All Episodes
May 28, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
57:37
Episode 2853 CWSA 05/28/25

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Mayor Karen Bass, LA Rebuilding Permits, President Trump, Golden Dome, Canada Statehood Offer, COVID Vaccination Changes, RFK Jr., NPR Demands Funding, NC Ineligible Voters, America's Debt Death Spiral, Leaderless Democrats, Democrats Seek Men, Party of Women, Non-White Farm Loan Forgiveness, Race Emphasis, GOP Thwarts DOGE, Governor DeSantis, Stephen Miller, Budget Debt Increase, Elon Musk's Disappointment, Student VISA Pause, 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
Let's check on the stock market.
It looks a little bit flat.
That's alright.
It was up yesterday.
So let's check on our comments, make sure I can see what you're saying.
I have to warn you that today my mental capacity is about 50% normal.
So if I sound like a host on MSNBC, it's not your imagination.
Do, do, do, do, do, do.
Thank you.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
All right, now I'm good.
I wonder if there are any scientific studies that they didn't need to do because they could just ask me.
Oh, here we go.
Eric Nolan in SciPost is writing.
There's a new study that says that sexual activity before bed improves objective sleep quality.
So, did anybody besides me know that sex before bed allows you to get to sleep better?
Apparently it works whether you have a partner or not.
Is there anybody who didn't know that?
That might be the most well-known fact in all of human history.
You could look...
And they did a study on it.
Oh, my God.
Okay.
Well, Starship launch was either successful or unsuccessful, depending on how you define success.
If you're a business insider, you'd say it was unsuccessful because you don't like Elon Musk.
But if you were more science and technology oriented, you'd say it got further than ever before, and they learned a bunch of things, and they're well along.
In other words, it was a failure that taught them a bunch of things, which is why they do it.
They're trying to learn a bunch of things so that the next time they do it, it gets a little bit further.
So let's call it a success because they learned a bunch of things and they got further than they've been before.
Speaking of Elon Musk, it makes me think of Tesla, which makes me think of this new feature.
Sawyer Merritt's talking about this on X. Apparently, your Tesla...
So if you leave a child unattended in your car, which I know you all like to do, the car will flash and the lights will play and there'll be some kind of alert and a notification will be sent to your Tesla app if the unattended child is detected.
It kind of makes you wonder, How old does the kid have to be?
Because what if your kid is 12 years old?
Would it say your kid is unattended?
I don't know.
11?
10?
How does it know?
I don't know.
It seems like a step forward, so I'm not going to mock it.
It probably will save lives.
The other thing it might do is drive it home.
It could just drive it home and unlock the door or roll down the windows.
Don't you think it could roll down the window a little bit?
I don't know.
There's a lot of ways that could have gone.
Well, here's the nerdiest sounding thing that might be a really big deal.
Let's see if I can make this make sense.
According to Interesting Engineering, There's a new stretchable metal.
Pretty exciting, huh?
Yeah, when you decided to watch this podcast, you said to yourself, I wonder, I wonder if there's any new stretchable metals.
Well, it turns out there is.
And there's a special metal that delivers, believe it or not, 90% of the Carnot efficiency for heating and cooling.
Well, no.
Yeah, no. 90% of the car, no efficiency.
That's a thing, I guess.
And it's 20 times better than traditional alloys.
All right, so the bottom line is that there's a new technology that seems practical that would just gigantically change your ability to do heating and cooling and make a heat pump.
That works with regular electricity, but is way, way, way, way more efficient.
Now imagine what would happen to our energy needs if we could cool things and heat things way, way, way, way, way better than we ever have before.
Well, that's coming up.
So you remember how L.A. Mayor Karen Bass Was bragging that things were going well in the Palisades and the rebuilding and the issuing of permits.
Well, she caught a little bit of heat for that, according to the New York Post.
If you want to put things in perspective, there have been 68 building permits that have been issued for 52 addresses.
So, 52 addresses.
It's pretty good, right?
52?
Well, that's not so good if you consider there are 6,800 properties, and so that would be less than 1%.
So Karen Bass is up there standing in front of one of the very few homes that is being built and getting her picture taken, and only 1% have been approved.
That's not good.
But at least we're going to get the Golden Dome that will protect us from incoming missiles.
And according to Trump, he told Canada, who wants to get in on this, that if they become part of the USA, that Canada will pay nothing to be part of the Dome.
Pretty good deal, right?
Your costs will be nothing.
If Canada wants to stay an independent nation, they will pay $61 billion for their part of the Dome.
And according to Trump, Canada is considering his offer of becoming part of the United States so they can save money on the Dome.
Is there anybody who believes that?
Do you believe that he had a conversation with anybody in Canada who said, wait a minute, are you telling me I can get a big discount on the Golden Dome if I give up my sovereignty?
Well, let me get back to you on that.
Maybe we will give up our sovereignty after all.
I didn't realize I could make so much money by giving up my sovereignty.
Okay, I'm going to say that might be a little bit of a salesman talk there.
Just a little bit of salesman talk.
Well, RFK Jr. and his cohorts in the health part of the government, I guess, they're taking COVID shots off the vaccine schedule for healthy kids and pregnant women.
I'm going to assume, without looking into it, that some science was involved.
What do you think?
Do you think he just guessed?
Because his critics act like he just makes shit up.
But I'm pretty sure they looked at the science and didn't see a reason to give healthy kids the COVID shots for pregnant women.
And here's one of the things that always amuses me about any of the controversy about the COVID shots.
Everybody seems to be trusting experts.
So you're either trusting the official experts or you're trusting the experts that say the official experts got it wrong.
But isn't there always an expert on both sides?
And if you're not listening to either of the experts, and I'm not saying you should, because it's a weird world, what exactly are you relying on?
Did you do some tests yourself in the backyard?
It's hard not to rely on an expert, isn't it?
Because there's always somebody who said, "Well, according to me, okay." This will work for my audience especially.
So probably my audience would say that the spike protein stays in your body, right?
And that it causes trouble.
If you go to Grok, it'll say the spike protein just leaves your body quickly.
And then do the same test with everything you believe to be true.
Now, I'm not saying that Grok is right.
I'm just saying that it's going to blow your frickin' mind when you test every assumption that you believe is true about COVID and the COVID shots.
Almost nothing you think is true will be backed up by the Grok summary of what is true.
Now, I'm not saying crock is true, but I'm also not saying I know what is true.
I have no idea.
But how do you write history when there's just no agreement on history at all?
Like what was dangerous, what's not dangerous?
Anyway, so I did that exercise the other day, and it just blew my freaking mind that you But I don't know what's true.
Anyway, NPR is suing President Trump over his order to cut their funding.
What exactly gives them the right to sue somebody over the privilege of being funded by the government?
And first of all, it's not like they get all their funding from the government.
It's only a little bit.
So they don't have to go out in business.
They just have to adjust.
But President Trump is suing the state of North Carolina for refusing to wipe ineligible voters off their voting rolls.
Have we reached the point where all action And it doesn't matter what you do, or what your reason is, or what your authority is, or what the Constitution says, or what the law says, somebody's going to sue your ass for absolutely everything you do.
So, I don't know who's going to win, but how in the world is North Carolina refusing to wipe ineligible voters off their rolls?
Like, what would be their argument for You want us to get rid of the ineligible voters?
Well, what kind of an authoritarian does that?
What exactly is the argument for keeping ineligible voters on the rolls?
I assume they say they might be eligible?
I don't know.
Well, according to the Rasmussen poll, the polling company Rasmussen, There's a Trump effect that for the first time ever since they've been tracking this, that the majority of the public, 50%, just barely majority, believes that the country is on the right track.
So for 20 years, Rasmussen's been tracking it, and this is the first time ever.
That the country thought it was on the right track.
Is it true?
No, it's not true.
Because we're heading toward a deficit cliff, we're definitely not on the right track.
We're on a track toward certain doom for the first time in my life.
I've never been in a situation, well, that I can remember.
We always had risks, right?
Like, we always had a risk that maybe the Soviet Union would nuke us, but probably not, right?
And we had risks that, I don't know, the communists would take over the country or something, but probably not.
But at the moment, we have a budget situation in which we know we're heading right toward the cliff.
And it doesn't seem that we have any ability to stop it.
So it's the first time in my life where I could say unambiguously we're on the wrong track because we can't stop the one thing that would take us out.
So I'm glad everybody else is happy, or at least 50% of the country.
But it is impressive.
That Trump convinced the most people ever that we're on the right track.
Can we fix this problem with the deficit?
Well, I'll talk about that more in a minute.
At the same time, a separate poll by The Economist slash YouGov says that Republicans' favorability is better than the Democrats'.
So the GOP has a net favorability rating of Negative 11%.
So that's something to brag about, because it's better than the Democrats, who are even 10 points behind that.
So Democrats have a net favorability rating of negative 21%.
The political parties, it amazes me that everybody's picking the least terrible party.
Like, huh.
Well, I could go with the party that's negative 21% favorability, but I'm no fool, so I'm going to go with the one that's only negative 11%.
Well, those are your two choiceless people.
Negative 11 or negative 21%.
Have you noticed that the Democrats Because it's all they have to say.
They don't have any leadership.
If they had leadership, the leaders would be telling them, hey, don't dump on Democrats.
Say the Democrats are getting everything right and the Republicans are getting everything wrong.
But they have no leaders.
So the way they can get attention now is by who can be the The most insightful Democrat complaining about Democrats.
So now we have this weird situation where Republicans can complain about Democrats, and then Democrats are also complaining about Democrats.
We've never seen this before, right?
It's the first time the Democrats have just a free pass.
And there's nothing stopping them from saying, you know, looks like Democrats did everything wrong.
And it doesn't look like we figured out how to fix it.
I've never seen this before.
So, on CNN, Ro Khanna, Representative Khanna, he said, Kamala Harris, for whatever you say about her, did connect with people culturally.
Did she?
Did she connect with men?
No, she didn't connect with men.
Men were leaving the party like crazy.
Anyway, he said that she did connect with people culturally.
I think the problem with the party is that we didn't have a clear economic vision for working class Americans.
Really?
Was that the one problem with the party?
It had nothing to do with the fact that the Main candidate was mentally defective, and they were hiding it.
And the backup candidate, the vice president, was a drunken idiot.
It's not the drunken idiot problem.
So not only do Democrats have a free pass to criticize their own party, but they're not even doing that right.
Do you think that if they had a...
Do you think that they would have ridden into victory because they got the one thing right?
An economic vision for working-class Americans?
If they had an economic vision for working-class Americans, do you know what that would have looked like?
Republican policy.
This is a terrible analysis.
They're acting like the only problem they had was they weren't copying Republicans enough on economic policy for middle-class Americans.
Wow!
And Ro Khanna is one of the smart ones, and he's like 100 miles away from even understanding what the problem was.
Anyway, as you know, Democrats have been trying to win back men by coming up with big words and studying their syntax.
We talked about that already.
Some consultant came up with a $20 million proposition, and I guess they got funded to go look into how they message men.
Like, that's the problem.
It's not the messaging.
It's not your choice of words.
I promise you, if you think that the problem with losing men from the Democrat Party is because you used the wrong words, you're as far as Ro Khanna is away from understanding anything about anything that happened in the last 10 years.
Now, how many of you can back me up on the following statement?
This is going to be a big claim.
I'm going to make a large claim, and I want to see if I have backing for it or if I'm just totally off base.
In 2016, I was the first person in America who said, uh-oh, it's obvious that the Democrats are becoming the party of women, and men are going to defect.
I was the first person in the country who pointed that out, and I did it a lot.
I mean, I mentioned that a lot.
Can you confirm or deny, those of you who were with me 10 years ago, I did say that, right?
And I gave examples, and I blamed Hillary Clinton, and I said the messaging is all female.
Yeah, okay, in the comments, I'm getting a string of yeses.
So you do remember that.
So the next time I tell you that something's going to be true, maybe you'll listen to me.
I have to admit, that was a stunningly good prediction, because absolutely nobody else was saying that in 2016.
And I was saying it often, it's like, hey, you know, you're turning into the party of women, and men are going to get the hell out of there.
And sure enough, that's exactly what happened.
And I think Hillary is the one who killed the party, actually.
News Nation had a, looked like an exclusive story, that right at the end of the Biden administration, they put on a farm loan forgiveness program that was for everybody except white farmers.
So it was irrelevant what your economic situation was because, of course, there were a lot of white farmers who weren't doing great.
But it was only for the disadvantaged people or whatever they wanted to call them.
And then I guess there was some lawsuit and some court said, you can't do that.
That would be obviously unconstitutional to give money only to certain ethnic groups and deny it to others.
So, as a response, the Biden administration made it available to everybody, and then they only sent out notices to non-white farmers.
So the only people who knew that they could get the forgiveness, and they would have to do some process to get it, the only ones who were informed were the non-white farmers.
And allegedly, the people who were in charge and did that are still in charge of whatever government entity does that kind of stuff.
So, unbelievable racism.
Speaking of race, there was a recent Pew Research survey that said many respondents Now, I think that's different than black fatigue, which I saw somebody explaining that black fatigue is not what you think it is.
It's not white people being tired of race-related things.
It's something else.
I forget what it was.
It's based on some book.
This does ring true that people are exhausted by the topic, and we're just sick of hearing it, and that almost 4 in 10 Republican respondents said they were uninterested in issues of race, whereas only 15% of Democrats were saying the same thing.
All right, here's my take.
I don't believe in privileged problems.
Is it true that there's a thing called systemic racism?
Yes.
To me, it seems obvious.
Yes, there's definitely systemic racism.
Is it true?
Well, let me back up a bit.
I've taught you what it means to make somebody think past the sale.
Thinking past the sale would be if you're a car salesperson and you say, you know, what color do you want this car?
If you can get somebody to answer that question, then they've already thought past the question of whether they're going to buy that car.
So it doesn't work every time, but it's a well-known technique in persuasion to get somebody to uncritically think past The most important part and think to the less important part that's in the future.
And then their brain just sort of uncritically thinks, well, I guess I decided to buy this car.
Well, that's how I see race at the moment.
Because there's an uncritical thing we've been asked to accept, which is that race-related problems, and let's say Now, it's not a nothing problem, but where's the evidence that it's the biggest problem?
There's no evidence that I've seen.
So the whole thing is a scam because it assumes that because...
Jim Crow, gigantic problem.
That in the current times, it's also the biggest problem and the thing that you have to worry about, and it's bigger than other people's problems.
I don't buy that.
Do you think that the average black person...
Because I'm going to be dead pretty soon.
Unless a miracle happens.
Don't I have a bigger problem?
And if you just look around at the people you know, don't they have gigantic problems?
I mean, if you were born looking a certain way or...
Who says that race is the biggest problem, and that we should put, like, extra work into that?
Who has privileged problems?
There's no privileged problems.
It's just a bunch of people with problems.
And if you ask them, they'd say their own problems are the biggest ones.
Because sometimes they are.
So I can accept every bit of what, let's say, black Americans, just to pick an example, say is a problem.
And I would say, yep, that sounds like a problem.
But is it bigger than mine?
Is it bigger than my neighbor's problem?
Where's that argument?
Why do I have to stop everything to work on your problem?
So, the making you think past the sale is the exhausting part.
I would say that black America has a strategy problem.
Well, maybe everybody does.
You don't even have to limit it.
If I said to you, or if you said to me, But what about employment?
Black people have discrimination in employment.
I would say, no, you don't.
You have a bad strategy.
If your strategy was to go try to get a job at a company that has a DEI leaning, even if they don't call it that, you would easily get the job over other people who are equally qualified.
So getting a job would be easy if you also had a strategy.
Now, I would also say, you know, you could have to study in school and get good grades.
But once you've done that, that's the same as what everybody has to do.
They all have to study and get good grades or things aren't going to work out.
Or learn a skill.
If I told you, well, how about a strategy?
Why don't you learn a skill?
That would help you.
So, I don't believe that there's a race problem so much as there is a strategy problem.
Because the society has adapted so that no matter what your race is, you can either go toward DEI or you can get the fuck away from it, depending on which one's your better strategy.
Now, I got cancelled from saying that sometimes you want to just get the fuck away from things that are negative for you.
That's a strategy.
It's not a crime.
If you can go somewhere where the DEI won't be denying you a job because you're white, you should do that.
You should do that right away.
If you can go to where there is less crime against people who look like you, you should do that.
You should do it right away.
That the reason they're suffering is because of people who look like you?
You should do that as soon as possible.
Get the fuck away from people who think that you have their stuff because you don't have their stuff.
You didn't steal their stuff.
So if you can get away from people who think like that, you should do it.
And likewise, if you want a boost, A strategic advantage in getting a job.
You should go toward DEI if DEI is going to help you.
And I wouldn't criticize you for that.
I would say, oh, that's a good strategy.
Very good strategy.
You should go toward it.
So, no, we don't have a race problem.
We have a strategy problem.
Let's talk about Doge, shall we?
So, Matt Van Swal has been getting a lot of attention on X for complaining that the Congress is not taking the doge cuts seriously and not incorporating them.
Today, he said, turns out liberals didn't have to stop the doge cuts by firebombing Tesla dealerships or calling for the death of Elon or vandalizing Teslas across America.
All they had to do was to ask the GOP to do fucking anything at all for the American people.
That's all it took.
And that one hit hard.
Because, I don't know if you're having the same experience, but watching the GOP apparently screw the Republicans who had been backing them.
The Democrats really didn't even have to get involved.
They could have just let the GOP screw the Republicans, and they didn't have to do all that work of setting anything on fire.
Now, you might say that's a little hyperbole, and he's gone too far, but DeSantis, Governor DeSantis, he also blasted the House GOP for failing to codify the doge cuts.
According to the New York Post, he called it a betrayal of the voters.
And he accused congressional Republicans of betrayal by failing to codify the spending cuts.
Now, Stephen Miller, who I consider one of the smartest people who's ever been in government, and one of the good guys, if you're a MAGA type or a pro-Trump person, He tried to explain to the public, and he's done this a few times on X, what the problem is.
Now you say to yourself, why isn't this easy?
Doge told them what to cut, and then they did a budget, and it doesn't seem that they cut anything that Doge recommended.
What part are we not understanding?
Well, it turns out there's a lot we're not understanding.
And I'm going to see if you understand Stephen Miller's explanation.
I'll give you a hint where it's heading.
There's no such thing as the budget.
There's a whole bunch of complications of what you can and cannot do.
Of your discretionary budget versus your non-discretionary budget versus your reconciliation bill, which is different from a recessions package.
Some of those things would require just 50 votes, which the Republicans have a good chance of getting.
So if they use one of these hard-to-understand processes, They might be able to get something like at least the Republican priorities passed.
But if they tried to do cuts, they would have to use maybe a different process.
Don't call it a budget.
You might call it a rescission package or a reconciliation bill.
But don't call it a budget.
But you would need 60 votes, depending on which.
Archaic, hard-to-understand process they're using, and the Republicans can't get 60 votes because Democrats would filibuster, etc.
So that's my idiot explanation of what's going on, but I'm just going to read Stephen Miller's explanation because I believe he's 100% technically correct.
But here's what I'm not satisfied with.
Don't fucking tell me what you can't do.
Don't fucking tell me what you can't do.
He's doing that very accurately, I believe.
So now I understand what the problem is.
I need him to tell me, or somebody, how you're going to cut the budget and save us all.
I don't need you to tell me how you can't do it.
I don't need you to tell me the rules don't allow it.
You don't have enough votes.
That's good to know, I suppose.
But you need to tell me how you can do it and when it's going to fucking happen.
Okay?
But it is fair.
It's completely fair because he's one of the smartest guys.
And I believe that his explanation will be perfectly accurate.
So I'd like to read it to you so you've also heard it.
But you're probably going to have the same reaction I am, which is, I get it, but don't tell me what you can't fucking do.
Tell me what you can do and when are you going to do it.
Or tell me that you can't do it ever and that we're just going to go over the cliff.
Whichever is true.
I want to know.
But don't just tell me what you can't fucking do.
And here's what you can't fucking do.
So Stephen Miller says on Acts, the doge cuts are to discretionary spending, e.g.
the federal bureaucracy.
Okay.
Discretionary.
What does the word discretionary mean to you?
Discretionary means you have a choice, right?
And then the doge cuts are to the stuff that you would have a choice about.
Perfect.
That's exactly what I thought they were.
Oh, but it turns out that the word discretionary doesn't mean what you think it does.
He goes on.
Under Senate budget rules, you cannot cut discretionary spending.
You can only cut mandatory because it's a reconciliation bill.
Okay, so it's not a budget, it's a reconciliation bill, and in a reconciliation bill, the thing you can't cut is a discretionary shit, which is exactly the stuff that the word says you should be able to cut, because that's what discretionary means, but you can cut mandatory, even though mandatory means the opposite of how it's fucking being used, because mandatory should be the stuff you can't cut.
But it turns out you can cut the mandatory, but not the discretionary, because it's a reconciliation bill.
You got that?
Everybody understand that?
Makes perfect sense?
I guess that's the Senate rule.
And again, remember, Stephen Miller is probably 100% accurate, right?
I doubt he's wrong.
It's just that the rules themselves are just completely a mess.
Then he goes on, he says, so, doge cuts would have to be done through what is known as a rescissions package or an appropriations bill.
Okay, so I guess neither of those are, what, a budget?
How many of you know what a rescissions package or an appropriations bill is?
None of you, right?
None of you.
Then he goes on, he says, the big beautiful bill, the one we're working on there, is not an annual budget bill.
Okay.
And does not fund the departments of government.
Okay.
It does not finance our agencies or federal programs.
Okay.
Instead, and the strongest border bill in American history, all while reducing the deficit.
So, if that's the case, We'd be getting a bunch of things that Republicans would want while reducing the deficit.
And I said to myself, huh, well, it's all complicated and it looks like it's a bunch of bullshit to me, but at least if it reduces the deficit, that's pretty good.
So somebody in the comments went to Grok to ask if that was true.
And Grock says, the big beautiful bill likely increases the federal deficit.
Oh, you mean the one thing I fucking cared about?
Despite claims otherwise.
Now remember, this is Grock versus Stephen Miller.
Stephen Miller, again, is a very reliable, smartest guy.
So his claim is that it reduces the deficit, but Grock says, no.
No, probably not.
Independent analyses from the CRFB, who we can't trust, and the Tax Foundation, who we can't trust because we don't really know who they are or what their motivations are, estimate that this bill would add $2.5 to $5 trillion to deficits over 10 years.
Oh, in other words, it would take us over the cliff.
Mainly due to $3.8 trillion in tax cuts and new spending.
Grok goes on to say, The White House claims $1.6 trillion in savings from growth and cuts, but evidence for this is weak.
Bond market reactions and the CBO estimates support a deficit increase.
More scrutiny is needed as the Senate reviews the bill.
Okay.
Well, did that clear everything up for you?
Are you all happy now?
Are you happy because you understand the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary and a reconciliation bill versus a rescissions package versus an appropriations bill according to the Senate rules?
And apparently it's so complicated that we can't tell if it's going to kill us.
Or reduce the deficit?
So, everybody happy now?
Glad you got a good explanation from your government.
All right.
So, Elon Musk was on CBS recently, just the other day, I guess.
And he said, quote, I think a bill can be big, or it could be beautiful.
But I don't know if it could be both.
And he told CBS Monday morning that he was, quote, disappointed to see the Trump-backed big, beautiful spending bill, which passed in the House, and Musk said he believes the legislation, quote, increases the budget deficit and undermines the work that the Doge team is doing.
Okay, so if you're keeping score, Stephen Miller says it will decrease the deficit.
But two of these entities, or three of them, say it would increase the deficit quite a bit.
And the bond market says it would increase the deficit.
Elon Musk, the smartest person in the world, says it would basically increase the deficit.
And it turns out that there are at least four GOP senators who think it would blow up the deficit.
So you've got Tillis, Johnson, Scott, and Rand Paul.
That would be four of them who think that this is a budget buster.
And if the four of them hold tight, it won't pass.
Because that would be, I think, one too many.
To say no.
So we'll see if those four stop it from happening.
I don't know what happens if they do.
All right.
Does that all make sense for the first time?
Everybody understand what the issue is?
What a freaking mess.
Here's what I want to be told.
How are you going to decrease the deficit?
Now, if you need to say stuff like rescissions packages and reconciliation and discretionary this and mandatory that, all right, you can use those words and I'll take it upon myself to try to figure out what it all means.
But tell me when and how you're going to reduce the deficit.
Because if you can't tell me that, everything else is just blah, blah, blah.
All right.
In other news, Michael Steele is on MSNBC saying that the U.S. deporting the Abrago Garcia guy is no different than when an American is taken hostage in the Middle East.
As I've often told you, if your only argument is an analogy, It kind of means you don't have an argument, right?
Why would you use such a weird argument that is just laughable if you had a real argument?
Why would you make an analogy to the Middle East?
All right, so that's all they got.
Do you remember the story about the three top Pentagon officials?
They were fired last month, apparently they were But interestingly, then Glenn Greenwald is pointing this out, all three of them were non-interventionists, meaning they didn't want to attack Iran, or basically they were anti-war unless you really, really needed to.
And now the White House has concluded that the accusations were fabricated.
Holy shit.
So I don't know if that means they get their jobs back or even if they'd want them back.
But that's three non-interventionists that got taken out by presumably interventionists.
Are they interventionists from our country?
Or is it possible that another country?
May have been involved in taking them out.
We don't know.
But that's a scary thing.
According to Politico, the Trump administration has paused international student visas as they're looking into the idea of checking social media of foreign students before letting them into the country.
So the State Department and Secretary Rubio, they've signed an order to make sure that there's a pause before they decide what to do with the social media vetting.
Does it seem to you like that's a good idea?
Why would you let somebody into the country to give them the privilege of An American education at some higher institution if they had a social media history that was sort of grossly anti-American.
I feel like that's a pretty fair thing, which you wouldn't necessarily, well, you wouldn't, due to an American, I don't think.
But let me ask you this.
Because I don't know the answer.
This is more of a real question.
It's not making a point.
It's an actual question.
So we Americans have freedom of speech.
But if you applied for, you're just an American, and you applied for entry into one of our higher institutions of learning, be it Harvard or Yale or whatever, Would they not look at your social media in 2025 or 2026?
Wouldn't that be automatic?
Or would they ignore your social media because they would just say, well, that's just free speech.
Whatever it says, we don't care as long as you meet our other academic standards.
Could they really ignore your social media?
So if we're doing the same thing with foreign students, That a college would sort of automatically do with an American applicant?
Is that the worst thing in the world?
I don't know.
So, it's not a perfect world, and I like free speech, but I guess I need to know a little bit more about this topic before I have a hard opinion on it.
Well, according to the New York Post, there were two secret service Professionals who were caught brawling on camera outside Obama's home.
And here's the funny part.
It suspended the two of them.
I guess they were both female.
And they were in a fistfight.
And during the brawl, one federal officer allegedly grabbed her radio and threatened to, quote, whoop this girl's ass.
I'm not even going to say anything more about it.
But it's just funny that outside of Obama's house, there were two female Secret Service people, and one of them threatened to whoop this girl's ass.
So, anyway.
I hope they work that out.
According to Breitbart News, the Trump effect is working in Europe.
Because Europe, well, it looks like they're going to budget $170 billion more for urgent rearmament.
Trump had been pushing them to get their NATO spending up so that the U.S. didn't have such a burden over there.
So shouldn't that...
No.
Apparently not.
Apparently, if Europe spends more so that the US doesn't have to support them, we still just spend more.
We just spend it on different stuff.
So, apparently, we don't have any process for spending less on military.
We can only spend more.
We found a way to get somebody else to spend a lot more on our military.
Oh, well, then that gives us the right to spend more on our own military.
It's like doge cuts.
It's like there's never a reason to go backwards, apparently.
Well, allegedly, according to the Wall Street Journal, people familiar with Trump's thinking.
I'm not sure that's really a good source, but people familiar with Trump's thinking, as if you could be familiar with Trump's thinking.
I don't even know if that's a thing.
Could you?
Even if you knew exactly what he said, would you still be familiar with his thinking?
Trump is the most unpredictable person in some ways.
I mean, he likes to be strategically unpredictable.
So I'm not sure you could ever be familiar with his thinking, except for the things which he's been consistent on forever.
And then we already know.
But anyway, he's weighing heavy sanctions against Moscow because Putin's escalating the war and he seems to have no interest in stopping.
And I wonder, what kind of sanctions are left?
As far as I know, the only sanctions are left because, according to this report, they eliminated banking as one of the options, so they're not going to squeeze this banking.
But I think it would be sanctions on countries that bought energy from Russia.
So the sanctions would be not directly on Russia, but on their customers.
Does that work?
Or do all those other countries have enough ways to pretend they're getting the oil from somewhere else that it just wouldn't work at all?
I don't know.
And then lastly, according to Duke University, there's a new experimental drug that could end pain, but it wouldn't be an opioid and it wouldn't get you high.
So it already works on mice.
And the mice allegedly are really pissed off that they participated in a painkiller experiment in which they had removed the fun part where the mice get high.
And the mice are like, dude, really?
You're going to make us take this experimental drug and we don't even get a buzz off it?
And you're like, come on, mice.
You signed up for this.
And the mice would be like, we didn't sign up for this.
You kidnapped us.
And then Michael Steele would say, anyway, I'm not going to take that any further.
But there would be some kind of an analogy there, I'm sure.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining, and I'll be here same time tomorrow.
And I'm going to say some private words to the people on Locals, my subscribers, my beloved subscribers.
And the rest of you, I'm hoping you'll come back tomorrow, same time, same place.
Export Selection