God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, JP Morgan Bitcoin, Karine Jean-Pierre, TikTok's Future, Trump's Country Ban, Katie Hobbs, China Owned AZ, Ukraine Drone Supply, Elon Musk, Big Beautiful Bill, Ed Martin, Biden Family Pardons, Death Row Pardons, AI AGI, Democrat Party of Women, Democrats Seeking Men, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat Doxxing ICE, 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.
do Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
and it's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is say, A tank or chalice 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 of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Delightful.
Alright, so I wonder if there's any science that they could have saved some money on if they had just asked me.
Scott, what do you think?
Well, oh, here's some.
From SciPost, Eric Nolan.
Turns out that ugly bystanders can make the other people look better.
How many of you didn't know that?
Did you know that if you hang around with people who are uglier than you, you'll look better?
Well, that's why people hang around with me, to look better.
I'm your invisible friend sometimes, but sometimes I'm your ugly friend.
So if anybody asks, hey, do you have any friends?
Yeah, that cartoonist guy.
And then people will think.
Hmm, you're awfully good-looking compared to him.
So, yes, that's how you play that.
In other positive news, so MIT figured out how to make this little membrane that can separate fuel by molecular size.
Now, that doesn't seem like a big deal, does it?
Hey, they get a membrane that can separate fuel by molecular size.
Well, it turns out if you can do that, you don't need to do the expensive process of refining.
And refining is energy-intensive, and it's a big deal.
And it's a lot easier to just put things through a membrane.
It'll sort out the gas from the oil and all that stuff.
So that's pretty impressive.
It would cut the oil refining energy cost by 90% if it worked.
Speaking of other cool technologies, American style, according to an article in Interesting Engineering, The world's first mass-producible nuclear reactor is all set for testing.
It's a U.S. startup.
So a startup called Radiant is making a little one-megawatt microreactor that's based on a helium gas-cooled design with passive safety architecture and no reliance on water for cooling.
So it's more for harsh environments and remote places.
But does it surprise you that after decades of nuclear power plants that seem to require water for cooling, that suddenly there are all these designs that don't require water for cooling?
And therefore, they're completely safe.
There's a really big deal happening in nuclear power.
So if these little micro-reactors work, and if they are safe, because that's one of the things, if you don't have the water cooling, you can make them just shut down without any meltdown.
And that's what this little guy can do Meanwhile over at Walt Disney Okay.
There's going to be a new Walt Disney animatronic character.
So the actual Walt Disney himself.
He's going to be made into an updated animatronic.
I guess the granddaughter doesn't like it.
but it's set to debut in July.
Now, the question I ask you is, what's the difference between a robot And the answer is, animatronic is what you do when you can't make a robot.
And I guess the granddaughter thought it was creepy.
Yeah, yeah, she might.
She might.
So I don't think anybody...
Because they got an animatronic Walt Disney.
So maybe they need to do a little more than that.
Well, JP Morgan is now going to accept Bitcoin as collateral for loans.
And that might not seem like a big deal to you, but consider that the CEO, JB Diamond, once said that, And now they're accepting it as collateral for your loan.
So, things are changing.
I saw a exchange between Elon Musk, who said, I think several years ago, he posted that Bitcoin was a safe word.
I think what he meant was, you know, if...
And I saw Jack, founder of Twitter, saying Bitcoin because it's sort of time for that safe word.
Maybe it is because, well, we'll talk about that.
So in the sort of funniest PR story, You remember the ex-White House Secretary Corinne Jean-Pierre, who was the worst press secretary any president ever had.
She has now written a book.
It's a memoir, and it's called Broken.
And the New York Post is writing about it.
And the funny part is that she was the spokesperson for the Democrats during the Biden administration.
And at the end of it, decided she didn't even want to be a Democrat anymore.
Can you imagine her experience if she spent all that time being the face of Democrats, or at least in terms of press?
And then when she was done with it, she was like, You know what?
I didn't want to be one of these people.
So I suspect she got a lot of pushback.
I saw separately a post that suggested that she was difficult to work with.
So maybe the other Democrats had some issues with her.
We don't know.
But I will compliment her.
For coming up with that idea of changing parties?
Because it's a real attention-getter.
If the only thing she did was introduce yet another book about those times, then I would say, well, you know, that's not too impressive.
But if she announces she's changing parties, well, how do you ignore that?
So to me it sounds, Can't really tell.
If it was the book publicist's idea, it was a really good idea, because you can't ignore it.
Well, in other news, very unsurprising, Trump said he would be ready to extend the TikTok ban.
As you know, TikTok is scheduled to be banned if we can't find a U.S. buyer.
And China is somewhat unwilling to sell, so that never came together.
But Trump says he's poised to expand it.
And apparently that'll get wrapped in with some of his other trade talks with China.
So I think China wants to keep it.
As one more thing that can hold over the heads of the U.S., because, you know, one of Trump's biggest donors, I believe, is one of the biggest owners of TikTok.
So, an American guy.
So I don't see any scenario in which Trump is going to ban TikTok because he said it worked for him.
Now, if you want to know how safe TikTok is, And then suddenly, there would be a bunch of TikTok commercials on Fox News.
Did anybody notice that?
And then after, I don't know, a year or two of TikTok commercials on Fox News, I think it was yesterday I saw they announced that Fox News would have its own TikTok presence.
That's everything you need to know.
No, it's not going to be banned because apparently Trump doesn't think it's dangerous to Trump because they got him elected.
So maybe he doesn't think it's dangerous in general.
I don't know.
I don't know, but it doesn't look like it's going to get banned.
However, talking about banning, Trump is going to ban, or has, seven countries that will be banned from entry into the United States.
Now, remember he did this once before, and he called it a Muslim ban, and everybody said, racist, racist, you can't do that.
And then he would point out, well, it's not every Muslim country.
It's the ones that are, you know, a problem.
And that didn't make people happy.
But he's had time to figure out how to do his leadership a little bit more elegantly.
And now he just goes by country.
So he says, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo.
These are the ones with full travel restrictions.
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
And then there are some with partial restrictions, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, part of my theme today is to try to help Democrats with attracting men.
No, not that way.
They know how to attract men if they're gay men.
But take this topic, for example.
Do you think that the idea of restricting countries that have military-age men and potential terrorists and stuff, do you think that's an idea that appeals to men coming from the Republican Party?
Doesn't appeal to women.
I would argue that women would say, hey, give me my diversity and don't, you know, don't paint all these people with the same brush and let's have some empathy and maybe they need to escape their terrible countries.
And men would say, shut up, ladies.
This is military.
It's military.
It's not really about immigration.
It's a pure military decision.
So, if you were a young man and you wanted to be, you know, you're looking at the two parties, which of the two parties is a little closer to how you feel?
Well, I would think that you would also feel that this is a military decision.
Now, you wouldn't know the details.
You know, like, what is a specific risk from, you know, equatorial Guinea?
But you would know for sure that if the government banned them, that there's some military risk.
And obviously, this is going beyond just immigration.
So it's not about immigration exactly.
It's about military risk.
So once again, an obvious case where men say, oh.
Well, you Republicans are doing what a man would want you to do, protecting the country.
And then we've got, over in Arizona, Katie Hobbs.
So Katie Hobbs, their governor, has vetoed a bill that would have prevented the, well, Chinese-owned companies from having more than 30% of land in Arizona.
Meaning, let me say that a different way, that if a Chinese company owned more than 30% of a particular piece of land, that would be banned, because especially if they seem to be near military assets.
Now, apparently that went through the legislation, the legislature in Arizona, and then Governor Katie Hobbs Vetoes it.
Now, what do you think men would do?
Men would definitely ban Chinese ownership of lots of land in their state because they would see that as a military threat.
but Katie Hobbs did not.
So here again, you see the Democrats doing a thing that...
Then there's a story about the Ukrainian drones.
You know the story about the gutsy attack by the Ukrainians?
And they had Russian truck drivers drive truckloads worth of Ukrainian drones deep into Russia.
And then they release them and attack the airfield.
Well, did you think that was a bold military attack that was extra successful?
Or did you think that was a publicity thing, which was primarily to raise money for more military stuff?
Well, we're already getting the little trickle that says, you know...
So it was successful, but not nearly as successful as they claimed.
It sounds almost as if they're trying to push some kind of publicity.
So why would they do that?
Why would they try to act like they're more successful than they really were?
If that's true.
Well, let's look at what happened.
The UK has agreed to give 100,000 new drones to Ukraine, quote, after the Russian airfield strikes.
Now, this is according to Newsweek.
Now, do you think that's a total coincidence?
That right after there's this Ukrainian claim that they had made great progress with drones, that suddenly the UK could approve 100,000 new drones for them?
I don't know.
If you look at the whole picture, it looks like it's kind of managed, sort of a managed information situation, as in...
But the one thing he always looked for is, will this help them get more weapons?
Yes.
If they can show that they were super successful using drones against Russia, then it will be way easier for them to get a whole bunch of new drones from the UK.
And sure enough, Well, you probably heard that Elon Musk and President Trump are not exactly on the same page on a few things, specifically the big, beautiful bill, the spending bill.
Now, if you're not familiar with the budget process in Washington, you're lucky because it's a mess.
This is just one kind of bill.
It's not the whole budget.
It's a recession thing, meaning it's something they can cut.
It's complicated.
So it's not the entire budget.
But it does suggest that they're not looking at the kinds of cuts that Elon Musk and a lot of us would like to see.
So what has Elon said about the big...
He's called it a disgusting abomination and abhorrent, an abhorrent package of deficit-fueled spending.
And he said, call your senator, call your congressman.
Bankrupting America is not okay.
Kill the bill.
So that doesn't leave much doubt where he's at.
Imagine being Elon Musk and doing all that work and all that personal sacrifice, literally putting his life on the line.
He had to have lots more security, etc.
And then you don't get the cuts you were hoping for.
Now, is it Stephen Miller or somebody else says, oh, there's $1.6 trillion in cuts.
Do you believe that?
Cuts?
Or is it just that they could have spent more and they didn't?
Are they really cuts?
Because I don't know that they are.
And are those cuts over one year or over 10?
Because 1.6 trillion doesn't sound like it's over one year, but you notice they always leave out the 10-year thing.
Because two years from now, the budget will have nothing to do with anybody's intention two years ago.
So you can make promises about how you'll cut the budget in the future, but you don't actually have to cut it because it's not the future.
So it does look like there's a little trickery going on here.
And I saw on CNN Scott Jennings.
It was a kind of challenge to essentially talk about the difference between Musk and Trump on the big, beautiful bill.
And I thought Jennings did a great job because instead of highlighting the differences, he makes the point that the bill is right on point with what Trump wants.
But then he also makes the point that You know, the country and Musk and most of us want big cuts and that the deficit is out of control.
So it was a very careful Scott Jennings answer because it basically gave attention to both sides, but he didn't suggest a solution because what is a solution?
I don't know if there is one.
So that was a good answer.
And then, apparently, there's an issue about Elon Musk had a preference for the head of NASA, and it was somebody who had a SpaceX connection, Jared Isigman.
But he was rejected for reasons that are a little unclear to me.
That makes Elon not too happy.
And then I guess he's also not too happy because the big, beautiful bill repeals tax credits for electric vehicles, which probably is a gigantic difference to Tesla.
So on one hand, it would be awkward if Elon Musk had You know, he got his own NASA guy, kept his cuts for electric vehicles, which doesn't really sound like a Republican thing.
So I feel like if you were Musk, how would you feel right now?
I think you'd feel you did a bunch of work for Republicans and then they So I could see why he'd be a little pissed.
Do you think Elon Musk will be able to stop it from being passed?
I think he might.
I think he might.
I don't know.
We'll watch.
In other news I find weird, Ed Martin is a pardon attorney.
Now, did you know there was such a thing as a pardon attorney?
Well, I guess we got one.
The Post Millennial was talking about this.
And I guess Ed Martin is going to look into some of these sketchy Biden pardons, specifically his family members, as well as clemency to 37 inmates on death row.
but why are we even looking into that?
It's sort of a weird thing to look into because isn't the very nature of a pardon I don't know.
I don't love the fact that somebody's looking into pardons.
I do think the pardons are sketchy.
But if a president has the total right to do something sketchy and then does, I don't know.
Do you investigate that?
Pardons are always sketchy.
But we'll find out.
Maybe the auto pen was involved.
That always makes it fun.
We like it when the auto pen is part of the story.
Well, speaking of that big, beautiful bill, Charlie Kirk had a really good post on X showing all the things in the bill that Republicans would like.
And so I spent some time looking down the list and I said to myself, wow, that's a lot of stuff I like.
So on one hand, it's very Trumpian and it's stuff he promised.
And you have to say that he's delivering on those things that are on the list.
But Charlie Kirk is sort of involved in a half-pinion.
Meaning, if you're not talking about the impact on the budget and the deficit, it doesn't really matter how many good things are in there because we're all dead.
That's my take.
So that's sort of similar to Elon Musk's.
Yeah, you could have 50 great Republican things in your bill, but if the entire country is bankrupt in a year, none of those things help.
So it doesn't help me to know that it's full of things I would like.
It only helps me if you can tell me I'll still be alive in a year.
Well, maybe you.
Senator Mike Lee has proposed a constitutional amendment for keeping things under control fiscally.
He said, That it would automatically oust every member of Congress when inflation exceeds 3%.
Now, what do you think of that?
Constitutional amendment that whenever inflation exceeds 3%, every member of Congress gets fired.
No.
Well, first of all, If they had 100% control over inflation, then I would say, well, maybe.
But there are external events that influence inflation.
But on top of that, what are the odds we would ever get a constitutional amendment passed?
In 2025 or 2026, do you think we would ever?
Get a constitutional amendment passed?
I don't think so.
I think it would just be partisan and that's enough to kill it.
Well, you know, for some time now, I've been telling you that AI might be overrated and it might reach a plateau.
And it might not have a direct path to so-called AGI or artificial general intelligence.
I'm going to give you my best idiot's version of what AGI is compared to what we have now.
And this is stolen from Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google.
He was talking about Waymo.
And he said, Waymo is, you know, amazing technology that it can drive around.
But he says, you could teach a teenager how to drive in 20 hours.
And that's all the car does.
Now, the difference between artificial general intelligence and just a thing that you train to do a specific task, like Waymo.
Is that we have the technology to make something do a specific set of tasks that has a limited number of options.
But AGI would be a general intelligence that could figure stuff out that we hadn't figured out.
So, for example, you couldn't send an AI that was designed today.
Into your cabin in the woods and tell it, look at the cabin, figure out what work it needs to do, then order the parts, and then do whatever handyman stuff needs to be done.
Robot.
Now, that would be general intelligence, because a human could do that.
But apparently, according to Sundar, CEO of Google, We don't really have a direct path to that.
And that's the one everybody's worried about.
So this is what I've been saying for some time, and I was getting a little pushback.
People were acting like, oh, no.
They're just going to make the data centers bigger and bigger until we reach general intelligence.
But I don't think we know what technology could get us to general intelligence.
It's not doing more of what we're doing.
It would have to be invented.
So I'll be curious if we can get there.
All right.
So the funniest story, I probably spent too much time on it, is the idea of the Democrats trying to attract men.
And I saw an article in The Hill where it was, And they each had their own ideas about why the Democrats were not attracting men.
But I think I've talked about a bunch of them, which is Trump keeps doing confident things that seem to have military utility.
That attracts men.
Then you look at the recent sign-ups for the military.
They're way up.
Because Trump treats the military with great respect, and the way he talks about it, the way he funds it, makes you think, oh, that's a respectable place to be.
Do Democrats do that?
No, not nearly as much.
So every time you see anything that would have a male-female energy to it, the Republicans are doing the right thing.
Not because they're trying to attract men.
It's just the right thing.
Closing the borders to countries that we can't vet the people coming in, that's really not male or female.
That's just smart.
It's just that men would have more appreciation for the military aspect of that.
And then they would say to themselves, oh, here's a country that's serious about protecting itself.
I should maybe look into joining the military because that's a respectable kind of career.
So sure enough, recruitment is way up.
But here are some of the things the experts say about how the Democrats can get back those men.
They're losing.
One of them is, let's see, here's some expert who said, When you're not talking about the working family, you're never going to get those men back, somebody named Roja said.
Now, let me give you some advice if you'd ever like to be a political consultant.
I'm going to give you 10 years of political consultant advice in one sentence.
If you mention working families, everybody will think you're a genius.
That's it.
Every time I see a Democrat explaining why they haven't succeeded, they say something like, well, we're not talking enough about working families.
To which I say, that's all it takes to be a Democrat consultant or the head of the entire party.
All it takes is being able to say the phrase, working families.
It's so empty.
Here's another one.
Oh, we need authenticity, and you can't manufacture it in a lab or a war room, said Rodell Molyneux.
We need authenticity.
How do you get authenticity?
Well, one way would be to close the borders to dangerous countries and just say, that's my policy, and to make sure that you're treating the military right.
There's no secret to it.
The things that attract men are pretty obvious to men.
So you can't get authenticity by pretending to be authentic.
Trump actually did close the border to those countries.
Trump actually does, you know, confident male things.
There's no authenticity needed.
He's just doing what he does.
All right.
And then there's...
The experts say that Republicans became better at speaking to men through podcasts.
God, they're just so wrong about the podcasts.
I don't think that Joe Rogan and Theo Vaughn were what caused men to become Republicans.
I think men were leaning Republican.
And then there are two podcasters who were compatible with how they were thinking, the public.
So I'm not so sure that Joe Rogan is moving the political needle as much as the changes in politics that are happening because of Trump are creating some people who maybe are finding Joe Rogan.
So maybe they have cause and effect a little backwards there.
But I don't think the podcasters are a big part of the story, actually.
I mean, they're a big part of the media story because they're hugely successful and influential.
But I don't think they really are what make Republican men like Trump.
I don't think that's happening.
Not exactly.
And then there's another one who says, another consultant, they met male voters exactly where they were, and we, on the other hand, had nothing comparable.
So they really believe that if they improved their podcasting game, but didn't change their policies, that they would attract men.
Does that sound real to you?
Like the anti-gun people?
Are just going to have a, you know, have a better podcast?
It doesn't feel like it.
It doesn't feel like that's going to work.
I love the fact that they think it would.
And then there's one consultant, strategist, Eddie Vale, who said, one pretty simple and obvious answer.
If you want blue-collar men and women to support you, Go hang out with them and their unions.
Is that what Trump did?
Did Trump go hang out with the blue-collar men and their unions?
No.
No.
That's not going to work.
You can hang out with them all you want.
I don't think that's going to make a difference.
They're going to care about the defense of the country and the closed borders.
They're going to care about tariffs.
But they're not going to care if you're not going to learn anything by hanging out with them.
And then Vail quipped that Democrats were still in the, hey, let's have another conference phase of the rebuilding effort.
So they genuinely do believe, the Democrats do, there's a messaging problem.
As long as they think that they only have a messaging problem.
And not a candidate problem or a policy problem.
They don't have any path.
There's no path to fixing it.
Meanwhile, Schumer was talking about the Big Beautiful Bill, but he calls it cleverly.
Now, look how clever this is.
He calls the Big Beautiful Bill, Well, We're All Going to Die Act.
Death by a thousand paper cuts.
So, Chuck Schumer, and here's what we're going to do.
We're going to call it the Well, We're All Going to Die Act.
Oh my God, he was so lame.
The best they could come up with was changing the name of the act and then telling people that for a variety of technical reasons that he calls a thousand paper cuts.
It will deny people the benefits who should have them.
They are lost.
Democrats are absolutely lost.
And then what about Hakeem Jeffries?
So Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.
He's calling to unmask ICE agents, literally to name them, so it becomes more dangerous to deport the dangerous people.
Now, is that a male or a female thing to do?
Well, I would say a male would want to keep the bad people out of the country.
So they would support ICE, and they would support ICE staying safe while they do it.
But now one of the two leaders of the party wants to unmask, literally unmask, the ICE agents.
And tell everybody who they are.
Oh, my God.
That is so not male.
Breitbart News has that story.
So, do you see the pattern?
The pattern is what they do.
It's not how they talk about it.
It's not their podcasters.
It's their policies.
And then you look at their main guy.
If you look at Trump, you see this confident, straight-laced guy who will take somebody on, a world leader, take him on in the White House, will do any argument, will take any question and put you down.
And then you compare it to Chuck Schumer.
It's like, eh, eh, Chuck Schumer, I'm a penguin.
Eh, eh, eh.
How are those even similar?
One of them appeals to men in general, and the other one just looks like some kind of a penguin with glasses, and you don't even know what to think about it.
Anyway, that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to talk about today.
I think it's just enough time.
I've got plenty of things to do today, so I've got to go run and do them.
And thanks everybody for letting me take yesterday off.
Yesterday was kind of eventful.
But I'm back.
If it looks like my neck is turned, it's because I slept on it wrong.
It hurts like crazy.
But other than that, everything's fine.
And I'm going to say hi to the locals people privately.
