All Episodes
June 14, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:00:24
Episode 2868 CWSA 06/14/25

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, DC Military Parade 2025, No Kings Protest, General Flynn, Tracing Protest Funding, Israel Iran War, Senator Fetterman, China-Owned US Farmland, Senator Padilla, Dramacrat Nicolle Wallace, Dramacrats, USAID Money Laundering Bribery, Rep. Norma Torres, DEI Renaming Scheme, AI Powered Kid Toys, Michael Madigan Corruption, Pre-Menstrual Symptom Relationships, 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 get our comments working, and then we got something.
You ready for it?
Yeah, you ready for it?
There we go.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
And you've probably never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, for that, you're going to need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a tine, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of a kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
It happens.
That's right.
Right now.
Go.
Go.
You'll always remember where you were when you took your first simultaneous sip.
You were in front of your computer.
All right.
Being that it is Saturday, immediately after the podcast will be a Spaces event.
That's the audio-only event on X. And Owen Gregorian will be hosting that.
You can find that on his X feed.
Owen Gregorian.
Just search for him.
You'll find it.
Well, happy Flag Day.
And happy Trump's birthday.
And happy Mega King Day.
And happy, what else is it?
World War II Victory Day.
Did I leave anything out?
Happy Gay Pride Month.
Any other birthdays?
Does anybody else have a birthday I can toss in there?
We've got a lot going on.
Well, apparently the Trump military parade will be at 6.30 p.m. Eastern Time.
So plenty of time to watch it.
And it turns out that there will be more horses than tanks.
I was worried.
That the parade would be a substantial part of the military and maybe be a target or something.
But it doesn't look like that.
It's a smaller spectacle than I imagined.
So when all of you heard it was going to be a military parade, what did you imagine?
Because I imagined a bunch of missiles, you know, like Kim Jong-un does.
You know, they always are the missiles.
But apparently there are no missiles.
So here's what one chart I saw this morning said.
6,700 soldiers, which is not a lot, but it's not a little.
So, you know, good chunk of soldiers.
31 tanks, 28 Bradley fighters, 16 Black Hawk helicopters.
One Douglas C-47, whatever that is.
There will be eight marching bands, 34 horses, and one dog.
I can't wait to see the dog.
There's just one dog.
Yeah.
So we got 34 horses and only 31 tanks.
So the good news is, it's not meant to be overwhelmingly military.
It looks like it's just about the right amount.
If you had too much, it would look like you're trying to be a dictator.
If you don't have enough, it would look like you're weak.
So this might be just the right amount for Flag Day.
So I'll say he got that right.
But today is also No King's Day.
According to who?
Who decided that?
That it's No King's Day.
Well, we'll talk about that.
Who's behind it?
But apparently for No King's Day, the idea is that it's sort of a protest.
Movement to Trump's military parade because the military parade makes the Democrats think of dictators, which makes them think of kings, which makes them want to say, no kings!
So it's a anti-Trump sort of national event.
Apparently Waymo, Instead, they're going to shut down service.
So, instead of ordering a Waymo, there's going to be Waymo walking than they expected.
Yeah.
I'll say it twice.
There's going to be Waymo walking.
All right.
So here's what General Flynn said about the event, the No Kings event.
I'll just read you what you posted, right?
So General Flynn.
I bet the intelligence came long enough to know a psyop when I see one.
The "No Kings" protests aren't spontaneous.
They're part of a broader strategy to undermine President Trump's administration.
The NGOs involved, Indivisible, Churla, Union, Del Barrio, and others, are part of a network of nearly 200 organizations, many of which have ties to the Democratic Party's activists He says, With Director Cash Patel probing the funding behind the recent anti-ice riots in LA.
Why?
Because when protests turn into looting and arson, it's not about free speech.
It's about intent to destabilize.
Now, so that's General Flynn, who knows what he's talking about, believes that the protests...
They're not really, you know, an anti-Trump per se.
I told you the other day that Chris Cuomo, he believes that China is behind the funding of the anti-immigration stuff anyway, and maybe this too.
So why would China do that?
Because the more protests and unrest there are in the United States, the better it is for China, according to China, I guess.
Mayor Adams of New York City, no relation, according to the New York Post, he's going to deploy thousands of cops for the Doe King's Day.
He wants to make sure that The outside agitators are handled because he expects a lot of outside agitators.
Now, I always wonder, if you're one of these groups that fund some big fake protests like this, is party thinking that there will always be outside agitators and you don't have to invite them?
Or are they invited?
Or are they known to be on your list of invitees so you don't have to do anything special?
You're always going to get somebody who'll do something violent.
I always wonder, do they plan the violent ones?
Or do they just know that if you do a big event, violent people always show up?
So, kind of a mystery there.
All the protests will be overshadowed by whatever happens in Israel and Iran.
And as you know, probably by now, Israel is still going after Iranian nuclear and military, well, missile sites in particular, but military sites.
Still going after scientists.
And I've got an open question because one of the...
one of the stories about this war which may or may not be 100 true is that uh mossad does this super clever trick we don't know the details to get the generals to go to the same room and stay in that room long enough for a missile to go through the wall and kill all of them now the part they're not telling us
And did it involve AI?
Because we're sort of that place.
Imagine, if you will, that the first thing that Israel does is shuts down So let's say the first thing they do is just shut that down.
But they don't turn off their cell phones.
And I'm just speculating.
This is just imaginary.
But now imagine that Israel did a deep fake using AI of one of the generals, Meet me at this room.
And they think, oh, I'm just meeting one general.
So I better go.
Let's say it's a voicemail.
So there's no interaction.
So if you sent a message when you knew a voicemail and it sounded exactly like your boss, who happened to be a general, And he said, our secure communications have been taken down, but meet me at that place we always go to, that room or whatever.
Would you go?
Well, you might.
So I'll make this an open question.
Is this the first time that AI has been used to get people to...
I don't know.
But Mossad is not telling us their secret trick for getting them all in the same room and keeping them there.
We're also seeing what I call the dumbification strategy, which I think works.
Now the dumbification strategy And that's the last person in charge.
Because it seems to me that it's rare to get some really gifted military genius aggressive general.
And by the time you get to like the 20th best general, They're not that good, are they?
Maybe they're more loyal than they are experienced.
So I think part of Israel's strategy is to just get rid of all the smart ones.
General Milley.
Be nice.
If you get rid of all the smart ones, you don't have to get rid of the rest because they wouldn't be able to do much.
So I think that's happening.
Some people are saying that Iran is the weakest it's been in however many decades.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think Iran is at its weakest?
Its proxies have largely been decapitated, you know, like Hezbollah, etc.
So that part is true.
Their air defense seems to be entirely gone.
But they do have still a little bite.
They've got an economy that, at least for now, Israel is allowing their oil industry to stay intact.
Because obviously they could take that if they want to.
And they might.
There's a point at which they might do that.
We're not there yet.
So is Iran its weakest ever?
The economy is probably a little bit shaken by it, but they still have their oil business, which is a lot of what they do.
And they still have a gazillion missiles to send at Israel.
And at the moment, I would imagine their best nuclear stuff is still intact because it's so far underground.
One of the mysteries is I saw a news report that said that America has these bunker buster bombs that Israel does not.
But even if we gave them the bombs, they would have no aircraft to deliver them because they don't have the bombers.
They have mostly fighters.
But at the same time, I saw a report that said that Israel could take out those deeply buried underground facilities in Iran, but they would use some different technique.
Now, do you believe that?
I asked Grok how Israel could do it if they didn't have the bunker busters.
And it basically...
So Grok doesn't know any way Israel could do that.
And I'm even wondering if our bunker busters could do it.
Because I may have read it wrong, but isn't their biggest remaining underground facility, isn't it something like 50 miles underground?
No matter how big your bunker buster was, there's still a limit, right?
I mean, you can't bunker bust absolutely everything that's underground.
Can you?
Maybe you can.
Maybe it causes such an earthquake that even the internal stuff collapses.
I don't know.
So one of my questions is, can Israel...
I would think that if they got rid of whatever Iranian military were guarding it, because they could bomb anything that's external, that if they could get to the doorway and penetrate the doorway, there's probably a way to do that, right?
Just penetrate the doorways.
Seems like you could kind of kill everybody who's in there if there's anybody in there.
I mean, there might not be any people in there.
Might only be assets.
So, a bit of a mystery whether Israel could take care of the deeply buried stuff.
I don't know.
Anyway, the Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei.
Khamenei?
Did I say that correctly?
He's like 85 years old, and he's the architect of everything that Iran is at the moment, meaning he put together the proxies.
I mean, maybe he didn't start it, but he was the person who formed Iran into the country it is right now.
Now, imagine being that guy where you had all these big plans for Iran to be the You had the big dog in the neighborhood, and it looked like it was working.
You were getting all these proxies, and Hezbollah was armed to the teeth, and you had just all kinds of things going on that made you look like you were in charge.
And then you're 85, and you watch Israel take all of that away from you, like a little bit at a time.
Well, there goes Hezbollah.
Well, there goes the head if you're in military and the backup guy and the backup guy and the backup guy.
Well, there goes your international trade.
At the moment, they still have the oil facilities, but who knows?
So imagine being in his head.
Do you think there's any chance that that guy...
You've taken everything I've had, and what I really want is revenge, but what's good for my country is if I just make peace.
No way, right?
So poor Iran is under attack, but they really have the one person in the entire world who has no chance.
No chance.
Of making peace.
So he's going to go down with the ship, don't you think?
And the ship is his country.
And Israel's not really going to have any choice.
They're either going to have to take over and tip over the whole country, or they're going to have to let it reform into the same risk it was before.
And I don't think they're going to do that.
So, it looks to me like the Supreme Leader will be circling the drain and taking his entire country with him because I doubt he can separate his country's well-being from his own.
So, that's a problem.
The Wall Street Journal points out that we don't know how successful Israel's raid is.
You know, I mentioned that they haven't gotten through the blast doors yet of the big Fordow enrichment site.
And if they don't do that, it will feel like they did not succeed.
So one of the biggest goals is not accomplished.
It might be later, but at the moment, no.
There's also something called Pickaxe Mountain that apparently that also hasn't been destroyed because that's underground.
Also, this is still from the Wall Street Journal, the top nuclear engineer is still alive.
So apparently there's some MIT-educated nuclear engineer who is the head of it all who is successfully alive so far.
So if Israel stopped today, there would be two nuclear facilities that we don't know much about because they're deep underground, and the head of all of it would still be alive.
So how long would it take them to reconstitute?
Wouldn't be that long.
But on the plus side for Israel, Iran would know by now that its entire national security structure has been penetrated by Mossad.
So, if you were Iran, you couldn't trust anyone.
Because I'm assuming that all the assets that Israel has that allows them to do all the internal stuff that they're doing in Iran, like smuggling in missiles and stuff like that, or smuggling in drones as part of their attack, those are Iranians, right?
It's not like there are Jewish people pretending to be Iranian citizens.
I doubt.
I assume it would be Iranian citizens who, for whatever reason, have decided to side with Israel instead of their own country.
But there must be more than a few of them.
And I assume that they oppose their own leadership.
I guess.
I mean, by definition.
So Israel has a number of cities under attack.
I don't know the number, but Tel Aviv is one of them.
And some say that Iran tried to attack the equivalent of Israel's Pentagon.
I haven't heard if they got any of it.
And apparently, So doesn't that make us directly part of the war?
Or do we say, oh, no, no, shooting down missiles is not really part of the war.
We're just, you know, on the sidelines watching, and sometimes we shoot down a missile, but we're not part of it.
I don't know.
I guess we're getting away with that, sort of.
Meanwhile, I told you this before, but John Fetterman, Senator Fetterman, he's calling for the U.S. to supply, quote, anything Israel needs for their attack or their war, I guess.
So Fetterman is more staunchly for Israel than just about anybody else.
Now, does that include Bunker Buster bombers?
Would Fetterman be in favor of the U.S. joining with not only our Bunker Busters, but flying, you know, because our own pilots would have to fly the bombers?
Israel doesn't have the bombers.
Would he be in favor of that?
Because that would be...
I think he would be, by the way.
But that would be...
And my question is this.
Who would be better off if America gets dragged further into that war?
Is there anybody who would be better off?
Would Iran be better off?
No, no.
Iran does not want America to be more involved in the war because we have more offensive Does America want us to be more involved in the war?
Well, some do, but I would think that by a majority, Americans would not want to be involved or more involved because we're, you know, at the very least, we're helping them shoot down missiles.
So, I don't think America or Iran would like it, but you're probably thinking to yourself, well, Israel obviously would like it, you know, if America joined in a full-force way, but I'm not sure, because Israel has shown itself so capable.
That with the one exception of can they get to that underground stuff, you know, do they really have a way to do it with our direct help?
If they can, then wouldn't even Israel be better off if the United States stays out of it?
Because if you're Israel, don't you want to send a credible threat to future nations?
In other words, there might be a future where Iran is once again a threat.
Do you want them to think, oh, America will stop them from attacking?
You know, they're America's little puppy.
They can't put up an attack unless America says yes and America's, you know, balking at it.
I think Israel is better off.
If it looks like they could make their own decisions free of American constraints, and if they have enough military might that they don't need any American help whatsoever, they can absolutely dominate Iran without any American direct help, you know, except shooting down a few missiles.
So I would argue that we're in a weird situation.
Where there is no country on Earth that benefits by the U.S. getting more dragged into the war.
Not either side.
I think both sides would say, yeah, maybe stay out.
Just, you know, again, I'm speculating because I can't read the minds of the Israeli leadership, but it kind of looks like They might have said yes, because, you know, it looked like a stronger force.
But now that they've been so successful without our direct, allegedly, direct involvement, at this point...
So it could be nobody wants us to be more involved, which would be good.
However, Iranian officials, according to Just the News, they are saying that the U.S. should be held, quote, fully accountable for the recent escalations.
Because we're a, quote, backer of Israel.
So we're going to get blamed either way, but will we be attacked?
Which is the important thing.
At the moment, there's some kind of cyber attack that's making some shelves empty at Whole Foods, but we don't know who the attacker is.
It doesn't mean it's Iran, it could be just So we're not seeing any obvious attack by Iran on American assets at the moment.
But that might happen.
because Iran has threatened to hit some military bases within reach.
So Mossad, So MSNBC is even sort of touting that success.
And I told you before that whenever Israel does a military event of any kind, that immediately there's some story of amazing competence.
Like, oh my God, how did they pull that off?
And that took a lot of planning, and that show was smart.
They made those pagers explode, or whatever it was.
So the legend that's being formed now is that the Mossad smuggled in a bunch of drones so that they were local when the shooting started, so that the drones didn't have to go too far to destroy some, I think, the air.
Air defenses.
I think that's what they went after.
But that's the kind of story that I don't fully trust because it's a little bit on the nose.
It's like, okay, I get it.
You're all military geniuses and your adversaries are not.
And maybe it's true.
It might be 100% true.
But either way, it creates a feeling within Iran that they're totally penetrated.
And that has got to be really, you know, a problem when you're trying to figure out how to respond.
Because you wouldn't know who to trust.
These Mossad agents, are they Jewish?
Were there a bunch of Israeli Mossad agents who were somehow within Iran and were doing all this stuff with these explosive drones and then they got away?
Or were they Iranian citizens that had been co-opted to do this one way or the other?
I don't know.
And then on X, Data Republican is asking this question that others are asking too.
The Post Millennial is asking it as well.
After seeing what these Mossad agents did, because they got the drones right next to the assets that were going to attack, why are we allowing China?
To own farmland next to our military bases in the United States.
Because it seems like we're putting ourselves at the same risk that Iran was, which is if China has figured out how to get a bunch of drones that they're hiding on the farmland that's right next to our military bases, you know, is that a risk that we can take?
Well, there's a map that I see on X all the time that shows these fairly enormous Chinese land holdings in all the various states.
And I wonder if that's the scale, because if that's the scale, it's really frightening.
But if it's not, it might be a I don't know.
I don't trust it.
But if it's real, it does suggest that there's Chinese-owned farmland right next to a lot of our bases.
And that's not no risk.
That's definitely a greater risk.
I don't know enough about this to know if the right answer is to You know, deny China ownership of these places they bought.
But it does seem like a pretty big risk.
Anyway.
So, apparently, President Trump told that the people that the U.S. was negotiating with, with Iran, Are all dead.
So my question is this.
Wouldn't that be a big coincidence if all the negotiators were coincidentally dead?
'cause they're not generals, right?
Alright, so here's the kind of fucked up comment that you need to quit.
Alright, Justin Account says, Scott's rare blind spot is thinking everybody is basically American, just different language and food.
Now that's obviously a dumb fucking comment.
Because you know that I don't think that.
And you're talking about me instead of to me.
Remember, this is a two-way conversation.
If you think I missed something, as in, did you know this?
You could easily say that.
But you sound like a Democrat.
Have you noticed that the Democrats, if I'm debating with a Republican, a Republican will say, you know, you're not aware of this or maybe, When I deal with a Democrat, they imagine I have character flaws, and this is how they treat everybody.
They treat Trump and everybody the same.
They imagine a bunch of character flaws that they can somehow see that are invisible to other people, and that those character flaws tell you everything you need to know about policy.
Or opinion.
That is so Democrat to imagine that you have some kind of weird insight into my internal thoughts and that my internal thoughts are all messed up.
How would you know?
You would know nothing.
All right.
But Trump says the negotiators are all dead, which, Now, what if they did?
Because it's not like they targeted every member of the leadership because they were mostly going after the military people.
But did they do the military people plus the negotiators?
Because they knew that if any of the negotiators stayed alive, Trump would try to negotiate with them.
It's kind of clever in a brutal way.
I feel like Trump is suggesting that Israel killed the negotiators just to make sure there was nobody to negotiate with.
Do you think that's what happened?
It looks like it.
We'll never know, but it looks like it.
Anyway, in other news, you know, the poor Senator Alex Padilla, you know, he tried to make news by talking about a Kristi Noem event, but then the security took him out.
I call the Democrats Dramacrats.
It was like they all got their new script.
They're like, okay, we're done with the Marilyn dad.
That didn't work out as well as we hoped.
We're moving on to if they can arrest a senator.
Oh, my God.
If they can arrest a senator, imagine what they can do to you.
And then they would all take turns trying to see who could act like it was worse by their attitude.
Not by anything they said, right?
By the way, CNN had a security expert on to talk about that takedown of Senator Padilla.
And the security guy said on CNN, That the security did a good job and that they did what they should do, which is they saw an unknown threat, and without any violence whatsoever, they neutralized it.
And they did it quickly, and they did it efficiently.
So I watched it, and I thought to myself, yeah, actually, that looks like good work.
I think I said that.
But MSNBC's Nicole Wallace called it one of the bleakest days of her entire anchoring career.
How many of you think that the temporary handcuffing of one senator who was causing trouble that nobody recognized, how many of you think that was one of the bleakest days of her entire anchoring career?
Do you think she took it a little too far?
Well, the game we're playing is that the Dramacrats have to almost compete with each other to see who can make it sound like it was worse.
Oh, my God!
If they could take down a senator, what will they do to me next?
Oh!
Well, once you realize that the entire game is a dramacrat theater, and when they get a new script, they'll have to adapt to it.
It's like, oh, God, oh, no, the Maryland dad, no.
Okay, we're done with him.
Do you have the new script?
Okay, new script.
Alex Padilla, Senator.
Oh, Senator, oh.
Anyway, according to the New York Post, there was some kind of USAID bribery for contracts scheme that got busted, and it was a $550 million bribery scheme.
Now, the bribery was only, I think, a million dollars, which is still a lot of bribery.
One individual is charged with getting a $1 million bribe in return for directing USAID money to specific consulting companies, Aprio and Vistant.
Now, does that sound like exactly what you thought was going on with these NGOs?
I won't say I always know it.
I'll just say that recently it became obvious, and Elon Musk has indicated this might be just the top of the iceberg, but that the USAID thing was just a perfect money laundering situation that nobody was watching.
There was nobody in charge, it looked like.
And the entire thing was about Now, how does that not go wrong?
You're really just begging for money laundering and corruption and theft and that, you know, why would anybody direct a contract anywhere unless they were getting a huge bribe and they could easily hide the bribe in the, So, of course.
And I think we're going to be shocked by the size of the fraud.
You know, we may never get to the bottom of it, but my God, the amount that our government was sending to people who were sending to people who were sending to people.
It's just crazy.
And there was just no control.
Speaking of crazy, remember how we used to laugh and say if a news story started with a Florida man?
Because Florida was, you know, it seemed like Florida was being a little ridiculous for a while.
A Florida man, and then there would be some crazy thing that Florida man did.
Well, California's got a version of that now.
So now we've got a representative, Norma Torres, a Democrat, and she just said that President Trump needs to reimburse Los Angeles for the anti-ice riots.
What?
So Trump is supposed to be responsible financially, meaning the government.
For the anti-government protests?
As if they don't have financial backers.
Don't you think the financial backers of the protests should be paying for any extra expense?
Maybe that's the treatment.
Maybe if you were financially backing a protest and the protest created an exit Maybe the people who funded it would be on the hook for that.
Hmm.
Hmm.
I'm loving this idea even as I'm having it.
Because that would be pretty expensive.
Now, the people who are funding it...
But they should be paying for it.
Even the increase in police, they should be paying for all that.
So we'll see.
Meanwhile, the Post Millennial is reporting that a judge has blocked the Trump administration's executive order.
How many times have you heard this?
A federal, a judge has blocked the Trump administration executive order and then fill in the blank.
It's like there's a hundred of them.
And this one is for citizenship verification in federal elections.
So Trump's executive order had a few things in it, but one of them was that you had to check ID.
Make sure somebody was a citizen before they could vote.
And a judge has blocked that.
Now, the reason given, anyway, is that the Constitution does not give the president that authority.
Now, the argument that's coming from the Trump administration why they do have that authority is weak.
Because their argument is that it's just common sense that you check IDs.
Well, it is.
It is common sense that you just check IDs and make sure somebody's a citizen.
But you don't have the constitutional authority to mandate that common sense.
So unfortunately...
There's no authority that would support that executive order.
But we'll see.
I don't think it's done.
I think there's going to be more appeals to that.
So maybe there's more to come.
We'll see.
Well, in what I call the photo op competition, Where the anti-ice people are trying to get the best photograph.
They did pull ahead with that Senator Padilla thing, but we've already forgotten it.
So it's closer to a tie again.
But here's, according to the Hill, here's the most exciting thing that happened in the anti-ice protests that I call the photo op competition.
One Marine, Now, apparently the Marines can't arrest anybody, but they can temporarily detain somebody and then turn them over to non-military authority, which is what they did.
So the best we got in the photo op competition, and I didn't even see a photo.
Was one Marine detaining one guy temporarily.
That's the best I got.
That one Marine detaining one guy temporarily.
And most of these marines, if not all of them, are there to protect federal property and personnel.
So in theory, Anyway.
There's a survey that the College Fix is writing about in which they tried to see how many colleges got rid of DEI versus just rebranded it and kept it.
And they found, this is very unscientific, but they found 87 schools simply renamed their DEI offices and kept them.
But 78 schools, it looks like they got rid of DEI, as they were legally obligated to do.
Now, of the ones who got rid of DEI, So roughly the same number cheated, actually more, and renamed their DEI offices compared to those that closed it.
Makes me wonder how those colleges that kept it are certified.
There's no federal government certification, right?
They can't decertify a college?
Because it seems like you'd want to know that.
If you were interviewing a graduate from one of those colleges, would you rather know if they kept their DEI office and renamed it or if they got rid of it?
I'd kind of want to know that because it would tell me what I'm getting with the graduate.
All right.
But I don't think the government has much leverage there.
Apparently, according to CBS News, Barbie Maker and Mattel and OpenAI have formed some kind of agreement to develop AI-powered toys.
Do you think that's a good idea?
Do you want your child to have AI-powered toys?
On the other hand, does it seem to you that your child would be raised by his own toys?
Because if your toys can talk to you and they have some form of intelligence, they will be programmed so that at least the child version of them is as helpful as possible.
So, will your dolls tell you to brush your teeth?
Will your G.I. Joe tell you, I mean, that's probably not Mattel, but will your Barbie tell you that you only have five more minutes before you have to head off to school?
Because you might, I mean this literally, but those of you who have kids, you've probably experienced, That you have a lot of influence over the child when they're young, when they're very young.
But the minute they go to school, the school is raising your kid.
Because whatever it is you're giving them at home gets harder and harder.
And whatever they're picking up at school is stickier and stickier.
So, in effect, you raise your kids for the first six years, and then they go to school, and then I'd say the state raises them.
Now, you can do as much as you want when they come home, but there's just something about that going-to-school experience and the peer association.
That, effectively, the state and their peers are raising them.
Don't you think that's going to happen with toys, if they have AI?
Your toys will actually raise your kid, because that's where they'll get all their tips and encouragement and compliments and things that parents forget to do, even their love, maybe.
So, it's inevitable.
But a little bit unpredictable.
Well, according to NBC News, there's some Philadelphia postal workers who were charged with stealing $80 million in U.S. Treasury checks.
Now, they didn't manage to get them all cashed through some third-party mechanism, but they did cash $11 million of them.
So the U.S. postal workers were just looking for, you know, these government checks, and whatever they found them, they just stole them.
Now, how many times have I told you that if you have a situation where it's possible for fraud, that over time you always get it?
Well, here's one of those situations.
Now, they didn't get away with it, but they got away with it after...
And then, in a related story, New York Post, there's an ex-Illinois House Speaker.
He was the longest-serving legislative leader in U.S. history.
Was sentenced in a corruption case.
So, are you surprised that the longest-serving legislative leader in the U.S. was involved in corruption?
No, you should not be surprised by that.
Because, in my opinion, if you were to list all the legislative leaders by how long they'd been in office, The corruption would be perfectly aligned with how long they've been in office.
Because you know why they stay in office until they're 100 years old?
To cover up their corruption.
Is it a coincidence that it's an ex-Illinois House speaker?
Because I feel like if this person had still been in power, then maybe there never would have been any investigation.
So I think, and this is just the Scott Adams opinion, that when you see somebody like Schumer or any of the ones who are way too old to still be in office, even Joe Biden, that the reason that they stay in office and Nancy Pelosi is because they have to maintain power so they don't get prosecuted.
Now, obviously there would be exceptions to this rule, but I'll bet there's a really direct correlation between how old you are, how long you've been in office, and how corrupt you are.
I'll bet it's connected.
I'd be surprised if it's not.
All right, so here's a new study.
I want you to see if this study was necessary, or could they have just asked me?
Could they have just asked Scott?
All right, so according to the conversation, premenstrual dysphoria, dysphoric disorders, do they harm relationships or not?
All right, so that's the question.
And this premenstrual dysphoric disorder, Has the following symptoms.
It affects 2% of people who menstruate.
I'm going to call them women.
People who menstruate.
Mostly women.
I mean, not all of them.
So do you think that if somebody had the following predictable symptoms that it would affect the relationship?
Brain fog, stomach cramps, bloating, mood swings, anger, sadness, low self-worth, anxiety, and even thoughts of self-harm.
Now, if your partner exhibited those symptoms, do you think your relationship would be as good as if they didn't?
All right, you're way out of me.
Yeah!
I don't think they needed to study this.
Because if you're having this many symptoms, that definitely is affecting your relationship.
There's no way around that.
So, yes, they did not need to study this.
They could have just asked Scott.
Well, speaking of Scott, we are at the end of my So a few minutes after I'm done with this, I'm just going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers in a moment.
But as soon as I'm done with this, Spaces will fire up and just go to X and search for Owen Gregorian.
Or you could look for...
All right.
Thanks for joining, everyone.
Hope to see you tomorrow.
And in 30 seconds, I'll be private with the local supporters.
Export Selection