God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, MCAT DEI, DEI Persistence, 3D Printed Homes, AOC Bernie Define Democrats, James Carville, Blue Suit Hoax, Sunny Hostin, Joy Reid, Kristi Noem's Purse Thief, President Trump, Trump Dictator Hoax, Investigating Leak Reporters, Jamie Raskin, Trump's 100 Days, Pre-Midterms Potential Deals, CA Anti-Squatters Bill Fails, DOGE Name Branding, Nvidia AI Super Computers, Anti-Tesla Funding, Organized Domestic Terrorism, Scott Presler, PA Mail-In Ballots Error, China Tariff Exemptions, Russia Iran Deals, Ukraine War Motivations, Ukraine Drone Startups, President Zelensky, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to try taking your experience up to levels that nobody's even understanding with their tiny, shiny human brains, for that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a festival of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, spectacular.
That's the good stuff.
Well, I wonder if there's any science studies that didn't need to happen.
Oh, here's one.
According to Psy Post, Eric Dolan is writing, there's a new study in the British Journal of Psychology that says that entertainment is a key to populist political success.
So if your candidate is very entertaining, they will do better in politics.
You know, you didn't really need to do that study.
You could have asked me or really anybody who has been alive for more than 10 minutes.
Because, yes, yes, an entertaining candidate like Ronald Reagan, for example, absolutely is going to do better.
Trump?
Of course.
Yes, the more entertaining you are, the better you draw people to you.
I don't think it's just the key to populist political success.
I think it might be the key to all kinds of political success.
Well, what else?
Let's see.
Oh, here we go.
US companies are avoiding hiring white men as part of their diversity push, according to The Telegraph.
Did you really need to study that?
That if companies are looking to increase diversity?
Did you really not know that that meant that they would be avoiding hiring white men?
Again, they didn't need to study it.
Just ask me, Scott, do you think diversity means hiring white men?
And I would say, hmm, no.
Sounds like avoiding hiring white men.
Yeah, just ask.
Next time, I'll save you a lot of time and money.
Well, according to the Daily Wire, the group that's behind the MCAT test, that's the test you take to see if you get into medical school, they said they were going to get rid of DEI.
But according to insiders, they were lying.
And all they were going to do is hide the fact that they were totally going to do DEI.
So, according to the Daily Wire, on the surface...
The group that administers the MCAT looks like they left DEI behind because they sort of scrubbed those words from their materials.
But behind the scenes, it's working on plans to secretly push the ideology.
Turns out that, as far as I can tell, every big company is just waiting for the Trump administration to be done.
So it looks like nobody's really getting rid of DEI.
Maybe Target.
Maybe John Deere.
But basically, I would bet that 80-90% of the companies or organizations that say they're getting rid of DEI are lying.
Just lying.
And violating the law like crazy.
DEI is racism, and it's non-constitutional.
And I've got a fear that even though it looks like Trump got rid of DEI, I'm not so sure.
I think maybe he made a 10% dent in it, and the moment he's gone, it will just come back stronger than ever.
That's what it looks like.
Well, ABC News.
That's a cool story about 3D-printed houses.
Now, you know that there have been 3D-printed houses for a while, but the ones you've seen probably look like cement, you know, some big machine that's making cement walls.
Well, there's a new type that uses just waste wood, so all the sawdust that's created from real wood.
And they take all that sawdust and they put it together with corn resin and they make a 3D printer and they make a biohome.
I guess it takes a week to create a home and it's made of material that's stronger than concrete and is completely recyclable.
So if you take the appliances out of the house, you can recycle the whole house and turn it back into a 3D printer material.
That's wild.
So, that's kind of cool.
At the same time, there's another company that's got 3D printed houses, but the way they're doing it is they make the blocks that are interconnecting like Legos.
So, instead of printing the whole house, they print the parts, and you can snap it together yourself.
Now, I would like to reiterate...
My idea for 3D printed houses.
Whichever kind of technology you use to get your cheap little house, the real secret would be how you organize the homes.
This is something I learned in college.
I've used this example before.
In college, I had the worst physical room of my life, which was, you know, shared with another person.
It was just a little cinder block room with one window.
And the bathroom was down the hall.
But it was my probably best lifestyle because I was surrounded by people like me who had stuff to do.
You know, sports and classes.
It was a great experience.
Now, if you imagine you, let's take some federal land and you started building some of these 3D homes.
The important part would be that you make little Little units within a community where the people have a lot in common.
So one would be people with kids.
So you make one little neighborhood where everybody just has a kid.
Another neighborhood where everybody's single.
Another neighborhood where there's a lot of tech people.
Another one where there's some retired people.
Because if you put people together who have a lot in common, the physical surroundings become way less important.
Way less important.
So you can make an awesome lifestyle that's fairly inexpensive by just organizing who is where instead of just, you know, the materials you use in the house.
That's what I think.
Well, according to Futurism, which is a publication, a website, I guess, there was a recent experiment by researchers at Carnegie Mellon Where they tried to create a company that was entirely run by AI.
So there would be AI agents for each job.
So they would staff the AI company with, instead of humans, they would give an AI agent to be, you know, sales, one to be engineering, one to be whatever.
And so they created this thing and then they just let it run.
Without human interaction to see how all the AI agents would perform.
How do you think it went?
Do you think they became a unicorn because the AI is so smart and then they sold it for a billion dollars?
No.
Turns out it was a gigantic clusterfuck and nothing worked and the AI started lying and absolutely none of it worked.
So even though they used various different AIs, none of the AI agents actually did anything useful.
So we're not quite ready to run a company with AI.
Well, I guess last night was the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and Trump and probably most of the Trump insiders did not go.
I think it turned out to be the most low-energy event of all time, because it used to be, you know, the president would go, whoever the president is, and then a comedian would make really edgy jokes, and then the next day would be everybody talking about all the edgy jokes.
It's like, oh, can you believe that that comedian said that right in front of the president?
But instead, they just gave themselves awards for...
Somebody got an award for writing about Biden's mental
Do you think anybody was writing about Biden's mental decline while he was in office?
I don't think so.
If you're giving somebody an award for writing about it after he's out of office, I don't know if you deserve that award.
That would be like the opposite of what you should get.
You should get a kick in the ass, not an award.
And then I guess the new leader of the White House Correspondents did a speech, and what she wanted you to know, that they are not the enemy of the people.
The press is not the enemy of the people.
To which I say, what's your criteria for that?
Because you certainly look like the enemy of the people to me.
So, how do you score that?
Is there some objective criteria by which you can say, oh, you're not the enemy of the people?
Oh, I see, based on your performance.
But if you actually just looked at what the press has done over the last several years, it certainly looks like enemy, you know, because my friends will tell me the truth, and my enemies will lie to me.
What has the press done more of, telling me the truth or lying to me?
Lying to me.
So how in the world do I declare that they're not my enemy if they're lying to me about the most important things in the world?
No, I would consider that an enemy.
Sorry.
Speaking of enemies, James Carville is complaining that Bernie Sanders and AOC are starting to define the Democrat Party.
Fox News is reporting on this.
Now, I love the fact that Carville, as crazy old coup as he is, he is still probably one of the smartest ones in the Democrat Party in terms of strategies.
And he's completely right.
They're having Bernie and AOC define the party and chasing after oligarchs.
Is a really bad idea.
But the other thing Carville says, he says that Democrats have candidates who are, quote, staggeringly more talented than Bernie and AOC.
Well, who would they be?
Maybe he should give us some names.
I think he's named them before.
But if they're staggeringly more talented, do they need a boost?
Or wouldn't we know their names already?
Wouldn't all their talent have allowed them to break away from the pack and be obvious?
And yet, I can't think of one.
Which Democrat is staggeringly talented?
I don't know.
All right, let's look at the fake news.
You may have seen that President Trump and his wife went to the Pope's funeral.
And you probably saw a bunch of news coverage and social media saying that Trump wore a blue suit when the dress code was for black suits.
And so, therefore, he was being disrespectful to the Pope and the entire Catholic religion.
Well, of course, there were lots of people who didn't wear black for a variety of reasons.
There were other blue suits.
There were gray suits.
There were Muslim traditional outfits.
And the dress code was for a dark suit.
There was no dress code for a black suit.
There was a dress code for a dark suit.
And he had a dark blue.
So that is fake news.
He was not violating any norms.
He was just wearing a nice suit.
Yeah, and if you see a wide shot, You see there was a whole bunch of people in blue suits.
So he wasn't the only one either.
There's more fake news.
Let's see.
Sonny Hostin tried to create this, and MSNBC is trying to create this one.
And nothing.
So when the Republicans started noodling about a $5,000 bonus to pay to people who have babies, to encourage them to have more babies, The Democrats turned that into, oh, you mean you want more white babies,
you racist?
To which every Republican said, huh?
Where'd that come from?
I haven't heard a single person on social media or anywhere else say that the $5,000 baby bonus was somehow, either intentionally or even unintentionally, aimed at white babies.
Now, where does that even come from?
It's just that they've got some kind of terrible fever in their brains, TDS, that they just imagine out of nothing that the idea of having more American babies really meant having more white babies.
How in the world would you even restrict it?
Did they think that the Trump administration was going to give no money to an Hispanic?
An Hispanic family who had been living here for generations?
No!
It's a baby bonus.
It's not a white baby bonus.
Literally nobody's even suggested that, except Democrats, of course.
So, dumb old Joy Reid, the dumbest person in media, she was back making a little video in which she claimed the Roman Empire fell.
Because they had a lack of diversity.
Now, I'm no historian, but even I know that Rome didn't fall because of a lack of diversity.
Can you imagine being so boldly dumb that you would say that in public?
That the reason the Roman Empire fell was a lack of diversity.
So I saw a post by Paul Sispula.
He went to history.com and asked why the Roman Empire fell.
Here are the eight reasons.
Invasions by barbarians, economic troubles and over-reliance on slave labor, the rise of the Eastern Empire, over-expansion and military overspending.
A lot of this is just overspending.
Government corruption and political instability, the arrival of the Huns and the migration of the...
Barbarian tribes, Christianity and the loss of traditional values, weakening of the Roman legions, so basically everything except diversity.
You could argue that the diversity is what destroyed it, because when the barbarians and the Huns and the slaves were filling Rome, that was pretty diverse, and it was also the end of Rome.
Now, I'm not saying that diversity is going to kill Rome.
I'm just saying it went down at the same time it had the most diversity, but not because of it.
It's because of this other stuff.
Well, the thief who stole Christy Noem's purse when she was at a restaurant has been captured.
And just to make it fun, the thief is an illegal immigrant.
And it makes me wonder, how did they catch the guy?
So he had a mask on.
So presumably there was no video that could catch his face.
And there were several theories I saw.
One was, I think her phone was in her purse, right?
Did her phone get stolen?
Because if her phone was there, I guess they could track her phone and go right to him.
Or did they look for his phone?
Maybe he had a phone, and they just checked to see who was in the building that day that was sketchy and also had a phone.
Maybe.
Or somebody else said maybe he tried to use her credit cards and that flagged something.
But my best guess is her phone was in the purse, and that might have been enough.
But have you noticed that when a crime happens to somebody famous, They always solve it.
But if a crime happens to you, the police will say, you know, it could be anything.
Let us know if we find anything.
There's nothing we can do.
Air tag?
Maybe.
Maybe she had an Apple air tag in the purse.
We haven't heard of that, but maybe.
All right, let's do a little update on Trump becoming a dictator.
All right, so this would be based on The Democrat frame for things.
So what are the Democrats looking at that suggest that Trump is becoming an authoritarian Hitler dictator guy?
His administration has recently, well, the Department of Justice, has arrested two judges for harboring illegal aliens.
Is that like a dictator?
Or is that more like...
Nobody's above the law, because it does look like both judges, quite obviously and somewhat publicly, violated the law by harboring, in one case, having an illegal alien in their own home,
and the other case, allegedly, helping the illegal alien escape from ICE after a court case, unsuccessfully.
So I would say, hmm, if they broke the law, and it's an important law, and they're going to make an example out of them so that other people don't think they can just protect illegal aliens, I would say that's not exactly too dictator-like,
because it's very narrowly aimed at people who broke actual laws.
And it wasn't long ago that the Democrats were trying to put a...
A candidate for president in jail, actually even a president in jail, for all kinds of lawfare.
So all that lawfare against Trump apparently had nothing to do with dictator anything.
But the moment the Department of Justice under Trump arrests two judges who clearly broke the law, well, dictator, dictator.
Then there's the case of the Maryland dad who was accused of being a MS-13, who was shipped to El Salvador without what they call due process.
Now, we could argue all day whether there was due process or not, but how many think that that one case of that one Maryland dad is an indication that Trump's a dictator?
To me, it's just he's a guy who said he would get rid of the criminals.
And he meant it.
Apparently he is.
Then what about the negotiations with Ukraine and Russia?
I will admit that Trump apparently is negotiating in a way that would give Putin everything Putin wants.
I don't think there's anything that Putin wants, you know, unless you think he wants the rest of Ukraine, but he probably doesn't.
Because he got the good stuff.
It does look like Trump is negotiating on the side of the dictator.
Now, his purpose is not necessarily to help Putin.
His purpose is to end the war.
And I think it's just common sense that if you know Putin's not going to give back Crimea, he's not going to give back any of those occupied areas.
Why would you even waste your time negotiating something that's not going to happen?
But the weird thing is that Trump is simultaneously being accused of being a Neville Chamberlain, the guy who is negotiating peace with a Nazi, but trusts Hitler to keep his word.
And then he turns out to be the biggest dumb guy in all of history.
Because who would have trusted Hitler to keep his word?
But at the same time that Trump is being accused of the guy who's letting Hitler get away with too much, he's actually being accused of being Hitler.
So he's the first person in history who's ever been accused of being Neville Chamberlain and Hitler at the same time.
So I can't take any of that too seriously.
He did try to fire Jerome Powell from the Fed, which would be, most people would say, an overreach of his position.
But he gave up on that.
So, you know, that was sort of a shot across the bow, but nothing too dictatorial that happened.
And then there's a new story here from Axios.
That Attorney General Pam Bondi is going to resume the practice of seizing reporters' phone records in the narrow situation that there's a leak and there's a leak to specific reporters.
And that would be a reversal of a Biden rule that said they wouldn't take, you know, they wouldn't investigate reporters.
I kind of like Biden's...
I like Biden's take on this.
I think you have to leave the reporters alone, even if there's a leak.
But Pam Bondi, etc., is saying it would be a very narrow search.
So if they took the phones or the devices of the reporters, they wouldn't look at everything.
They'd just be looking for something related to the leak that they were investigating.
But that's not good enough.
So, to me, that's a little bit of an overreach.
I don't like him going after the press.
So, those are the dictatorial things.
Did I miss anything?
Did I miss any other dictator stuff?
You know, even the part where Trump is trolling the world, saying that he wants to take over Canada and Greenland.
You know, he wants to run again in 2028.
I think the 2028 thing is mostly a troll.
And I think he said so today.
And then the other stuff just makes sense.
You know, having more military security with Greenland.
The candidate part, I feel like, is more troll than not.
Although he swears that he's serious about it, but that just makes it funnier.
I don't think he's serious about it, but he might be.
He might be serious about it.
Well, Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, he was on a Rachel Maddow show, and he said that the Trump administration officials could be arrested for, quote, interfering with a legal proceeding or kidnapping.
I think that has to do with the judges that were arrested.
And I saw Joel Pollack commenting on it, that Jamie Raskin just really wants to arrest people.
He's been after trying to arrest Republicans or Trump or anybody close to him for the longest time.
So he's arrest him, arrest him.
All right, let's look at Trump's first 100 days.
So depending who you talk to, it's either the worst hundred days of any president ever, or it went pretty well.
Now, I'm going to make reference here to two bubble people.
There's bubble boy Bill Maher, who says that MAGA voters won't admit how disappointed they are in Trump's first hundred days.
Really?
That doesn't look like any reality I'm aware of.
I do see Republicans say he didn't get enough done, or this didn't work, or I'm disappointed with that.
But they say it.
They say it publicly.
They hold back a bit.
But more often, I'll hear people say that they like what he did in the first 100 days.
And, you know, the jury's out on some of it because it's too early.
Rachel Maddow said that, quote, it's all bad for Trump.
I don't know that we have ever seen another first hundred days from any president this roundly rejected and hated by the American people.
Really?
What bubble is that happening in?
Where's the bubble where Trump's supporters are rejecting everything he's done?
So I think if you ask people, they would say something like, if you ask Republicans, they'd say that Trump did a great job on the border and continues to do a great job on the border, and that was an existential threat.
The border problem was an end-of-America problem, and he solved that.
That's a really big deal.
He took a real strong swipe at DEI, and maybe he got rid of it in the government.
Now, as I said before, I think every private organization is just pretending to get rid of it, so I don't think he had a big success there.
But at least he put down the flag.
I don't know.
What's the right analogy?
He kind of drew the line and said, this is illegal.
If you do this, we will not fund you.
If you do this, you're breaking...
Or at least you're violating the Constitution by being racist.
That part I love.
I mean, you know, maybe you didn't get the big win and eliminate it all at once, but it's certainly working in the right direction compared to where it was.
And Trump's negotiating with Iran for a better deal.
What if he gets it?
I'm not going to predict it'll happen, but what if he does?
It's too early to know.
He's negotiating with Ukraine and with Russia to end that war.
Doesn't look like it's necessarily going to work.
But what if it does?
It's too early to say it worked or it didn't work.
So the first 100 days is sort of a sketchy, stupid way to judge anything.
What about the tariffs?
How many of you are sure that you can judge the...
The beginning and the end of the tariffs.
How many of you would say, oh, it's clear that the tariffs were a gigantic mistake?
It's way too early.
It's way too early.
He's using it as a negotiating tool, and you've got, I don't know, 160 countries who said, yes, we do want to negotiate, which almost certainly means better trade deals.
So what happens if he...
If he gets better trade deals.
So any sense that the first 100 days are telling you anything, it's a real propaganda, gaslighting kind of situation.
You can't tell how he's doing in 100 days.
And if you're looking at his popularity with the public, well, they're getting their cues from the media.
So if you turn on the TV, the media...
It's pretty much saying that the tariffs are the biggest, dumbest thing anybody ever did.
Are they right?
What does the media know about any of this?
They don't know what's going to happen.
They don't know what China is going to do.
They don't know if the negotiations are really happening behind the scenes.
They don't know any of that.
So this whole 100-day thing is just stupid.
But the polls are looking...
Not so great for Trump, according to Just the News.
There's a new poll from Economist slash YouGov that Trump's approval is down to 41%.
And that would be a pretty big drop from the last time at 48%.
And then there's the, I talked about this yesterday, but there's a Fox News poll that says that Democrats are a favorite to win the midterm, which is new.
And almost certainly because of the news coverage about Trump and a lot of it about the tariffs, I would think.
But that's 2026, the midterms.
Now, does that necessarily signal that he's failed if the midterms go to the Democrats?
I don't know.
Because the midterms almost always go to the party that's not in control.
I don't know how many times there's been an exception to that.
So if it's the most common thing in the world that the midterms go to the other party, it's kind of hard to say that it's because of what Trump's doing.
But timing is really important.
So here are just a few of the things that might happen.
I'm not going to predict they will happen.
But they could happen before the midterms.
You might have a peace deal in Ukraine.
How would that look on his resume before the midterms?
Pretty damn good.
You know, of course, there would be problems with the peace deal holding and there'd be cheating and stuff.
But if there was anything that looked like a peace deal and we didn't have to send them money and protect them anymore, and maybe we had a mineral deal too, well, it's going to look pretty good.
Could he get that done before the midterms?
Possibly.
What about a nuclear deal with Iran?
I think Iran is just dragging them along.
I don't think that Iran is necessarily committed to making a deal, but they could.
I would say it's not completely out of the question, because the alternative is, Trump said very clearly, that he wouldn't have to be dragged into a war with Iran if they don't make a deal.
He says he would very willingly be leading that war.
And that's pretty scary.
So maybe he's threatening Iran enough that he could get an actual good deal.
Maybe.
Before the midterms.
What if he negotiates a better deal with China and our other major trading partners before the midterms?
It's not going to be worse than the current deals, right?
It seems unlikely that he would negotiate worse trade deals.
So wouldn't it look like the tariffs worked?
If he, let's say, in, I don't know, four months or something, we've got a little disruption, we've got some shortages over the summer, but manageable.
We figure out a way around it.
And then when we're done, we've got much better trade deals.
Isn't that going to look like the biggest win ever?
And all of this could happen, could happen before midterms.
Now, as I said before, I think the Democrat strategy is completely just stalling.
They want to stall until the midterms and make sure that he doesn't have any successes that the public knows about, so they can just keep the public from knowing about anything that he does that works.
And then once he...
They get control of the house, which is a good possibility.
Then they can just block every other thing he wants to do.
And then they can say he was a giant failure, but it would be because they made him fail.
The press framed it that way, and then the house had some control, and maybe they just start a bunch of investigations and just basically break everything.
There's a good chance that'll happen.
Well, according to Just the News, California tried to pass a bill that would make it easier to get rid of squatters.
Because right now in California, if somebody squats in your property, you really just can't get rid of them.
I mean, you can, but the process could take years and, you know, could be expensive, etc.
So having a squatter is just the worst thing in the world in California.
So there was some new legislation to make it easier to get rid of it.
And of course it failed.
And it failed because they didn't want to increase more homeless.
So imagine being a homeowner in California.
First of all, you're not owning your home because you're paying the government or it will take it away from you.
So property taxes are basically rent you're paying to keep your house.
So not only do you not really own your house because you've got to pay the government just to keep it, but if somebody plays a clever trick and moves in and doesn't pay you rent anymore, you've got to keep them.
So if you can't control keeping your own house, you've got to pay rent to the government, and the government can tell you that someone else can live in your house whether you like it or not.
Do you even own the house?
It's like you don't even own the house.
So California is pretty close to full communist at this point.
Or at least socialist.
Now, I happen to know somebody who was a squatter at one point.
It was sort of a boyfriend situation.
You know, the boyfriend wanted to break up, but she wanted to stay where she was.
And I'll tell you, being a squatter is no good idea.
Because once you get on the list of someone who has ever been a squatter, you can never rent a place or probably even buy a place ever again.
You are absolutely locked out of all civilized behavior.
Once you show up on a list of somebody who has ever squatted, you can never rent.
Never rent again.
That's pretty severe.
Wouldn't it be better if it was easier to remove the squatters, but maybe the squatter penalty would maybe time out after five years or something?
Because, you know, people change.
I think California is doing everything wrong on that topic.
All right, I've got a theory that the only lasting benefit from Doge, because I don't think they cut enough to make a difference to the budget, I think the only lasting benefit is giving it a name, Doge.
Because now Pennsylvania is talking about they need their own Doge, and some other states have talked about, oh, we need a Doge, and some organizations have said we need a Doge, and some other countries have said we need a Doge.
The fact that it has a name allows everybody to say they're in favor of it.
But if you tried to do it without a name and you said, you know what we really need is some kind of smart auditors who would come in and they'd use a scalpel and they'd decide what to cut.
I don't know if you'd get a yes or a no because it wouldn't even have a name.
Once you give something a name, And everybody knows that name of the thing.
Then it becomes a yes-no.
Should we do a Doge?
Pretty good idea.
So even if the main Doge doesn't produce the cuts that we hoped, and it's not looking like it will, it might create the idea.
It could be that the idea of Doge, where you get a bunch of smart people to come in and look for the waste.
Cut your budget where it makes sense.
That might be really important.
So maybe the lasting benefit is just somebody gave it a name so we all know what it is so we can say yes or no to it in the future.
NVIDIA, the company that makes those big AI boards, mostly boards, they're going to invest $500 billion in AI supercomputers in the U.S. Now,
I think an AI supercomputer means a data center that acts as one unified supercomputer.
But Mario Knopfel was writing about this on X. And that's a pretty big move, $500 billion.
That's half a trillion dollars.
Now, I didn't see what time frame that is, but obviously it's not one year.
But that's some serious investment.
Again, if we see the midterms coming and there are enough of these situations where big companies like Apple have said, yep, we're going to move our production to India, get it out of China.
We're going to build a bunch of things in the United States.
You've got a bunch of car companies saying, yep, we're going to move our production out of Mexico and put it back into Detroit or something.
Trump's going to look pretty good.
But they're going to have to rack up a lot more of these.
So right now it's maybe two handfuls of deals.
They're big ones.
I mean, they're many billions of dollars.
They're big ones.
But I think maybe two handfuls of deals wouldn't be enough for him to win the midterms.
But what if he had 50?
What if they were 50?
just legitimate, obvious, gigantic deals that were coming into the United States that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Well, then he's going to be looking pretty good.
So that could happen.
I was looking at a post by Insurrection Barbie on X. And Insurrection Barbie points out there have been more than 60 coordinated attacks on Tesla and $20 million in personal property damage and over $460 billion in Market cap collapse in Tesla,
the company.
And she points out that one of the most radical groups behind this domestic terrorism is called the Disruption Project.
And the Disruption Project are funded 100% by another entity called the Tides Network.
And the Tides Network is funded primarily by David Rockefeller, George Soros, The Pritzkers and the Pritzkers.
So, if we know who's funding it, and we know it's domestic terrorism, and we know that there are real economic costs, you know, $20 million of damage, etc., Insurrection Barbie asks, why not a RICO case?
Now, I'm no lawyer.
So I don't know that that's enough to make it RICO, but it's organized.
It's seemingly criminal, at least by outcome.
Maybe there's no smoking gun that says, we're going to try to get people to destroy property.
That probably doesn't exist.
But what if they were completely aware of the outcome?
Certainly after the first few instances.
If they were completely aware that what they were funding was going to cause massive property damage, is that enough to make it a RICO case where it's an organized criminal activity?
I don't know.
I will leave that to the lawyers.
Well, according to Scott Pressler, There's a problem in Pennsylvania, as he says on X. So, apparently, some Republican voters got their mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, and their mail-in ballots are dated for 2024.
So, last year.
In other words, they're not even legal, at least the way they're dated.
I guess Scott Pressler has heard from several other Republicans who also received last year's ballot.
Now, again, I don't know if it's really last year's ballot or if they just have a typo in the date.
But either way, it would suppress your voting, wouldn't it?
Because you wouldn't know for sure if it's the right thing.
Maybe you'd try to get the right one, but you'd run out of time.
You'd be confused.
So the open question is whether it only happened to Republicans.
So if you want to go full conspiracy theory, is it possible that all the fake ballots went to Republicans?
Now, I would guess it's more of a general problem, maybe just a printer glitch or something, a typo.
So it probably affected everybody.
But we'll get to the bottom of it.
We don't know yet.
According to the Washington Examiner, I don't know how new this is because it sounds like something I talked about before.
China kind of quietly exempted some things from tariffs because it found it couldn't get them anywhere else.
So I guess when it comes to U.S.-made semiconductors, chip-making equipment, medical products, and aviation parts, China took off the tariff that they put on it.
So they made the exemptions apparently after realizing that they didn't really have a way to get that stuff any other way.
Now, I don't think they've publicly announced that, so they're kind of flying quiet.
But do you think that the Trump administration is actually talking to Chinese officials about a deal?
Do you think that secretly there's a conversation going?
Because Trump is saying yes.
Oh yeah, we're getting close.
We're having conversations all the time.
And China is still hanging tight with, nope, nope, there's no negotiating.
It's not happening at all.
It doesn't feel like something that Trump would just completely make up.
So my guess is we're talking to somebody, but I don't know if that somebody has the authority of President Xi or not.
So maybe they're getting close to something, and we'll be surprised.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Russia's made a deal with Iran that Russia would fund construction of a new nuclear plant in Iran.
I guess they have funded one already, and it's already built.
And that Russia would supply Iran with 55 billion cubic meters of Russian gas per year.
So, it's starting to look like Russia has done a good job of pulling the bad guys together onto one team.
You know, he's tight with China, he's tight with Iran, tight with some other smaller countries, but those are the ones that matter.
So, Russia's done a good job.
I hate to say it, but Russia has done a hell of a good job of circumventing, you know, the United States interests and building their own little.
I told you before that Trump was asked by Time Magazine if he would be dragged into war with Iran if Israel wanted to happen and they couldn't make a deal.
Trump said no, that he didn't say that he would get dragged in, but that he wouldn't have to be dragged because if they don't make a deal, he would willingly want to go in and have a war.
Now, that's the right thing to say.
I don't know if he would actually do it or if we would ever be done negotiating.
It would sort of make sense for him to just keep kicking the can down the road and say, oh, I'm still negotiating.
Don't go in militarily.
Trump is also saying out loud that he's worried that Vladimir Putin is maybe not so interested in peace and maybe he's bringing Trump along because, as Trump points out,
Putin is bombing some civilian areas in Ukraine and there just doesn't seem to be a reason for it.
Unless he's trying to kill the peace deal.
And so Trump is calling that out, and he says, quote, on True Social, Trump said, quote, it makes me think that maybe he, meaning Putin, doesn't want to stop the war.
He's just tapping me along, tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently through banking or secondary sanctions.
So it looks like Trump is thinking, If you just keep fucking with me, which Putin is doing, that he's just going to go heavy on sanctions, heavier than he already is.
David Sachs was on the All In pod, and he was saying that Zelensky seems to clearly not be interested in peace, because if he were, he wouldn't be insisting on getting Crimea back,
because there's no practical way that's ever going to happen.
And Sack says Zelensky has made his bed, let him sleep in it.
And that's sort of where I'm at, you know, without being any kind of an expert on Ukraine, which I'm not.
But if he's not willing to talk about Ukraine, which is very solidly under Russian control and it's not going to change, if he's not willing to accept that, He must want the war more than he wants the peace,
because it's the only path to peace, and he's said no.
So I do think there's a good chance that Trump might just say, we're out, you guys work it out, and maybe have them beg him to come back.
Or if they don't, maybe don't care.
Maybe don't care.
We'll see.
I saw a post by David Kirichenko that was detailing all of the drone-building activity in Ukraine.
It turns out that although Ukraine is this big war zone, they've developed almost a Silicon Valley-like, really robust startup situation for drones.
And the claim, I don't know if the claim is true, Is that they're so nimble, and of course they have a necessity for the drones that other people don't have, that they're developing newer and better ones faster than anybody else.
So there are just all kinds of startups now in Ukraine that are all drone-related.
And Ukraine's defense sector was only a billion dollars of output in 2022.
But it's up to $15 billion now, and that doesn't count the American weapons.
That's just their own military-industrial base.
And when I see how robust their military-industrial base is, mostly startups, it makes me wonder, does he have a problem with the military-industrial complex of his own country?
Is it possible that Ukraine's Military benefiting people, every one of these startups, they would all go maybe bankrupt if there was a piece.
But as long as there's war, those startups are worth, you know, they're priceless.
Basically, you want more and more of them.
So it does make me wonder what's behind Zelensky's idea.
It looks like Zelensky doesn't think he would survive peace.
But there are so many people who might want to get him.
I mean, Russia might want to take him out.
The U.S. might want to take him out.
His own military-industrial complex might want to take him out.
Maybe some of the corrupt oligarchs in his country might want to take him out if he's no longer defeating them.
Through corruption or whatever.
So that's my best...
So I'm going to say my best guess is that Zelensky does want peace, but he doesn't know how to get it without dying personally.
And so he's just not going to say yes.
That's what I think.
According to Newsmax...
There's a poll that says the majority of Gen Z see college as a scam.
Gen Z, you know, 51%, but majority, they see college as a scam and a waste of money.
Boy, is that different from when I grew up.
I was in the generation where at least my mother would say, if you go to college, everything will work out.
And so I went to college.
Everything worked out.
It was absolutely a big pathway to at least a good to average life.
So what do you do if you're Gen Z now?
You've got robots coming.
You don't want college debt.
If you don't go to college, what kind of job are you going to get?
If you do go to college, what kind of job are you going to get?
Especially with weird majors.
So anyway, it's Sunday.
There's not that much news.
So I'm going to say thanks for joining.
And we'll have a lot more news on Monday.
So we'll go wild on Monday.
Yeah, trade school.
Trade school.
But I don't know that trade school is a path to the same middle class, went to college kind of life.
Or not.
I mean, it's definitely better than not having a job.
And in many cases, it could be very lucrative.
All right.
I'm going to talk to the locals' people privately.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining.
And I'll see you on X and Rumble and YouTube tomorrow.
