aliens for food.
And from now on, they're going to have to show their ID and prove their citizens to get their, what is it?
Some kind of food product they can get if they're poor.
And they'll have to be checked against the social security numbers of the death master file.
That's a pretty ominous file.
The death master file.
So I guess that says if you're alive or dead.
Because I guess we're feeding a lot of people who, at least on paper, are dead.
So that seems like a move in the right direction.
Every time it becomes a little bit harder to be a...
Non-citizen who's here illegally and using our money to live, that's probably good.
So, good for them.
Did you hear the fake news about the so-called makeup room in the Pentagon?
Now, I guess because P. Exeth was a TV guy, and he's a good-looking TV guy, CBS News came up with a story that's been debunked.
That the Hegseth had ordered a makeup room to be built in the Pentagon.
A makeup room.
Now, I have two things to say about this.
Number one, it's been debunked.
If you saw a picture of what it was, all they did is add a chair and a mirror to the green room.
I guess they already had a green room for their media hits.
So no, there were no lights.
There was no makeup.
It was just sort of a mirror that people could look in before they went in public.
But I would add the following.
What would be wrong with the Pentagon putting a makeup room in the Pentagon?
What would be wrong with that?
If it's true that they do a lot of their work on camera, not just for the news hits, of which there are a lot of them, But maybe even talking to other countries.
The makeup is just part of the process.
If you tell me that there are high-level military or government people who are going to be talking to anybody, somebody in another country, foreign leader, the public, I don't care who they're talking to.
A makeup room is exactly what you need.
So it's the dumbest story.
It's fake news.
Which is sort of seemingly designed to embarrass Pete Hegseth.
So it's easily debunked, because they just show you a picture of what it is, and you go, oh, that looks like just a mirror on a wall.
So that's not much of a makeup room.
Even though people probably do use it to make sure they look okay before they go on camera.
But let's be real.
A makeup room in 2025, it's exactly what you need.
So, if Pete Hegseth has not yet ordered a makeup room for the Pentagon, why not?
It's exactly what you should be doing, because it helps the whole presentation.
That would be like saying, you know, don't wear a nice suit.
There are things you do when you're going to be on camera to certain audiences to make it better in every way.
It's just the dumbest fake news of all time, because if it were true, it would just be smart.
But it wasn't true.
It's like doubly dumb.
Well, you've heard of ActBlue.
That's the Democrat organization that collects, allegedly, very small donations from lots of different people, and then donates it to various Democrat campaigns.
But the accusations are that they're not doing that so much.
Well, they are doing that.
But that a lot of their donations are fake.
Meaning it's not really small donations from individuals, but they simply pretend they're getting small donations from individuals.
But maybe they're getting big donations from we don't know who.
Could be foreign, could be some big donors.
And then they just pretend that they came from individuals.
Here's one example.
Matt Van Swal, he found out that, at least on paper, he's made many donations in Kansas to Act Blue.
However, he's never been to Kansas, and he's never made a donation to Act Blue.
So, unless there's somebody with the same name, which is a bit unusual, They're pretending that he's made a lot of donations.
Now, you've probably seen some news stories where people will go to the house of somebody who allegedly made thousands of dollars of donations and some retired person who's never made any donation to anybody.
And you say to yourself, oh, well, I think we're on to your game.
Well, so in...
Related news, Trump has requested the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to investigate ActBlue and find out if they're doing illegal straw donors, which is what I just described.
And are they foreign contributions, which would make it even worse?
It would be illegal, whether it's foreign or not, to pretend that they're getting small donations when it's really big donations they're pretending are small donations.
But according to Elon Musk, he said on a post, ActBlue is guilty of widespread criminal identity theft.
So that would be when they pretend the donations are coming from citizens, and those citizens have no idea that their names have been used.
Let me tell you what I expect from that investigation.
Nothing.
I'm so beaten down.
By the idea that anybody's ever going to get arrested for anything, no matter how obvious the crime, no matter how much alleged Department of Justice or FBI attention it's getting, I don't expect anybody to be arrested for the Epstein stuff,
the Russia collusion stuff, all the lawfare against Trump, the Biden crime family.
I just don't think anybody's getting arrested for anything.
I don't exactly know why.
Don't exactly know why.
But it's hard not to notice the pattern, right?
Wouldn't you expect a whole bunch of people to get arrested for a whole bunch of things?
I feel like we're continually presented with, at least publicly, Evidence of major crimes all through the government.
And then there's always somebody looking into it.
And then nothing happens.
So whatever is happening behind the scenes, it's pretty strong.
So I have no reason to think it's going to stop.
I just don't think anything will happen.
Here's another example of badness happening right in front of you.
So as you know, Letitia James, who law fared...
She decided that she would go after him and she'd find something that was a crime.
And then she found that he had represented his properties as more valuable than they were to the banks that made a loan to him.
Now, the banks, of course, didn't care about that at all because they do their own investigation of how much a property is worth.
They don't rely on the customer to tell them.
They ignore that completely.
And they were happy with the loans.
The loans were paid back.
Nobody lost anything.
And it was the most common thing in real estate.
Somebody exaggerated the value of their property, but it didn't make any difference because the lenders know everybody does that.
So it turns out, as Bill Pulte discovered, that Letitia James had done some sketchy things with some of her own real estate.
Including saying that she was a resident of another state because she had property in another state outside of New York.
And also saying that one of her properties had four units instead of five because that gave her some kind of advantage as well.
And then there's some kind of insurance related thing that I don't understand.
So she's being accused somewhat credibly because this is based on just documents.
You know, the documents are pretty clear.
So, you know, there's not much doubt about what happened.
And there's not much doubt that it would be illegal.
So she's in a lot of trouble.
And one of the things about lawfare, or in this case, revenge for lawfare, is that even if you don't go to jail, it's going to cost you a lot of money to defend yourself.
Now, that's what she was trying to do to Trump.
She was trying to either use up his money on legal cases or use up all his time or put him in jail, whatever she could get.
But here's the update.
Apparently, the state of New York is going to pay for her legal defense.
So this is something these real estate transactions she's accused of had nothing to do with her professional job.
So why would the state of New York pay for her attorney, who, by the way, was Hunter Biden's lawyer, too, and a guy named Abby Lowell?
So he's a well-known, high-powered lawyer.
Why would the state of New York pay for her legal defense?
Well, their argument is that she would not be accused of these crimes Had she not accused Trump of crimes?
And therefore, it's all part of her professional work as a person who accuses people of crimes.
Because, you know, she's Attorney General.
So apparently that thin connection was enough for her to get her legal costs paid for by the state.
Wouldn't you love to be a...
A taxpayer in your state and know that you're paying for Hunter Biden's old lawyer to defend your attorney general who had tried to lawfare a president and change the government of the United States and was guilty of the same crimes.
And you're paying for it because you're a taxpayer.
Unbelievable, but true.
So, here's something that could have been predicted.
I don't know if I ever did, but I'll just describe it now.
Generally speaking, Democrats were pushing the idea that everybody is unique and special.
And because of intersectionality, you know, you might be a black lesbian woman and I might be a disabled...
Hispanic man, but everybody was an individual.
And so they would celebrate what made people different.
It was all about being different.
Whereas Republicans, and here's where you can fact check me, so I'm just spitballing here, Republicans tend to celebrate what they have in common.
So Republicans would say, yeah, Fourth of July, we're all Americans.
That's what we have in common.
They would try to get everybody to speak English as their first language.
So we got lots of stuff in common.
They would talk about, you know, not just nation, but family and God.
And they'd say, oh, you're religious?
I'm religious too.
Let's all be religious.
And we'll have lots in common.
So if you were to fast forward that and say those are two philosophies, One is celebrating how you're different, and the other is celebrating, and of course celebrating how you're different also gives you reason to complain about the other.
Wait a minute.
You different people are getting extra benefits from the government.
I hate you.
So here we are with the Democrats tearing each other apart after losing the last election.
So we've already seen...
Prominent Democrats like Bill Maher, Stephen A. Smith, James Carville, who are attacking the progressive, crazy part of their party.
But now we're seeing that Michelle Obama is going on a podcast, and apparently she was just revealing, as Jesse Waters was telling us, that Michelle and Barack Obama were at one point in couples counseling.
Why would you say that on your podcast?
That just seems so wrong.
Now, if she were just an ordinary citizen, I'd say, well, it's up to her.
But given that they're a political family and prominent Democrats, it just feels like a little bit of an attack on a family member.
And then we see the head of the DNC, DNC chairman Ken Martin.
He went on Fox News to complain about his co-whatever he is.
He's the co-chairman, I guess, David Hogg.
So now the head of the DNC is complaining about his co-chairman who wants to primary a bunch of ineffective Democrats, which is not really the job of the people who are in charge of the DNC.
It's their job to get as many Democrats elected as possible.
So they're fighting each other.
It seems like everywhere you see Democrats now, it's pretty much they're having a battle internally.
So that whole philosophy of we're all different and we can think differently and act differently, I think it's just tearing them apart.
And the Republicans have always been good at, let's find out what we have in common, and let's work on that.
And that works really well, and has for years.
According to Paul Sperry, I think he's got some inside sources, that say that Adam Goldman of the New York Times, who at one point won a Pulitzer for his covering of the A Russia collusion hoax,
which he did not cover as a hoax.
Rather, he covered it as though it were real.
He says that Adam Goldman is working with Comey's old Crossfire crew to sabotage Kash Patel and Dan Bongino at the FBI headquarters.
And that's to allegedly guard his Russia gay Pulitzer.
I don't know that we can read his mind.
And then just as background, Adam Goldman's wife is an ex-top CNN producer named Alison Hoffman.
And she was, well, pushed out.
I guess we don't know the details of that.
But she left CNN over having an anti-Trump bias.
So that's your legitimate news organization?
That's pretty sketchy.
Now, these are allegations.
I don't know how much of this you could know to be true.
So it's based on insiders that we don't know.
So that would be the lowest level, the lowest level of credibility.
So the only thing I know for sure is that I spent an afternoon with Adam Goldman many years ago when Dilbert was sort of at its peak.
So he was doing a story about Dilbert.
And I had a pool table in my office at the time.
And I was not used to losing a pool.
Because if you have a pool table, and you've had one for years, you don't really lose a pool.
But he kicked my ass so hard.
Damn, he's just the best pool player I've ever seen, I think, for, you know, a regular person.
So, great pool player.
That's the only thing I know about him for sure.
Everything else is a rumor.
So I can't say for sure if any of that's true.
Well, Trump is stirring the pot again, and I guess he's listed some hats on his website that say Trump 2028.
Now, of course that's provocative.
My understanding is that it's on a Trump merchandise website as opposed to a campaign or political website.
If he had put it on a political website, it would be even more inflammatory.
But by putting it on just the Trump website, it kind of just removes it a little bit from, are you serious?
I can't tell if you're trolling us now.
Are you trolling us?
Or are you serious?
And the fact that we don't know is just perfect.
I love the fact that we can't tell if he's serious.
You know, at first they used to annoy me, and I thought, you're just playing into their hands of looking like a dictator by saying that you're not going to leave office.
And then I started thinking, okay, it is kind of funny.
It is kind of funny.
I'm not in favor of him having a third term, just to be clear.
I'm definitely not in favor of that.
But it is very funny that he has a Trump 2028 hat.
That part I can't hate.
Well, Trump says he's going to meet with a writer for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Do you recognize that name?
So Jeffrey Goldberg is famous for what Trump calls pushing some hoaxes, and he is also famous for being the person who was accidentally added to the signal gate.
Messages that Hegseth and others were on.
So why in the world would Trump meet with a writer for The Atlantic when The Atlantic is probably the single most anti-Trump hoax-bringing entity that you've ever seen in your life?
I mean, I think they barely even pretend to be anything else but just a Trump-hating vehicle.
Why would he say yes and then go spend time with him and do an interview?
I have a theory.
I think he's bringing the wrecking ball to the Atlantic and he's going to try to end them once and for all.
Something tells me that the tenor of the conversation will not be all polite and that Trump is just going to absolutely fucking unload on this asshole.
And then it's going to put Goldberg in the weird position of not knowing how much to report.
Because a lot of the reporting will be Trump saying the Atlantic is a piece of shit.
You're a lying reporter.
It's all fake news.
And if he just keeps at it for like an hour, what else is Goldberg going to write?
He won't have anything to write except how disreputable his own organization and he is.
So I think Trump is taking a calculated risk that he can actually just destroy the Atlantic and Jeffrey Goldberg at the same time.
So if I were Jeffrey Goldberg, I'd be a little bit worried about the incoming wrecking ball.
Trump signed a bunch of executive orders, of course, because he always does.
According to the college fix, one of them involves college accreditation.
Now, I always wondered, who is it who gets to accredit a college and say, you're a proper college?
What makes any entity the one qualified to say that somebody else is accredited?
I always wondered about that.
But what Trump's executive order is about is he's going to reform that college accreditation process, and he's going to target efforts to boost intellectual diversity as opposed to racial diversity and equity and inclusion.
So apparently it'll be harder to get accredited if you're pushing DEI.
And easier to be accredited if you're pushing merit, is my guess.
And this might involve new accreditation organizations that might be created as a result of the order.
Now, was there something that was preventing some entity from saying, I'll be an accreditation organization?
There must have been something preventing new ones from being established, and maybe this executive order loosens that up.
But I feel like that's good news.
Trump also made some news with an executive order to rescind LBJ's executive orders on what's called disparate impact.
Disparate or disparate?
How do you say that word?
Disparate impact.
And the idea of it...
The idea of it is that if there were different outcomes for different groups, that would be enough to prove that discrimination was in play.
Can you even believe that that was ever a thing?
That if there were different outcomes, it proves discrimination.
The problem is, there's always different outcomes.
There's almost nothing you could do.
No sport, no intellectual endeavor, no career endeavor.
There's almost nothing that every demographic group performs the same.
Now, we don't need to get into the reasons why there's a difference, but we've never, ever had a situation where all the groups perform the same on anything.
On anything.
That seemed like it was just the worst thing you could ever use as like an operating system for your country.
That if people had different outcomes, there must be some discrimination and they have to go fix it.
Or somebody could sue you for it.
So, looks like it was just another anti-white man law.
And Trump, to his credit, rescinded it.
I didn't even know it was a problem.
But I'm glad he got rid of it.
Well, apparently, according to the post-millennial, military recruitment is surging under P.A.G.
Seth's defense secretary role.
Every branch of the military has surpassed their goals for recruitment.
Do you remember when that was just a giant problem?
Apparently, the problems were just as obvious as you thought.
The people who wanted to be soldiers, Wanted to be in the military.
We're not the same people who loved all the wokeness.
So if you said, you can be a soldier, but you have to be super woke, and if you're a white man, we're going to hold you back because we've got to get some more non-white men in there.
Why would you ever join the military if you were a white man?
So I don't know what the mix is.
Of who it is who's joining the military, but apparently they're going wild and I don't know that they've done anything special except get rid of the rules that shouldn't have been there in the first place, which is it's not about DEI,
it's about being lethal and it's about winning wars.
So that's sort of a small part of the world.
But it certainly suggests something healthy happening.
Because recruitment, the fact that it's in all the service branches, tells you that it's something they're doing right.
It's probably not just some coincidence.
Well, you know the problem of what I'll call the constitutional crisis.
Of all these federal district judges blocking Trump's national efforts?
Well, here's another one.
So this one is federal judges blocked Trump from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Now, why?
Why would they block that?
Well, it's just anti-Trump.
And, you know, I mean, it just looks like it's nothing but an anti-Trump thing.
So that's happening.
I would call that a constitutional crisis.
And then Trump had tried to pull the funding from sanctuary cities.
And guess what?
There's another federal judge who blocked that and said, you can't stop funding these sanctuary cities.
What do we know about this judge?
Well, apparently this judge, Judge William Oreck, who says you can't stop funding the sanctuary cities, he's a huge Democrat Party supporter, and he donated a lot.
Two Democratic candidates, including Obama, Kerry, and both Clintons.
And he chaired committees to elect them and he even introduced Kamala Harris at a campaign event.
So he's not just political.
He is really political.
And he's a Democrat.
And then he did something that, to me, is a constitutional crisis because he seems to be violating the powers of the presidency from the wrong chair.
So we'll see what happens with that.
So according to Breitbart, in the last 24 hours, judges have ordered the Trump administration to bring back another illegal alien from El Salvador.
I haven't talked about that, but that's happening.
Restore funds to schools practicing DEI.
Restore funds to sanctuary cities.
And drop a proof of citizenship mandate for...
So, isn't that a constitutional crisis?
Because these federal district judges are essentially usurping the power of the presidency.
So, yes.
But, on the positive side, Daryl Lysa introduced a bill that I think has already passed the House that would prevent these district judges from Doing this kind of stuff.
And I guess we're going to the Senate, which is likely to pass it, and it would limit judges to their own district or domain.
So we'll see if that happens.
So there could be a big fix coming.
Imagine how big a change that would be.
I feel like every story I talk about has any impact at all.
It's followed up with, and the district judge says you have to put it all back in the box.
And the district judge blocked it.
And the district judge, you know, what if that ended?
Wall Street Apes is talking about a story that's in the news of a financial manager for the Army.
Set up a fake NGO, non-government organization, and it had some kind of name, some kind of fake children's charity name.
And then I guess she was in charge of deciding who gets funded.
And so she funded from taxpayer money, from the military, she funded her own fake NGO to the tune of $108 million over several years.
She bought 31 homes and 80 vehicles.
This is all just stolen taxpayer money.
And apparently there was no auditing.
She got away with it for years.
Now, do you think she's the only person who thought of that?
Wait a minute.
I could just set up a fake NGO and give it a good-sounding name.
If I start getting money, nobody's even going to check.
There's no auditing.
There's no nothing.
I could do this for years.
My assumption is that if she could do this this easily and get away with it for so long, and there are now tens of thousands of NGOs, I don't know that they're all this illegal, you know,
because maybe you just pretend you're doing something useful and that's good enough.
But, oh my God, this NGO fraud is just, it's a level that I could never even imagine.
And it sort of maybe answers that question of, why do there seem to be so many rich people when there aren't that many things that would make people rich?
There can't be that many CEOs, that many people who started their own company or inherited a fortune from their parents.
A lot of it might be this.
Like, I don't know what percentage, but if you told me tomorrow that 20% of all rich people got there by stealing from the government, I wouldn't be surprised a bit.
If you told me it was 40%, I wouldn't be surprised.
I would be horrified, but I wouldn't be surprised at this point.
Here's some good news, according to The Independent in the UK.
Apparently, J.D. Vance has already told the UK's Keir Starmer that if he wants any kind of a trade deal, and of course he does want a trade deal with the US, he's got to repeal the hate speech laws that would be affecting not just his country,
but us, I guess.
Now, how much do you love that?
We should not be doing any trade.
We're the country who's trying to censor our First Amendment rights in the United States.
You can't be our friend, and you can't trade with us if you're trying to shut down our most important right in this country from your country.
So that's not going to work.
So yes, J.D. Vance put down that red line.
You can't have this censorship, hate speech stuff.
If you also want to do business with the United States.
Absolutely.
I love that.
Well, you know that China said that they're not negotiating whatsoever with the United States?
And then Trump says, oh yeah, we're totally negotiating with China.
So not only does Trump say we are negotiating with China, but I guess he said, must have been yesterday, they had meetings this morning.
That's pretty specific.
And we've been meeting with China and...
And I said, so I think you have, as usual, I think you have your reporting wrong, he was telling the reporters.
I guess China told Washington that it wants Washington to scrap all of its tariffs if it wants serious negotiations.
Because I guess, you know, putting the tariffs on in the first place seemed like maybe an affront or pretending that we had power over them, and that's no bueno for China.
And China's Commerce Minister insists the U.S. started the trade war, so we have to make the first moves.
Now, here's what I think.
I think that China wants to have it both ways.
I think that they are negotiating at some low level or indirectly or something while they're saying they're not because they don't want to look like they got pushed into it, but they'd like to have a deal.
So I think maybe when the negotiations that they say are not happening get closer to something that might be an actual deal, then I think China's going to admit, we'll talk to you now, and then they'll just start talking.
I guess China canceled 12,000 metric tons of pork that they were going to ship to the United States.
If you thought you were going to be eating a little ham today or enjoying some bacon, maybe not.
Maybe a little less pork.
But then I guess there's some other things that, according to Bloomberg, China is looking at suspending their 125% tariff on a few things.
I think it's some technology things.
I don't know why they picked them or what specifically.
But there's definitely stuff happening.
Definitely stuff happening.
Now, one of the things that has been bugging me lately is that people keep prodding me to admit, they're like, Scott, are you ready to admit that Trump's tariffs were a gigantic mistake?
What do I say to that?
Because we're in the middle of the game.
If the game were over and it totally didn't work and it was obvious, then I would say, well, it looks like that was a giant mistake.
But how do I determine in the middle of the game that it was a mistake?
It seems to me that everything depends on timing.
If it takes to the end of this year to work out any kind of a deal with China, or maybe we just never do.
Well, that would look like a pretty big mistake.
If in 30 days the U.S. and China have at least the framework of an agreement, it's not going to look like we're going to have huge shortages over the summer.
We'd have a little bit because there's some built-up demand that couldn't be satisfied with the shipping we have.
But don't you have to wait?
If it's true that he's getting better trade deals, and if it's true that countries are agreeing to buy more energy from the U.S. and maybe other things, such as food, isn't everything moving in the right direction?
So, I don't understand the people who believe that they can tell already it's a giant mistake.
And, you know, it could be.
I don't rule it out.
If they bungle the management of the negotiations, I guess, it would be a giant mistake.
But if they do get agreements, and it looks like they're not too far away from getting a South Korea agreement, not too far from a Japan agreement, probably not too far from some other agreements when, you know, I think Vietnam was up pretty quickly.
It's not going to take too many finalized deals or even, you know, agreed frameworks for finalized deals.
It's not going to take too many successes that are nailed down before the news has to admit, okay, well, at least this country, you know, at least we got a better deal with this country.
And then it would be the next day or two, okay, well, I have to admit, we got a better trade deal with this country, and they did agree to buy a lot more of our liquid gas.
So isn't it likely, depending entirely on timing, so if things happen fast, it's going to look like the smartest thing anybody ever did in the history of the United States.
If things don't happen fast...
It could look like and turn out to be just a pure mistake.
But it seems to me that there's far more likely chance that it's going to go in the right direction than the wrong direction.
Now, part of the negotiations with China, since the China relationship is a massive set of variables that are in every domain, Yahoo Finance is saying that I guess the Pentagon's got a big budget now for Trump's,
what they call the Golden Dome that would protect us from incoming missiles.
So that would include everything from SpaceX being able to track any incoming threats to various missiles and warships and autonomous weapons and lasers and stuff to shoot down those missiles.
So, is that something that would make us better off in our negotiations with China?
I feel that we would get the best deal if we look the strongest in every way.
Strongest militarily, strongest economically.
That's probably how you get the best deal.
Here's a story that snuck up on me.
So Joel Pollack is writing about this in Breitbart.
So there's this gentleman who was a former aide to President Biden.
His name is Elon Goldenberg.
And he says that while he was a former aide to Biden, and this is something he said to Israel's Channel 13, he said that the Biden administration tried to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after October 7th.
After the October 7th attack, because temporarily Netanyahu's popularity was very low and apparently the Biden administration thought they'd be better off without him.
So they put into motion some kind of acts that, I don't know if it's color revolution or if it's completely legal or if it's just the U.S. trying to influence its allies.
I don't know what it would be called.
But apparently there was a serious effort to change the leadership in Israel.
Now, apparently that didn't go as far as it could have been because Netanyahu's popularity recovered fairly quickly when he got serious about responding to it.
So, anyway, so this Goldenberg...
Suggested that Biden was even willing to consider, quote, non-democratic means of removing Netanyahu.
Non-democratic means?
That doesn't sound good.
You know, we're always talking about how AIPAC is controlling the United States, you know, Congress.
And of course, there's influence that works both ways in the case of Israel and the United States.
But did you know?
That at least the Biden administration was pretty active in trying to change something really big in Israel.
So, that's interesting.
Well, let's talk about Ukraine.
Trump's envoy, Wyckoff, I guess he's in Moscow trying to work out a deal.
And it would reportedly include that Ukraine won't join NATO.
And that both sides would cede some territory.
And Trump has said that if he doesn't get a deal done, he's going to be mad at both sides, I guess.
But he has a secret deadline he won't divulge, which means he doesn't have a secret deadline.
But his uncertainty play, it works every time.
So every time he does something where he adds uncertainty, I always laugh.
Because it's not like he doesn't say he's doing it.
He tells you exactly what he's doing, and then he does it right in front of you, and it still works.
So yeah, I've got a secret deadline.
And if you don't meet my secret deadline, you're both in trouble.
So you better meet that secret deadline.
So I don't know.
It seems to me that...
Ukraine is not going to get something like a security guarantee.
And if Ukraine doesn't have a security guarantee, what exactly would keep Putin from trying to take over the rest of Ukraine?
Maybe he doesn't need to do it militarily.
Maybe once the fighting stops, maybe Putin can do his usual...
Color revolution thing, whatever is the Russian version of that, where he just bribes people and murders people and tries to manipulate things in a neighboring country until the neighboring country says, can we please join Russia?
We love you so much because you bribed us and murdered us to the point where we better play nice with you if we want to survive.
I don't know how Ukraine would ever agree to a non-security agreement.
I don't know if there's enough pressure you could put on them, because it's the most important thing.
No, keep an eye on it.
Trump's also working on, the administration's working on a plan to fast-track, this is according to The Hill, fossil fuels and mining on public lands.
Now, one assumes that because it's the government, there are unnecessary rules that say you can and cannot do this on public lands.
So the Trump administration is trying to get rid of that red tape.
So if people need to look for coal, oil, or gas, or uranium, or other minerals on public land, it would be much easier to get that going.
I think this is the most important thing happening in the country because we didn't really get the budget cuts we were hoping for.
And even if the tariff situation ends up moving more manufacturing back to the U.S., it's not going to happen too quickly.
So we've got this massive debt problem and we've got...
One thing that we could produce relatively quickly that everybody would want to buy, which is energy.
And because of AI in particular, certainly all the developed countries are going to want just all kinds of crazy energy, and they're not going to be able to produce it themselves.
They're not going to be able to buy enough even from Russia if they were buying it there.
And the US just seems to have a massive amount of energy that it could produce and sell.
Thank you.
I'm not sure there's anything happening in the United States that's more important than the Trump administration loosening up the rules for how much you can produce and where you can produce it and how you can get it.
Because if we could, let's say, influence all the countries that sell us more things than they buy, and this is what Trump is doing well, I think, The trade deficit,
some experts are saying, hey, that's just a thing on paper.
That's not something you need to fix.
We just like buying more of their stuff than they like buying our stuff.
What's the big deal?
Well, I was listening to Warren Buffett talk about trade imbalances, and Warren Buffett thinks it's a big deal, or at least he did not too long ago.
And the way he explained it was, That if we buy more of their stuff, they have our money.
And then we buy less of their stuff, they end up with our money.
Because we gave them more dollars than they gave us.
So if they have our dollars, they basically own a piece of the United States.
That's sort of what the dollar is.
And then they can buy stuff such as, I think Warren Buffett used the example of, When Japan had a gigantic trade imbalance with us, they got so many of our dollars that they didn't know where to spend it, so they went over and bought important American buildings and property.
So we basically are literally, according to Warren Buffett, a trade imbalance is how you give away your country.
Let me say it again.
Japan had such a big trade imbalance, That they had a whole bunch of American dollars and not enough to spend it on.
So they ended up just buying American physical assets and property.
They literally were owning parts of America because of the trade imbalance.
Now multiply that by every country that has a trade imbalance, and especially China.
So one of the things that Trump is doing that I think is smart is he's saying that the trade imbalance is part of our trade negotiations over tariffs.
Now, these so-called smart people, in quotes, would say, those are different things.
You should just negotiate the tariffs as tariffs, and if you wanted the trade imbalance to be better, you should have better products.
Because then people would want to buy it because they're better products.
I disagree.
I think Trump's doing it exactly right, which is he's saying, if you want to do business with us, you're going to have to reduce that trade imbalance.
And the easiest way to do it, and maybe the only way you can do it quickly, is we're producing a lot more oil and gas and maybe even coal than we used to, and you're going to have to buy it from us.
Because you could buy it from somewhere else.
But we'll just say, you know where I used to get a quarter of your oil from Saudi Arabia?
Well, that's not going to happen anymore.
If you want to do business with us, you're going to move that over to us.
Oil is sort of oil.
It's not going to be that different anywhere.
So I think quietly, this whole energy monster...
Play is the most important thing happening in the United States.
It's the most immediately transformative economic thing that could make a difference.
Nothing else is big enough.
If we make a deal about Chinese pork, that's not big enough.
That won't move any needles.
Even Doge, with its best efforts, barely cut the budget.
We increased the defense budget by more than enough to eat all the doge savings.
So there's nothing else happening that has the scale that turning into an energy monster nation has that you can do fast enough and big enough.
So I feel like this is the most important thing happening in the country and that Trump is probably doing it right.
By putting the emphasis on it.
And then AI, of course, drives that, makes it easier to make that your highest priority.
I saw an article from the European Conservative saying that Europe's facing a big debt problem of its own.
And of course, China has a big debt problem and the US has a big debt problem.
And I've got a weird economic question.
And I have no idea what the answer is.
If all the big industrial countries had a debt crisis at the same time, would that be better or worse for the United States?
It's a weird question, right?
Because your assumption is, of course it's worse.
More debt crisis is more worse.
But suppose all the other countries didn't have a debt crisis.
And the United States did.
That would end the United States.
But what if everybody had the same debt crisis at about the same time?
Is there something that happens when everybody has the same debt crisis that somehow protects everybody who has a debt crisis?
Now, I can't quite connect the dots to that, so it doesn't make sense.
I'm just...
Sort of saying I don't understand that world enough to know.
But I feel like that's an interesting question.
Is there anything about everybody having the problem at the same time that makes you a little safer than if you were the only one who had that problem?
I don't know.
I'd love somebody who's smarter in economics to answer that question to me.
I saw a post on X. From Andrew Huberman, who's talking to some expert about addiction.
And I guess the expert is Ryan Suave.
And he was talking about porn addiction, video porn addiction.
And whenever I see this topic, because, you know, it comes up a lot, the video porn addiction, there are a whole bunch of questions that come up.
Since I have no shame, I'm the person who can ask these questions.
So here are some questions.
Number one, what is the dividing line between a hobby and an addiction?
You think it's obvious, right?
Well, obviously, you know, an addiction would be like cigarettes and alcohol, and a hobby would be, you know, knitting.
But what if your hobby is running?
You just can't go a day without running.
You know that running is one of the most dangerous things you can do if you do it all the time, right?
Running is one of the most injury-prone problems you could have, and then if you do something that affects your mobility in general, well, that's really bad for your health in the long term.
So there's a lot of things that we do that we would call a hobby that definitely have a downside.
So what is that dividing line?
When is it a hobby and when is it an addiction?
If I said, you should not be looking at all that porn because it's bad for you, but you said, it's not bad for me, I just enjoy it.
Is it an addiction?
Or is it a hobby?
I don't know.
The other question is, what if there are some men who prefer not being slaves to their own sexual desires, And they know they can turn it off by using porn.
And what if they don't want to be slaves to women and have to do whatever women say to get sex and pretend that they're agreeing with everything and basically giving away their own agency?
What if there are men who just say, I don't want to do that?
What if they say, I want to control my own body, and one way I do it is to knock down my...
What if I don't want to be a slave to women who have control over whether I ever have sex?
Are those people crazy?
Are they addicted?
Or is that just a different preference for how to live your life and what it's like to be a free man?
I don't know.
What if...
What if you're a man who just doesn't have access to sex and that's not likely to change?
Or if you do have access to sex, it's not going to be with anybody that you're attracted to.
And it could be because you're not attractive.
It could be because you're...
Yeah, any number of things could be happening with you that makes you not something that somebody wants to have sex with.
If a person who doesn't have access...
If they're not Andrew Huberman, who can have multiple girlfriends, apparently.
I think that's his actual situation.
If you don't have access to sex, why do anybody get to say you shouldn't be watching porn?
If it's the only thing that takes the fire out of their brains, who are we to say they can't do it?
Well, I mean, it's not illegal, so I guess there's that.
Another question is, would it be more noble if you didn't watch any porn, but you just used your hand and your imagination?
Are we saying that's better?
Is it the fact that looking at the porn is faster or more fun, but if you just use your imagination, oh, well, that's okay.
That's not an addiction.
If you just use your imagination.
Really?
What if somebody doesn't have a good imagination?
Should they be talked out of using porn?
What happens if women can't compete with porn?
Is that the man's fault?
If you're a man and you looked at all your options and you said, you know what?
There's nobody here who's available that I would want to have sex with.
They're just not competitive.
Is that the man's fault?
Do we blame the man because there's nobody he'd want to have sex with?
That's a question.
Have you ever noticed that when celebrities have a sexual addiction, like the celebrity is having sex with three women a day, like Charlie Sheen?
That we call it a sex addiction.
But people who don't have access to unlimited women whenever they want, then it's a porn addiction.
But isn't it just men having access to the most sexual outlets they can get in whatever way they can, just like all of American or actually all of human history?
So you don't have to have answers to all those questions.
I would just like to put out the fact that I don't think there's one answer for everybody.
I believe that, you know, if you're...
I hate to pick an actual example, but I will.
If you're in a wheelchair and you just don't have access to the kind of sex that you would want with the kind of people you'd be attracted to...
Can that guy in the wheelchair not watch all the porn he wants for any reason he wants because it's none of your damn business?
So I just have a little pushback on that.
That's all.
Just something to think about for today.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you for today.
I'm going to talk to the people on Locals privately if my private Locals button is working today.
The rest of you, thanks for joining.
I'll see you same time next week.
No, not next week.
Tomorrow.
I'll see you the same time tomorrow.
Export Selection