God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, TikTok Ban Delay, Kristi Noem Hospitalized, Senator Alex Padilla's Tears, Dramacrats, 2020 China Driver License Scandal, Israel Iran War, President Trump, Unconditional Surrender Demand, Iran Leadership Succession, War Marketing Statements, Tulsi Gabbard Statement, US Bunker Buster Bombs, Tucker vs Cruz, MAGA In-Fighting, MAGA Halfpinions, WhatsApp Privacy Statement, Big Beautiful Bill Medicaid, Kraft Heinz Product Changes, AI AGI, CA Small Businesses, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Coffee with Scott Adams show.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Oh.
Delicious.
So, so good.
Well, what's happening?
Well, Honda, the automaker, has entered the reusable space rocket business.
And they actually demonstrated a rocket that went up and came back down and landed with no chopsticks whatsoever.
Which makes me wonder.
Is this better than the SpaceX?
Because SpaceX needed big chopsticks.
But the Honda rocket just went up and came back down and landed the way it was.
Could it be that there's yet another advancement in space?
Could be.
So Honda is pretty serious there.
Meanwhile, as you were expecting, Trump has extended the TikTok ban for another 90 days, meaning they're delaying the ban for 90 days, until they can find a buyer, which I think will not happen.
I've been predicting the whole time that China will never agree.
China is not going to agree to sell TikTok.
So either TikTok will go away, which Trump does not want, or he'll just keep extending it the whole time he's in office.
That's possible.
Apparently sometime today there'll be a Fed interest rate decision.
Has that already happened?
Does anybody know when that happens?
But that'll move the market a little bit.
And of course, the markets are...
But so far, the world is not that jittery about oil, which is weird.
You would think they would be a little bit more uncertain, but there's a little bit of uncertainty in the oil prices, but not as much as you think.
So yesterday I mentioned that I saw a drug test from Elon Musk, but I wasn't sure it was really his.
It really was his.
So he has confirmed that was his drug test.
It was all negative.
And he's challenged his critics at the New York Times to take a drug test of their own.
Which I think is hilarious, because what are the odds that the editors and reporters at the New York Times could all pass a drug test?
I don't know.
Kind of low.
So, apparently that was real.
Meanwhile, the Feds have nabbed seven thieves who stole $100 million worth of gold, diamonds, and rubies.
And of a armored car.
So, imagine being one of those thieves.
You got a hundred million dollars worth of stuff.
And then you thought you got away with it.
But you didn't spend any of it, apparently.
And got caught, eventually.
So, tough break there.
That was, they got caught.
Three years after the heist.
I feel like you can't get away with anything.
As if there's...
I'll do a much better job than Powell.
Trump wants to appoint himself the head of the Fed.
Like the king that he is.
Anyway.
Homeland Security Secretary.
Kristi Noem was taken to the hospital by ambulance yesterday because of an alleged allergic reaction to food, I think.
But she's alert and recovering.
Does alert sound good?
If your only problem was an allergic reaction, would they say you're alert?
Or would they say, oh, you're fine, you're recovering fine?
Why did they have to throw in alert?
Because that makes me think she was not alert.
Like, not completely alert, or else why would you even mention it?
I don't know.
We'll talk about Iran in a minute.
Do you remember Senator Alex Padilla?
He's the one who, speaking of things that make Christie Dome sick, Alex Padilla, the senator, He's the one who got taken down by security because he was trying to ask a loud, obnoxious question at a Kristi Noem event.
And so he got taken down and handcuffed.
And he was yelling, but I'm a senator.
I'm a senator.
That didn't work.
So if the authorities ever start handcuffing you, don't yell, I'm a senator, because that doesn't work.
I don't know why you can yell, but don't yell, I'm a senator.
It doesn't work.
Anyway, Senator Padilla gave a speech at Congress on the Senate floor, and he started crying.
Now, do you think he would have ever been elected if the voters saw him crying over something like that?
Oh, my God.
Yeah, don't cry on the Senate floor.
It's a bad look.
But he's one of the dramacrats, and the dramacrats are looking for the best photo op and the most tearful reaction to the news.
So if you're a Republican and something bad happens to you, you say, Something bad happened.
I wish that bad thing had not happened.
We'll have to do something about that to stop the bad thing from happening.
But if you're a dramacrat, you start crying about, Oh, God!
What about this?
What about the immigrants?
Oh, God!
Oh!
That's called Dramacrats.
There's a story that...
Are you following that one?
Now, I'm waiting for other news sources to pick it up and validate it because I can't tell how big a deal this is.
But the story is that Kash Patel found some documents in the FBI suggesting that the FBI had been alerted From some source that China was in 2020 trying to print a bunch of US election ballots to throw the race to Joe Biden.
Now, that was about the time the Biden crime family was taking millions of dollars from China while Joe Biden was vice president.
So, did China want Joe Biden to win?
Probably yes, because they had a little bit of blackmail on them because of the payments.
But that doesn't mean that China was necessarily involved in this plot.
So the story is that there was an indication that China, because they had a source, was going to do this.
And then the FBI decided that their source was not credible enough.
And so they withdrew their warning.
So they had sent out some kind of notice.
And they said, oh, get rid of that.
Never mind.
And the reason given was that the source was not confirmed.
So they weren't confident that they had the story right.
But separately, time goes by, and the U.S. Customs Border and Protection They captured about 20,000 fake driver's licenses, mostly from Hong Kong and China in July of 2020, and they were allegedly on their way to battleground states in the Midwest.
Now, the driver's licenses, the fake ones, could have been used to give fake ballots, which could have been used to rig an election.
But we don't quite have all those dots connected.
So I would say there's an allegation that China might have been involved in creating or wanting to create some fake ballots.
But we don't quite have all those dots connected.
But it looks pretty bad.
And then part of the story is why did the FBI claim they had But that part is hard to judge because I doubt it's that unusual for something like the FBI to say, well, we think we've got some information you should know about, and then they look into it a little bit more and find out maybe that source isn't the best one, so we'll withdraw that.
So some of it looks like business as usual, but It's a provocative story, so we don't know how much this is real or if it affected the election, but it's quite a story.
Meanwhile, as you can imagine, Israel is striking Tehran again from the air, and they're going after Iranian regime military targets in Tehran.
But, coincidentally, Some of those targets happen to be in the same part of the city that allegedly the Supreme Leader is hiding.
Now, I don't know if he's, you know, really hiding or where he is or anything else, but allegedly, right after Khamenei, however you say it, their Supreme Leader, after he appeared on live TV, The Israeli just struck that very area that he was in.
Not the building, but the area.
So the same neighborhood.
So were they sending him a message?
Maybe.
Maybe.
So it looks like maybe the Israelis know where he is at all times.
But maybe we just say we know where he is so he'll move.
Did you ever think about that?
When Trump said, we know where you are, you know, he said in a truth social thing, he knew where Khomeini was, or at least Israel did.
What if they didn't?
If they didn't know where he was, but Trump said they did, what would they have to do?
They'd have to move him.
Because even if they didn't believe it, they'd still have to move him.
And then maybe they can detect the movement.
So it could be a trick.
I'm just speculating.
It could be that they didn't know where he was, but if they say they know where he is, maybe he'll act differently.
But also maybe it'll create some action that they can track and then they can find him.
So that might be coming.
But I was looking at the Amuse account on X, and he says that China buys about one-sixth of all the seaborne crude from Iran.
And Grok backed that up, about one-sixth.
China is responsible for nearly all of Iran's oil exports.
They buy about 90% of it.
So, what would happen to China if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz?
And the answer is, even if Iran wanted to punish the Western world, It doesn't look like they can do it with the Straits of Hormuz unless they punish their biggest supporter, which would be China.
So do you think Iran would take out that much oil from China by closing the Straits of Hormuz?
Because once they close it, I don't know how long it would ever take to open it up again.
I'm curious whether Iran will go after the Straits before moves, because I feel like China would be tapping them on the shoulder and saying, you know, that would be the one thing maybe you shouldn't go after, because that would hurt us pretty directly.
Anyway.
I guess there are a couple of oil tankers that are on fire in the strait, but only because they crashed into each other.
I don't know how that happens.
How does an oil tanker crash into another oil tanker?
Like, you couldn't see that coming?
There's a reason.
Anyway, let's see what Trump has been saying about Iran.
Apparently, the reporting is...
So that feels like news.
He's considering a range of options.
But it's not really news, because that's what everybody does all the time.
You wake up in the morning and you consider a range of options.
It doesn't mean anything.
But it sounds like news.
Trump has also signaled on social media.
That he wants from Iran unconditional surrender.
Now, is that the way you talk about Iran?
Do you think that gets them to the negotiating table if you say unconditional surrender?
That feels like exactly the opposite of what you would say if you wanted to talk.
That's pretty much the end of talking.
So, what did the Supreme Leader say about that?
Well, and also that Trump said that we know where the Supreme Leader is and we don't plan to kill him, quote, at least for now.
Imagine being the Supreme Leader of Iran and the people who have taken out all of your generals.
Basically, they found a way to get to all the generals and they say, Well, we're not going to kill you, at least not for now.
How would you ever sleep?
Because you'd expect this to happen at any moment then.
Anyway, so you would not be surprised that the supreme leader of Iran says that Iran won't surrender.
So apparently no unconditional surrender is imminent.
And he says that any U.S. military intervention will bring irreparable consequences.
Irreparable, I say.
And he says the Iranian nation is not one to surrender, which I believe I told you.
And he says about Trump's comments, he goes, those who are wise never speak to this nation in the language of threats.
And I think that's right, in the sense that if you ever wanted to make a deal with Iran, you would never talk to them with words like unconditional surrender.
You know, you'd say stuff like, well, we just have this one problem with the nuclear program and maybe some of your ballistic missiles.
So let's talk about that.
But if you say unconditional surrender, And Iran is signaling back that they're not going to talk either.
So I wouldn't expect any kind of peace deal, ceasefire breakthrough.
That's not happening.
And Iran says that U.S. involvement will lead to all-out war, whatever that means.
Our cyber experts are worried that Iran might try a cyber attack on the U.S. And the question that I have about that is, if it were so easy to do a cyber attack on the U.S., wouldn't we see a lot more of it?
I feel like maybe it's sort of hard to attack the U.S. infrastructure.
Maybe China has some.
We hear that China has penetrated basically everything.
But as Iran, would China help them and say, here's the keys to the car, go take down the grid?
I don't know.
I think China will do what China normally does, which is try to stay out of it.
That's the way I'd play it.
Just stay out of it.
Meanwhile, the Hindustan Times, I saw this on Mario, Mario Knopfel post.
The Hindustan Times is speculating who might take over if the Supreme Leader were to, let's say, have an accident.
If something happened to him, who would take over?
And they always show pictures of the top people who might take over looking exactly like the guy they would take over for.
Like, they have the same beard, they've got the same outfit on, they're wearing the same wire-rimmed glasses.
I feel like if you took out the Supreme Leader, they would replace the Supreme Leader with another Supreme Leader that was so similar to the one that you just had that you wouldn't even know the difference.
Like, you could go down, like, five deep.
Into, you know, who's next in line?
And the fifth person would just look like the person who just left and all the people above him.
just a gray bearded guy with the same kind of hat and the same kind of look and the same attitude and would say all the same things.
So if you think that taking out the top domestic leader would get you a good result, It just looks like you would get a younger, madder, more angry terrorist.
It just seems like it would get worse.
So I can see why Trump would not want to be rushing to take out the top guy.
Meanwhile, both sides are talking about the military action like it's a movie sequel.
They're using movie sequel language, and I've never seen so much marketing talk about a war.
So the Israelis are saying that very soon, like maybe today or tomorrow, we're going to see an operation from Mossad that makes the pager deal they did with Hezbollah look like child's play.
So do you believe that?
Do you believe that in the next 24 hours, Mossad will have done some gigantic, effective attack that nobody saw coming and it's more impressive than the pagers blowing up on Hezbollah?
Well, maybe.
Maybe not.
Maybe it's just to scare the Iranians.
Meanwhile, the Iranians say, oh, so what Mossad said is, quote, when the dust settles, you're going to see some surprises on Thursday night and Friday that will make the beeper operation almost seem simple.
And then Iran says that Israel is going to have a, quote, great surprise that the world will remember for centuries.
Really?
Is there really going to be a great surprise that the world will remember for centuries?
And will the Mossad really have a new op that's even better than the pagers?
I don't know.
Sounds a little bit marketing-like.
Well, the ongoing conversation about Tulsi Gabbard and Trump is continuing.
That's what makes it ongoing.
But Tulsi Gabbard had apparently said not too long ago that the intelligence community believed that Iran was not intending to build a nuclear weapon anytime soon.
But Trump had been saying that their capability was that they could have it very soon.
And so the news said, hey, You guys are disagreeing.
It looks like we found some disagreements in the administration that we'll talk about.
But I don't think they were exactly talking about the same thing.
So my take is that Tulsi Gabbard was talking about their decision that they had not decided to go nuclear, which might be true, might not be true, but it was about the decision.
Whereas Trump's comment was about their ability.
So I think Tulsi Gabbard would agree that they have the ability to build a nuclear weapon, you know, maybe within a year or months or something, but that when they did their original analysis, they didn't see the intention.
Now, I'm not sure if he can measure intention.
So it does make sense that you would worry a little bit more about their ability.
Do they have the ability to do it?
And so I think Trump is a little bit closer on what matters, which is the ability.
Because if you're depending on their intention, they could change their intention any minute.
And we also don't know what's happening inside that Fordow underground facility.
How would we know?
What their intention was.
And even if their intention was to not build a bomb, is it possible that their intention is to go right up to the line where they could build one any minute now?
Because that would look a lot like intending to build it, but not tactically.
So I think Trump's on more solid ground by just talking about whether they could or not.
Meanwhile, we're looking at the range of options that the U.S. might be involved in.
And at the top of the list is the use of these bunker buster bombs that they say only the U.S. can deliver with their special bombers.
And they're called MOPS, or Massive Ordnance Penetrators.
Now, I've never heard of any weapon that sounded more sexual than that.
Hey, baby.
You want to see my massive ordnance penetrator?
But that's neither here nor there.
But I saw today some experts saying that it might take half a dozen of those MOPs, those massive ordnance penetrators, for each of the facilities.
Now, allegedly, the U.S. has about 20 of them.
And then there's one expert, and who knows how many, you know, who knows if the experts really know.
But what if it took half a dozen for each of the underground facilities?
I think there are two that they're worrying about especially.
It might be more.
You know what I hear?
When somebody says it might take me six of these bombs, what do you hear?
What I hear is it might not work.
Is that what you hear?
Because if it takes six for each of those facilities, that's a whole lot like they don't know if it'll work.
They don't know if it'll take 20. They don't know if it'll take 100.
They don't know if it'll take one.
Six.
If they'd said, had they said it might take two, then I would think, oh, they know what they're talking about.
One will almost certainly get it done, but you might need a second one.
But when they say it might take six for each of those underground facilities, what I hear is, we don't know if this will work.
So is it possible?
That the worst case scenario is that you destroy the front door of the underground facility, but you don't destroy anything that's under there.
And then whenever you're done, Iran just digs out the front door, and then they go right back to work.
How would we know exactly if we had collapsed the underground facility?
Would we know?
We can tell what the bomb damage was on the top of the ground, but how would you really know if it got this stuff underground?
Especially after dropping six of those, you know, mother-of-all bombs on it.
I don't know.
So, suddenly, my confidence that all you need is the U.S. to say yes, and those facilities will go away, I'm not so sure.
I feel like the U.S. involvement would be maybe.
Maybe we could destroy them.
Maybe we couldn't.
So it might be worse if we try and fail.
Because that would also tell them exactly how deep they have to build it next time.
If we use up six bombs and four DAO is still operational, then...
Well, Israel says they've destroyed 40% of Iran's missile launchers, and that might be true because the number of missiles that Iran has launched toward Israel has gone down each night, and I guess last night there were only 30, if I have that right.
So they went from a few hundred to a hundred to thirty.
That would sort of suggest that Iran is running out of usable good missiles.
So they started with what were estimated as 2,000 ballistic missiles and allegedly they fired around 400 so far.
But you wonder why they're not firing the rest of them.
Are they saving them?
Is it because we're going to save them for one big hit somewhere?
Or have the rocket launchers been so degraded that they don't even want to load one on a rocket launcher because it means the rocket launcher will disappear?
So we don't know what they're thinking.
But it does look like their capabilities have been degraded.
But they might have plenty left.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Israel is running low on their defensive arrow interceptors.
That would be a certain kind of missile that intercepts the incoming missiles from Iran.
So you might have Iran is running out of offensive missiles while maybe Israel is running out of defensive missiles, but you really can't tell in either case because it's the fog of war.
So we don't know what's real and what isn't.
Well, Tucker Carlson had a tense conversation with Ted Cruz on Tucker's podcast.
And I guess Ted Cruz is in the camp of wanting the U.S. to be militarily involved with the attack on Iran.
And Tucker is very much against that.
So Tucker...
And Ted Cruz said he did not.
And then Tucker mocked him mercilessly for wanting to bomb a country and not knowing anything about it.
The answer is 92 million people.
So Iran is a big-ass country.
So it's about a third the size of the United States, which is really big.
And then Tucker asked him if he knew how many ethnicities are in Iran.
And I think the right answer is there are around a dozen major ones.
And probably infinite smaller varieties.
But Ted Cruz did not know the answer to either of those questions.
But also didn't seem to think it was terribly important.
And I'm not sure he's wrong.
Because if I said to you, Iran has 50 million people, or I said to you, they have 150 million people, would you have a different idea of what to do?
I mean, in both cases, you would still, if you were to attend Cruz, in both cases, no matter what that population center was, You'd still say, you know, should we take out the underground facilities?
So I'm a little bit on Ted Cruz's side that he really didn't need to know the details because if you know that there are two or three underground nuclear sites and you know the history of Iran and Israel and you know what the current military situation is, you really need to know that The best estimate is they have 92 million people.
It'd be better if you did, but does it make that much difference?
I'm going to say it was a really good gotcha, so it embarrassed Ted Cruz, but I don't think it made that much difference.
I feel like he knew enough to be part of the conversation.
Meanwhile, the news loves reporting on whether the Trump allies are splintered.
So it looks like Charlie Kirk and J.D. Vance are on the side of Trump has earned the freedom and flexibility to make the decisions and that we would trust whatever Trump does to be America first.
That's not a bad opinion.
But Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon and some other notable people, Comic Dave Smith, are very much, you know, don't get militarily involved.
Now, I criticize them, not because I disagree, but because I think their opinions are incomplete.
They need to tell us what they think it would look like.
If we allowed the nuclear facilities to remain and didn't get involved.
Now, I don't have an opinion.
I'm just observing and predicting.
But I do note that the people who pretend they do have an opinion, they're incomplete.
You need to say, "I want to walk away and not be involved, and I want Iran to reconstitute its nuclear capabilities." If that's your opinion, then you should proudly put it out there.
But it's not really enough just to say we've been wrong every time we try to do regime change or nation building, because this is a little bit less than that.
It's very specific to get rid of the nuclear and the missile programs.
So I don't know if that's enough difference.
I do respect those opinions, by the way.
I do respect the opinion that says every time we've tried to do this, it's been a disaster.
That's not crazy.
It's hard for me to think of a counterexample where we got all involved militarily in the Middle East and everything worked out great.
Does that ever happen?
It feels like it's just a sticky, horrible situation that no matter what you do is bad, so you might as well not do anything.
So I get it.
I understand their point.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group is trying to limit Trump's ability to make war.
So Thomas Massey said, this is not our war, and reminds us that the Constitution was a war.
And Tim Kaine, Democrat, is on the same team that he wants Congress to decide if we go to war.
And Lindsey Graham is on the other side, saying that we should be flying with Israel if necessary.
In other words, if Iran doesn't give Israel and the U.S. everything we want, He thinks we should go in hard militarily.
Who's right?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not smart enough to know who's right.
Because it depends a lot on the implementation.
If it were true that one bunker buster apiece would solve the whole nuclear program question, if that were true, that would be...
But as soon as you say we might need six apiece, it just doesn't sound doable to me, even with our technology.
So in that case, it's hard to know what would work out.
Meanwhile, Iran is asking its people to delete the WhatsApp app from their devices.
Because I'm sure the Iranians are at this point wondering, how is Israel finding us so easily and killing all our generals?
Is it because they're trying to communicate on WhatsApp?
Well, do you believe that the U.S. and or Israel is reading WhatsApp messages out of Iran?
Do you think that's happening?
Here's what WhatsApp says.
This is from the corporate WhatsApp.
Quote, now listen to how specific this is.
So my question would be, are they denying that the U.S. and or Israel have a back door?
Are they denying it?
WhatsApp says, we do not track your precise location.
We don't keep logs of who everyone is messaging.
And we do not track the personal messages people are sending one another.
And we do not provide bulk information to any government.
Does that seem to you like being a little bit too specific about what they don't do?
And was there anywhere in that where it said we don't provide a backdoor to the United States CIA?
Which, of course, the United States would require, right?
Is there any chance that the CIA doesn't have a backdoor to all of the messaging platforms?
Is there really any chance of that?
I would say no.
But I look at WhatsApp's denial, and now you know what you're looking for.
So they're not denying that there's a backdoor.
Here's what they're denying.
We don't track your precise location.
Maybe true.
But do they track anybody else's precise location?
I believe they don't track mine, but they're not interested.
Does that mean they couldn't if they wanted to?
I don't know.
It's kind of specific.
We don't keep logs of who everyone is messaging.
We're asking if there's a backdoor that allows them to look at the things that they know they want to look at.
That's not a log of what everyone is messaging.
We do not track the personal messages people are sending one another.
We don't track them.
But do they read them?
What does it mean to not track them?
And we do not provide bulk information to any government.
Well, it's not really about bulk information.
It's about knowing if these specific generals are in a specific place.
So I'm going to say that their denial is a little bit too specific.
So the Iranians probably have a good argument for getting rid of that app.
Well, who knows how many other apps on their phone are tracking them, so it might be one or several apps that's tracking them.
What are they going to do, use Telegram or something?
All right.
In other news, the big thing that the Iranian military stuff has done is it makes us forget about Gaza.
Do you remember when Gaza was...
And then time went by, and we talked less about Gaza, and I don't think there's that much news out of Gaza.
Well, there's probably news, but I don't think the news organizations have that much access to Gaza, probably less than they've had.
But there's some Reuters report that Israeli tanks killed 59 people in Gaza, a crowd trying to get food and aid.
Does that sound real?
Do you believe that Israeli tanks killed 59 people in Gaza who were just trying to get food and aid?
Does that sound real?
I don't know.
I don't trust it.
But my larger point is that Gaza is now in the back burner, which probably works to Israel's benefit so they can do what they want with less criticism.
According to The Hill, Democrats have a little bit of optimism for the first time lately because there are no King's event was so successful.
Now, is that as funny to you as it is to me?
The No Kings event was literally trying to stop an imaginary thing from happening, which is Trump becoming a king.
It's literally imaginary.
It's not like he's ignoring the courts if the courts say you can't do that.
I mean, he's as aggressive as he could possibly be.
But as Trump has said, it's so hard to get anything done.
It's hard to imagine him as a king.
But that's enough to make the Democrats feel positive.
They got that no kings thing working.
That's all they got.
Well, also according to Reuters, Trump has now increased the number of active duty troops on the U.S.-Mexico border from 2,500 to 80,000.
And the new thing that the Trump administration is doing at the border is they've got these military zones.
So they've designated that this little sliver of land when you first come over our border are actually military zones.
And that allows the military to arrest people and detain them.
Not arrest them forever, but detain them for the Border Patrol.
So apparently that's working.
So that was pretty clever, another thing that Biden didn't think of.
On the subject of the big, beautiful bill, according to the Hill, looks like there might be a little trouble because the House passed their version, but then the Senate gets to mark it up and make their changes before they send it back to the House, and apparently,
And I feel under-informed on this topic because the Democrats have been saying, you Republicans are going to cut Medicaid.
And then the Republicans would say, no, we're not.
Trump doesn't want to do that.
And then I read the news that the Senate is trying to cut Medicaid.
And apparently that's what the current version of the bill does.
It cuts Medicaid quite a bit.
So my question would be, what exactly are they cutting?
Does that mean that somebody who should be covered is not covered?
Or is it just, what does it do?
Is it just paying the medical professionals less?
Is it just saying that if you're not a citizen, you can't get covered?
We're missing the main part of the story.
The story just says they're going to cut Medicaid.
Does that really tell you anything?
Don't you kind of need to know who are they cutting and why?
Are they cutting everybody 5% so the hospital has to take less money?
Or are they saying you people can't be on it and you're citizens?
I don't know.
So that's a big question.
Well, according to Reclaim the Net, the X platform is suing New York because New York wants to force some kind of moderation disclosure.
So they want the X corporation and presumably other platforms to define how they moderate politically sensitive content, such as hate speech, misinformation, and extremism.
Now, you might say to yourself, Why does X care so much about these labeled categories?
And the answer is that it would give New York State some control over how X categorize things.
So basically, it would be like a clever way to censor X content without doing it directly.
So X is taking them to court.
Over in LA, there's a report from Fox News that over 100 LA looters ransacked an auto zone.
And what the story says is they wonder if it's a street takeover.
Street takeover?
Is that a thing?
So now there's such a thing as a street takeover.
Which is so well understood that you can just mention it in a news story without defining it?
Because I don't know exactly what a street takeover is, but I'm assuming it's a mob that's so big that they can kind of take over the street and loot it?
Is that what it is?
Because as soon as something like that has a name, where you can say, oh, it looks like we're planning a street takeover on Thursday.
Well, you're going to get a lot more of it if it has a name.
So that's bad.
Kraft Heinz says it's going to remove the artificial dyes from its U.S. products by the end of 2027, according to CBS News.
And my question would be this.
Are the artificial dyes the things that make the Kraft Heinz products unhealthy?
Isn't it the food itself?
Now, I suppose it depends which food you're talking about, but is Kraft Heinz notable for creating healthy food and the only problem was a couple of food dyes are banned?
I feel like they're getting away easy if all they do is get rid of the food coloring, but it's better than nothing.
So get rid of that food coloring.
Apparently it only applies to 10% of their products.
Microsoft and OpenAI, according to futurism, are having a little problem negotiating.
And you can understand why, because OpenAI and Microsoft have this really sort of complicated relationship, and they're trying to...
But the one thing that stood out as one of their disagreements is apparently Microsoft signed a deal with OpenAI that if OpenAI ever achieved Artificial General Intelligence, AGI, That would be the better kind of AI than the kind we have.
Right now we have these large language models, but they hallucinate and they don't reason so well.
But if it gets to the point where it can do the theoretical higher level of thinking, that would end the agreement between Microsoft and OpenAI.
Now, can you believe that Microsoft has signed that deal?
So that's their current deal.
And knowing that OpenAI and all the other AI companies are running as fast as they can to get to AGI, why would Microsoft ever sign a deal that says if they get to the really valuable part of AI that that's when the deal falls apart and it just disappears?
No wonder they want to renegotiate that.
That just looks like a...
Unless Microsoft believed that nobody could ever get to that point, but they wouldn't be asking to renegotiate it if they didn't think OpenAI could get there.
So that might be the biggest mistake I've ever seen in a contract, to say that it would be the contract would end if they reached this higher level of AI.
Why in the world?
Why would they agree to that?
It's crazy.
According to Zero Hedge, there's a survey that says by Public Square and Red Balloon that only 13% of California's small businesses say they're happy with their current location.
13%.
So how bad is my state?
It's so bad.
That it's 40% lower than the national average.
So a lot of small businesses wish they were somewhere else.
But not as bad as California.
But they also have no ability to relocate because it would be too expensive and blah, blah, blah.
So in California, 67% of small businesses say they are either planning a move or considering one.
Or they feel stuck and want to move, but they can't afford it.
Oh, my God.
California is just garbage at the moment.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for today.
I have to run and do something.
So normally I say some words to the locals' people afterwards.
But if you don't mind, today I have to run.
Thanks for joining.
And I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
And we'll work out all this Iran, Israel stuff.
So look out, according to the marketing, there's going to be big surprises coming today and tomorrow and maybe Friday night.
