God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Diddy Trial, Big Beautiful Bill, President Trump, Viet Nam Trade Deal, Israel Hamas Cease Fire, Russia Collusion Hoax, John Ratcliffe, Democrat Tentpole Hoaxes, 2020 Election Integrity, Boycotts, Asylum Invasion, James Carville, Anti-ICE Propaganda, Democrat Palestine Supporters, AI Job Replacement, LA Hotels Minimum Wage, Jerome Powell, Bill Pulte, Zohran Mamdani, Creepy Communist Smile, Nuclear Power, WiFi Movement Mapping, Iran Nuclear, Ukraine War, 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.
while you're streaming in let me get my comments working on locals boom boom Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to try to take this experience up to levels that no one could possibly understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass attacker, Chelsea, sign of canteen, jugger, 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 dope meat end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
That's right.
Go.
Oh, it's just as good as I imagined it would be.
Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do if they had just asked Scott.
Oh, here's something from Aarhus University.
The myth is busted, they say, that men do not sleep through a baby crying more than a woman.
Did any of you believe that men and women have different ability to hear a crying baby?
Well, I didn't doubt it, but I did imagine that men are better at pretending to be asleep and not hearing a baby.
It turns out that women still do three times as much of the baby tending at night.
And much of that has to do with the fact that all men across the planet have agreed.
It's sort of a silent agreement we all have.
Even if you don't have children, you know the agreement, right?
Guys, you know what I'm talking about, right?
That's right.
As long as we all pretend that men can't hear crying babies, we can continue to stay in bed while your spouse goes off to check on the crying baby because she thinks you can't hear it and she doesn't want to wake you up.
So, shh, don't say anything.
We're all in this together, guys.
Well, the Wall Street Journal is doing a hit piece on Tesla and Musk.
I no longer see the news as purely the news.
It all has this, you know, real overt and obvious political element to it, depending on the story.
But anything about Tesla and Elon Musk that comes out around now is definitely going to have a political bent to it.
But listen to this headline.
This is the Wall Street Journal.
And this is their opinion piece here.
It says, Tesla is in disarray.
Is it?
Do you think Tesla is in disarray?
What evidence would you have that Tesla is in disarray?
All right.
And that Mazuka has already moved beyond caring about cars.
And so the idea is that he shifted his focus to robots and robo-taxis.
And he's letting the Tesla car company disintegrate and disarray.
Now, how would they know any of that?
Are they in the meetings?
Do they have some kind of source that's sleeping in a tent with them at the AI headquarters?
Because he's spending a lot of time there lately.
I don't think there's any real evidence that he has suddenly the inability to run all of his companies when obviously he was doing it before.
Did he suddenly lose his ability to deal with multiple problems at the same time?
I doubt it.
But apparently, if you're the Wall Street Journal, you can just sort of declare that you know what he's thinking and how he feels and what his inner thoughts are.
Anyway, but it is true that their sales were down, but we're talking about the period where politics were affecting everybody's buying decision.
So if you just project forward a couple of years, do you think people will still not be buying a Tesla because they don't like what Trump did with, or what Musk did with Doge?
I don't know if this is some kind of a lifetime problem.
It feels to me that if he keeps making cars that are unambiguously better than the other cars, that's going to have an effect on the market over time.
So we'll see.
But also, the value of Tesla does have a lot built into it about the optimism about robots and robo-taxis.
So it might be true that the Tesla ordinary car part of the company is not where all the value will be in just a few short years.
That's what the market thinks, That the value is in the future stuff, and it's probably true because I do agree with Elon Musk, who says that the humanoid robot market will be maybe the biggest market of any market of all time.
And Tesla might be leading that.
Well, Sean Diddy Combs has some good luck and some bad luck.
Good news, bad news.
Good news for Diddy is that he was acquitted on the most serious charges in the multi-charge case.
The most serious ones would have given him, potentially, life in prison.
But those the jury found not guilty by unanimous decision.
But he's still in jail and he's not getting bail because he was found guilty on two lesser charges, which as I listen to the people who know what they're talking about, which does not include me for any of the legal stuff,
the people who know what they're talking about say that generally the crimes he's been convicted of now, that they don't even prosecute that generally because it's so small.
If this were someone else and the only thing he'd been alleged to have done are the things he was found guilty of, probably they wouldn't even take it to court.
I think it was basically technically prostitution with women who clearly were, according to their own text messages, women who were consensually involved.
That's it.
Now, I don't, you know, obviously I'm the worst one to talk about the legal stuff, but what I think is true is that he was accused of a technical crime in which there's no alleged victim because the victim has a text record of being consensually involved in all that stuff.
So I asked the question on X. Is it too soon to talk about a pardon?
Because here's my take.
I'm not defending Diddy.
I'm not a fan of his work.
And I certainly would not defend him beating up his ex in the hallway of the hotel.
But that wasn't, apparently he wasn't being tried for that.
I don't understand why.
It seems like that would have been the obvious thing to try him on.
But again, probably because the woman was not pressing charges.
Do you even need to press charges if it's on video and we can all see it?
I don't know how that works.
But so just to be clear, I don't think he's a good guy, and I'm sure he's been involved in things which if we knew for sure what he was doing, we'd say to ourselves, that looks pretty bad.
All right, so I'm not defending him, but I will defend the following standard, which is you don't treat Diddy worse than you would treat anybody else.
And it sort of looks like they're treating him worse than they would treat other people.
Because if someone else had been accused and convicted of only these things, we'll find out.
If the judge gives him serious jail time for what he's been convicted of, I feel like a pardon is completely in order.
And Trump was asked about it.
Steve Doocey asked about it in one of Trump's open Oval Office events just yesterday, I think.
And Trump said he wasn't really paying attention to the case, so he didn't have an opinion on it.
But I always forget that Trump had lots of interesting friends in the past.
He lost a lot of them when he ran for office, but he actually was friendly with Diddy.
So it's not a stranger for Trump.
It's somebody he knows pretty well.
But, you know, I guess Diddy probably changed when Trump ran for office.
So Trump did not rule out, but he had also not looked into pardoning Diddy.
Now, depending on what I hear, you know, about what's going on with him, I might be in favor of the pardon.
It's probably too soon to have a hard opinion on it, but I wouldn't want to see him treated in a way that would not be normal for anybody else to be treated.
That seems like a reasonable standard.
So we'll see.
Anyway, why in the world does he not get bail?
Does anyone know why he doesn't get bail?
The judge's reasons were that he can't demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community.
Who can do that?
You know what I can't do?
I can't demonstrate that I'm not a danger to the community.
Can you?
How would you possibly demonstrate that?
You can demonstrate what you are, perhaps, simply by being that.
But how do you demonstrate that you would not do something dangerous?
That's not even a real thing.
And they also say it's a flight risk, to which I say, a flight risk?
Really?
How in the world would he get on a flight?
I guess a private flight.
But he doesn't seem like a flight risk to me.
He seems like somebody who, worst case scenario, might serve another year or two, and then he's back in business.
So is that a flight risk?
I don't know.
He served a year.
If they told him that his record would be cleared and he could go back to his good life, if he served one or two more, would that be enough to make him leave the country and become live in some place where they don't have an extradition treaty, Which wouldn't be fun.
I don't know.
So keep an eye on that.
So give me an update.
The Big Beautiful bill, allegedly, there's going to be a vote this morning.
And is it postponed?
The early reporting is that they had the votes.
So they hadn't done the vote, but they knew that they had the commitments for the vote to get it passed.
And of course, that was after Trump had private conversations with some of the holdouts.
Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall listening to Trump convince the final holdouts?
Do you think there was any threatening going on?
Probably.
There was probably a lot of threatening going on.
Some would call it blackmail, but I think it was just, if you don't vote for this, you know, I will destroy you.
But it also might have been, and I think this is more likely.
Well, maybe equally likely.
It might be equally likely true that Trump convinced them that they'll do some serious deficit reduction in the upcoming budget process, which is a bigger process.
So do you think the Holdowns got a commitment that some of the Doge stuff would be taken more seriously than it is in this bill?
I don't know.
We'll see.
We don't know what they said.
But I was looking at people reporting what the big beautiful bill has in it because it got tweaked by the Senate a million times.
And by the time it goes back to the House to see if they're okay with the Senate's tweaks, we members of the public, we don't have any idea what's in that thing at this point.
So I thought, well, I'll dive in and I'll see just some obvious questions.
Like one of the things the bill allegedly does is it removes a tax on Social Security.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe the Big Beautiful bill eliminated taxes on Social Security?
Because I saw online that it does.
Well, probably not for me.
There's some kind of an income cutoff, and I would be above it.
So if you're still working and you're getting a regular paycheck, it won't take much, regular paycheck, for you not to be eligible for the no tax on Social Security.
So even something as simple as that, is there or is there not a tax on Social Security?
You would have to do sort of a deep dive to figure out where you stand in that, to even know if it applies to you.
Same with a number of other topics.
So we've got this big, beautiful bill that the public does not understand.
The pundits, some might, some won't.
But here's what I call the perfect situation.
You know, if you look at the incentive of the people in Congress, you say, are they doing it for the money or are they doing it to keep their jobs?
You know, why do they vote the way they vote?
Well, I would submit to you that the ideal bill for Congress is one where the public doesn't understand anything about what's in it.
Because then both sides can criticize it with just wildly, wildly misleading claims about what it does and doesn't do.
And the public will not really have the time or interest or even ability to look at the details of the bill.
And if you're going to depend on watching the news or watching social media or watching even me, and then, oh, well, I'll watch my favorite pundits who seem really smart.
And they'll talk about the bill, and then I'll know if I like it, because the pundits said this or that is a good idea.
Do you think the pundits, even the ones that you agree with, do you think they understand what's in the bill and all the implications?
No, they don't.
A few might.
A very few might.
But you won't even know which the few are, because the Republicans are all going to say the same thing.
If you talk to any Republican or anybody who supports Republicans and you say, did you cut Medicaid?
What will the Republicans say?
They would say, cut Medicaid?
No, we protected it.
And then they would give their argument that you don't understand about, well, you know, a lot of the people kicked off would be migrants and stuff.
And then you would walk away saying, oh, nobody's been kicked off of Medicaid.
That's not even a thing.
It's just the people who shouldn't have been there, the waste and abuse, the non-citizens who you believe should not have been eligible, the people who refuse to work even though they're able-bodied.
And so you're going to go away with the Republican view of it, that nothing got cut.
And in fact, it got strengthened by protecting against abuse.
And then if you happen to be a Democrat and you watch any of the Democrat-leading news or social media, it will say that the mean old Republicans cut Medicaid and they will not specify who got cut.
They'll just say it's a big ass number, like 12 million or something.
And then they'll say, well, 12 million people will lose their health care.
And they'll act like it could be people you know and able-bodied people.
And neither of those, I would say that neither of those takes are accurate.
It's just that you can say anything about a bill that people aren't going to look into on their own.
So the two sides will just have two different movies running.
Which one's true?
I'd say neither.
You know, I've heard the argument of both sides, and I've also read it, you know, what the news reports about it.
And I would say, to me, it looks like neither side is telling the truth.
But they don't need to because they know that their people will accept their version as the truth.
And then they'll just parrot it because our opinions are assigned to us.
We don't come up with them on our own.
Anyway, so I was looking at what it would do to my taxes and pretty good.
It looks like it might help me.
But then I look at the SALT taxes, you know, the state and local taxes deduction that used to be there and that was taken away, taken away from the blue state residents like me.
But now it's back, but there are all these caps on it, so it doesn't make any difference to me.
You know, if your house is above a certain level or your income is, you don't get any of those, you don't get much or any of the salt benefits.
So everything's too complicated for anybody to understand.
We'll see if it gets passed.
The most, probably the thing that is the most easy example of two movies on one screen is that the critics and at least some of the scoring organizations say that it will drive up the debt or up the deficit by over $3 trillion over time.
$3 trillion.
But the Trump administration would say they're not scoring it right because they're acting like nothing changes except the budget.
But what would really change is that the budget could be part of a larger effort to goose the economy, Trump style, until the economy is just clicking away like we've never seen it.
And the GDP is up to five or seven or some number we've never even seen before.
And it's producing all this extra revenue that the groups who do the analysis of the budget impact don't include because they just assume that the GDP does what it always does.
And the whole point of it is to goose the GDP so it doesn't do what it always did, but it does way better.
So Trump and company would say it's going to reduce the deficit by $2 trillion.
So now we have a $5 trillion gap between what the Democrats are being told the bill will do and what the Republicans are being told it will do.
So will it cost you $3 trillion or will it save you $2 trillion?
Which one do you believe is true?
And the answer is, I don't know.
How would I know?
I mean, really, how would I know?
How would you know?
Because somebody that you don't know told you they did an analysis and they came up with a certain answer.
Would you believe that?
These are completely unknowable things at this point.
So I do think that if anyone except Trump had said to me, we're going to goose the economy so much that we'll make extra money.
If anyone else had said that, I would not believe it for a second because I would just think they're going to do normal stuff and get normal results.
But Trump, he does now have a solid track record of doing things that other people can't get done and achieving things that even if you were very pro-Trump, you might have said to yourself, well, he's never going to get that done.
And then he does.
So he might be able to goose the economy like we've never seen before.
Certainly, he has all the tools to do that now.
And some of it is luck.
But it all seems lined up at this point that maybe we could see an economy like we've just never seen before.
Could happen.
And then maybe, this would be the Republican best case scenario, maybe when the upcoming budget process is engaged, and that wouldn't be too many months from now, I think it happens in a few months, that that's where they do the big Doge cuts.
Maybe.
I mean, I feel like anything where you have to get 60 votes in the Senate will never happen.
But maybe.
All right.
See what else we have.
Let's check in with what the Democrats are saying about the Big Beautiful bill.
Pramilla Jayapal, Representative Jayapal, says, quote, if they do succeed today, which means getting the Big Beautiful bill signed, July 4th is going to be about apple pie kicking mom out of her nursing home and health care for no one.
So she's telling her constituents that the bill will remove health care for everyone.
How many of the Democrat public will know that that's just not true or not close to true?
It's just miles away from being true.
How many will know that?
I don't know.
Probably the people who support her would not be looking into it.
And if they looked into it, they'd turn on MSNBC.
And MSNBC would say, oh yeah, here's this example of somebody who got kicked out of a nursing home.
And they won't ask questions like, you know, were you supposed to be there in the first place?
You know, did you legally have access to this?
So that's her take.
However, I'm going to give her persuasion points for being visual in her persuasion.
Because listen, just listen to this thing she said: kicking mom out of her nursing home.
That one you feel, because you see your own mom and you see the building and you say to yourself, holy, what am I going to do if I don't have professionals taking care of her and somebody else paying the bill for it?
You know, I can't stay home from work.
I can't afford to do it on my own.
That one really hits.
So I don't want to give her advice, but if you're talking about a budget and you can turn it into kicking mom out of her nursing home, which by the way is not close to anything that's really going to happen.
But wow, that's visual persuasion right there.
Well, meanwhile, Trump says he's got a deal with Vietnam for trade in which there would be no tariff when we sell into Vietnam, but they would still pay a 20% tariff for what they're selling into the U.S. So that would be a,
and also the bigger part is that Vietnam would not be allowed to take Chinese products and just ship it through Vietnam so it looks like it came from Vietnam to avoid the higher tariffs.
The U.S. would impose extra tariffs on stuff that came from China first, and that would be a 40% tariff.
So Vietnam agreed to that, apparently.
So that's like a really big deal because it sort of validates what Trump was saying, that we have the most valuable market, so we can essentially charge other countries an entry fee just to have access to the market.
So Vietnam will pay, well, you could say that U.S. companies are paying it, but the point is that it would suppress imports from Vietnam.
And sure enough, it would put a price on access to American markets.
There's a report.
Anyway, so what's the big deal about the Vietnam thing is if it's true, and it's probably too soon to know if it's the final deal, but if he really got this, it's going to validate everything he said.
It's just going to make him look like he was so right about tariffs that the other trade deals might hasten to make a deal, maybe.
So Trump's having the best summer ever.
Speaking of which, allegedly, according to the Times of Israel, Hamas is satisfied with the Trump-motivated ceasefire idea.
So that would mean that Israel said yes to a ceasefire for Gaza and that Hamas has agreed to the terms.
Do you believe that?
I'm going to put that in my category of too soon, and I only see one source so far, Times of Israel.
Now, I'm not saying the Times of Israel is low credibility.
I'm just saying that this topic is low credibility.
That if you hear that Hamas agreed to do something reasonable, what should be your first response to that?
Should you say to yourself, oh, finally, Hamas decided to be reasonable and make a deal?
Or would it be more reasonable to say, Hamas is never going to make a reasonable deal with anybody?
So obviously the story can't be true.
I lean toward, I don't think Hamas can make a reasonable deal with anybody.
So I lean toward this not being a true story.
So I'm not going to embrace it yet.
But it would be really impressive if Trump got this done right before the 4th of July.
Oh, my goodness.
So my optimism wants it to be true because it would be incredible.
I mean, it would just be jaw-droppingly, give me the Nobel Peace Prize.
You know, that conversation is over forever.
Best president of all time.
So, I mean, it'd be wonderful if it's true, but I'm going to bet against it at the moment.
Maybe it'll be true later.
Well, in a story that, you know, in, I guess, normal times would be the biggest story in the country, but it's just sort of a thing that passes by at this point.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe, so he's out of the CIA.
The CIA did an analysis of the Russia collusion prosecution against Trump.
I call it the Russia collusion hoax.
And what they concluded was that, and I love this, because they concluded exactly what you and I thought was true.
See how many of you say, that's what I thought was the case from day one.
So they say that John Brennan and Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals.
Also, they could pursue Trump and try to drive him out of office with essentially just made-up bullshit.
And according to CIA Director John Ratcliffe, the CIA can conclude that they were bad actors who tried to essentially overthrow the election.
Now, when you saw Brennan and Clapper appear on all the networks that they appeared on during the time when the Russia collusion thing was at its peak, didn't you know that they were the two guys behind It and that they had manipulated things.
Couldn't you tell every time they appeared on TV?
Because I could.
I just didn't want to say it out loud because I thought, well, I don't have evidence.
So if you don't have evidence, you know, you don't want to get sued for libel or something.
But every time I saw Brennan and Clapper, they looked so obviously like they were lying, and they were obviously the ones who had the most, you know, their hands on the levers of what happens and what doesn't happen.
It seemed really, really super glaringly obvious that they were trying to overthrow the country with their winged monkeys and the media supporting them.
So to me, this is just the oldest news in the world.
But the new part is the CIA confirms it.
They looked into it and said, yes, these three guys, if you had Comey in there as the third, that they literally manipulated things and ignored things that they shouldn't have ignored and focused on things they shouldn't have focused on.
And they did it intentionally to cripple Trump.
Now, I don't know what the criminal penalty is for that, but it's also part of the twin hoaxes.
At the moment, well, you know the story of the fine people hoax that was the central tentpole hoax that was holding the Democrats together.
You know, no matter what they thought about their own bad politicians, you could always depend on a Democrat to believe the fine people hoax.
And they would say things like, well, yeah, my side isn't doing so well, but at least they're not promoting neo-Nazis, which, of course, never happened in the real world.
Trump denounced them.
He did not promote them.
But as long as that hoax was there, Democrats could manipulate their base because they'd say, Trump is worse.
Look at what he said in Charlottesville, which, of course, he did not say.
He said the opposite.
So that hoax was holding up all the other hoaxes, and then it collapsed.
So what did they do?
They just put it in a new tenpole.
The new 10poll is January 6th, the January 6th, quote, insurrection.
And I was listening to CNN yesterday, I guess, and Anderson Cooper had some journalists on.
And the journalist was just so deep into the pure propaganda.
No, the 2020 election, the fact that Biden won is a fact.
It's a fact.
And do you know how he defended that he alone, apparently, would know that the election was not rigged?
Because it's a fact.
It's a fact.
You can't change it.
It's a fact.
But you know, there's nothing you can say because it's a fact.
It's just a fact.
And he would just say that over and over again until the idiots watching that network would say, well, I guess we know that for sure.
To which I say, how would anybody know that for sure?
Are you telling me that if our CIA tried to throw an election in another country, that they get caught every time?
Are you telling me that there's nobody involved in the United States politics or intelligence or anywhere who would know how to cheat one of our elections?
How would we possibly know if somebody knew how to cheat the election and whether they didn't?
You can't know what you don't know.
And how in the world do these journalists get off telling you it's a fact when nobody could know that?
That is a completely unknowable proposition.
Now, do I have proof that that election was rigged?
No.
No, I don't have any proof of that.
The only thing I know for sure with 100% certainty is that you couldn't know just by following the news.
What are you going to do?
You can tell if the election is good because the news said it was good?
Have you learned nothing about the news?
And then Anderson Cooper was agreeing with his guests.
It's a fact.
Now, in order to sell that fact, they have to get you to believe two ridiculous things.
One ridiculous thing is that anybody could know if an election was rigged or not rigged successfully.
Because if something is rigged successfully, by definition, you wouldn't know.
That's what makes it successful.
And the other ridiculous assumption is that the people who protested, and including Trump, knew that the election was won by Biden and were simply pretending it didn't happen, pretending.
They were simply pretending that it was illegitimate election so that they could take over the country by what?
Wandering around in a building and trespassing?
Is that how you take over a country?
So the January 6th hoax has the two most ridiculous assumptions at its core that anybody could know if an election was rigged and that the people on January 6 believed that it was totally fairly went to Biden and that they were there to try to change it to Trump because of his authoritarian blah, blah, blah, brainwashing propaganda.
It's a cult.
Oh my goodness.
It's the weakest hoax of all time because you don't even need to do any research to know that those two problems exist, the ones I mentioned.
But it's all they have.
So the Democrats are a hoax-based machine.
They need at least one tentpole hoax.
Tenpole hoax means it's the main one that makes all the other hoaxes look like they're reasonable.
Because all the other stuff that they say about Trump, just like the fine people hoax, where if they could sell that as being true, then any other accusation of being racist sounded like it was true because you say to yourself, well, if the main thing that would make him a racist, the fine people hoax, if that main thing is true, it's really easy to believe all the other accusations because you've already established who he is.
So now they've taken that technique over to the insurrection and they'll say, if you buy the fact that he was part of a, you know, knowing he had not been elected but trying to take the job anyway, then all of the other accusations about authoritarianism, they all sound true.
Because you say to yourself, well, he tried to conquer the country and stay in office once.
So then they can sell you that he doesn't plan to leave after a second term, which you would never believe unless you had fallen from the tentpole hoax, which is that he had already tried once to conquer the country by telling his followers to trespass and wander around in a building without any guns.
So anyway, beware the find people hoax.
We'll take care of that one.
I'll work on that one.
The University of California system, so that's a system that binds together all the various California universities, has announced that boycotts of Israel will be banned.
And that's because of pressure from Trump on funding.
So now they're banning protests against Israel or boycotts of Israel.
To which Glenn Greenwald might ask, are they now allowed to boycott everybody but Israel?
What if the University of California system didn't say no if they decided to boycott some other country?
Or do we really have laws now that are Israel specific?
And it's the one place you can't boycott?
I don't know.
So while I'm certainly in favor of tamping down any signs of anti-Semitism, I'm not sure if boycotting a country quite satisfies the anti-Semitism claim.
Because I would wonder, it would make more sense if they said you can't boycott anybody.
Maybe universities should not be involved in boycotting.
Or if we said you can't boycott anybody who's an ally of the United States.
That wouldn't be bad, would it?
Because then it's not Israel specific, but it would include anybody who's an ally of the United States.
So what happens if somebody wants to boycott Russia?
Still legal?
Still okay?
Or boycott China?
Don't we always talk about not buying China stuff?
Effectively, you know, a boycott?
So I guess we have laws now that apply to one country.
Let's see.
What else is happening?
Yeah.
CNN is announcing that the they're saying that CEOs are now admitting that there's going to be a lot of layoffs with AI.
Oh, no, I'm sorry.
There's two opposite stories.
I'm confusing them.
The positive story is that CNN is admitting that the number of layoffs under Trump have declined tremendously.
So apparently they went out of their way to say a story that was just unambiguously positive for Trump.
Again, I've been telling you, CNN's making a legitimate attempt to include a little bit of both sides, which I had not seen before.
So it is a change.
But this is a good example of that, admitting that the number of layoffs under Trump are way down, down 49%.
But not all good news.
Meanwhile, a federal judge, let's see if you understand this better than I do, because the legal stuff is just so far out of my domain.
But a federal judge in Washington, D.C. just ruled that Trump does not have the power to declare that he's going to close the asylum process because it's turned into an invasion.
So the word invasion is the active word.
So Trump was saying that if it's an invasion, the federal government has responsibility of repelling it on behalf of the states.
And that's all he was doing.
The executive order closed the asylum process as his response to the, quote, invasion.
Now, the federal judge says that invasion language doesn't give Trump any new powers that he didn't have before.
So he doesn't really have that power.
And the part I don't understand is that the Supreme Court just ruled that a federal judge can't overrule something that applies to the entire country.
They can only do things that apply to their domain.
So how did this judge do the very thing that the Supreme Court just made illegal?
Well, it has something to do with declaring Future asylum seekers a protected class.
And here's where I'm going to bow out.
Because if you understand the law well enough to know why that is an appropriate workaround to just simply declare them a class, how exactly does that give them the power to do what the Supreme Court just said you guys can't do?
You can't block something nationwide if you're just a federal judge?
Oh no.
We'll just declare that these people who might come in in the future are a protected class.
Somehow that works around it?
How's that work?
All right.
So I'm a little bit confused by it.
I assume it'll go to the Supreme Court.
I assume the Supreme Court would say you can't do this trick to get around our ruling.
I don't know.
Maybe it would go the other way.
So listen to the people who know something about the law if you want to know more about that.
Meanwhile, James Carville, he says that he thinks that Trump's going to try to rig the midterm election.
And he says that Trump can't possibly win fair and square in the midterms because the big, beautiful bill is about 25 points underwater in terms of popularity in the country in general.
And that Trump will have a massive defeat, and he's not going to be able to handle that.
So that Trump will declare martial law or declare that there's some other national emergency so that he can throw out the results of the midterms.
Now, that's what James Carville says.
Now, that would be an example of getting your base all riled up.
But it does seem to suggest that he believes that you could rig an election.
So can he talk to Anderson Cooper on CNN?
Because he believes that an election can be rigged, but maybe not by rigging the vote.
I think he's suggesting that he might rig something about the system, you know, declaring an emergency or martial law or something, which would be more overthrowing an election than rigging it.
Going back to Representative Jayapal, here's what she's saying on CNN.
She says, what is deranged and cruel and outrageous is that literally we're seeing literally, like literally actually happening, we're seeing ICE agents and they're coming and kidnapping and disappearing people on the streets of the United States.
Is that happening?
Are they kidnapping and disappearing people or just people who are illegal and shouldn't be here in the first place?
Well, probably their net is picking up more people than you thought they would.
So there is a little bit of that.
So this is hyperbole.
It's going to pick up some people who are not the worst of the worst.
And they will get shipped off to who knows where.
So my take on this is that it does transfer a burden from the legal citizens of the United States.
And their risk would be having too many people come in who were not vetted.
It shifts the burden to the people who have already come in illegally.
Now, I don't mind shifting burden from the people who were obeying the law to the people who did not obey the law.
It does seem, you know, my empathy gene kicks in, and I definitely have empathy for the population that is being most affected.
I have lots of empathy.
But from a conceptual level, philosophically, shifting the burden from the people who are doing everything right to the people who are trying to get a little extra from the system, that doesn't seem terrible, even though it does have a price.
There's this guy, Eli Mistel.
You've seen him.
He looks like he has the big white Afro.
And he's often on MSNBC.
Well, he was on Joy Reed's podcast.
And he said that America is the bad guys on the world stage and a menace to free and peaceful people because America is the one causing all the trouble.
To which I say, well, that's sort of true.
But I would say that America pursues its national best interest, which is often tied to its multinational profitability.
And that's not really pleasant for the rest of the world.
But every country gets the opportunity to pursue their own best interest.
We don't complain too much when other countries do it.
We just say, well, obviously, everybody pursues their own best interests.
So, yeah, we're sort of the bad guys to other countries because we're doing the same thing they're doing, pursuing our own best interests.
So he's kind of right and kind of wrong at the same time.
CNN's Harry Enton was blown away, as was I, by new data showing that Democrats have shifted massively from being pro-Israel to being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.
And the shift is enormous.
The pro-Palestinian position is up by 43 points.
43 points.
In other words, it's not even close.
It's one of the few issues where it's just not close.
So the Democrats are just anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian.
And the Republicans, I haven't seen the Republican numbers, but probably not that.
My guess is that the Republicans are still pro-Israel by a majority, but I don't know.
So, obviously, the Gaza situation and the military might that Israel has been employing with U.S. support is not popular.
But I didn't see that it could ever move that much.
So, apparently, something big is happening.
I don't know if it's a TikTok effect, a social media effect, but if you take the Gaza situation and you put it all over TikTok and social media, I can see how you could turn half of the country, you know, 180.
It looks like that's what happened.
According to the Wall Street Journal, there's a bunch of CEOs who are now saying that AI will vastly reduce the number of jobs.
Now, remember, at the moment, the number of jobs is looking good.
So employment looks pretty good.
We've had AI for kind of two years.
And so far, not really any direct effect on the overall job situation.
Definitely affect some individual companies.
But overall, employment stayed strong.
And I'm wondering if this is an example of the Adams law of slow-moving disasters, where if everyone can see the problem coming, like all these CEOs, I think the CEO of Anthropic, which is an AI company, says we'll see unemployment levels of 10 to 20% from AI replacing people.
Now that would be unemployment of 20%.
That's depression level, isn't it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think even the Great Depression was around 20% unemployment.
That's hard to survive that level.
And then I think CEO of What Ford says that half of all white-collar workers might be replaced by AI.
But I'm going to be a little bit skeptical about these predictions.
I think it's a little bit too obvious and easy to say that, oh, AI will replace a bunch of workers.
If you're wrong, nobody's going to be mad at you.
They'll just be happy that nothing bad happened.
And if you're right, you get to say, look how right I was.
So it's sort of a safe, easy, routine thing to predict, oh yeah, the AI will take half our jobs.
But so far, I feel like it will definitely take jobs in some businesses and some industries.
But I don't know.
I feel like maybe as many jobs will be created as there are taken away.
We'll see.
I'm a skeptic on job loss.
Apparently in LA, there's some kind of $30 minimum wage hike that was passed by the city council.
So if you have a hotel in LA, you would have to pay all of your workers a minimum of $30 an hour.
Now, the federal minimum wage is still like $7.50, but a lot of states have higher ones, like $15 maybe.
I don't know what it is in California.
Is it $15 minimum wage?
But for the hotels, it would be $30 minimum wage.
And of course, the hotels are saying they can't survive that.
And maybe they can't.
Well, let's talk about Jerome Powell.
Does it feel to you that Jerome Powell has that Joe Biden vibe now?
When I see pictures of Jerome Powell, he doesn't look like he still has his fatball.
Now, that's still only based on the videos and the pictures.
It's not even based on anything he says or believes or anything like that.
It's based on just a vibe.
He's got that Joe Biden, you know, I stayed in the job too long vibe.
But Bill Pulte is pointing out that when Powell testified to the Senate Banking Committee, so that's a testimony under oath, I think, that he had answered some questions dishonestly.
And the questions involved a new building that was being built for the Fed.
And he was being asked about some of the alleged luxuries that were being built in the building.
I'll call them luxuries, like a rooftop garden and some stuff like that.
And he must have said that they're not planning that.
And now we know that maybe that is part of the plan.
So if he lied to Congress, is that grounds for removing him from the Fed?
Because it was a big project.
I think it was over a billion dollars in construction that they were looking at.
Well, Bill Pultey has called this out as potential grounds for removing him along with being too late about everything.
So, and then Trump has agreed with that to put more pressure on Powell.
There's a new video of this Zorian Mamdani guy back in 2021.
We already saw the video where he said that the ultimate goal is seizing the means of production, which confirms that he's a communist, not just a socialist, but actually wants to go full communist, seizing the means of production.
In other words, the government owning all the factories and the productions.
I don't know.
But apparently he also in the similar video in 2021 said something about, I think the government taking over the penthouses and turning them into low-cost housing.
So basically getting rid of private ownership of residential homes.
Now you might argue that there's no such thing as private ownership of homes in the United States, because if you're paying property tax, which you are, if you stop paying the property tax, you'd be jailed by the government.
So you could argue that we already don't have private ownership of business, but it's closer to private than the idea of the government owning it directly.
So yes, Mamdani with his creepy communist smile, that smile that every time you see it, you say to yourself, wait a minute, that smile looks like a snake oil salesman.
Somebody's trying to put one over on me.
He has the least trustable face because of that weird smile, the creepy communist smile.
So we'll see if that becomes an issue.
Well, Newsmax is talking about how the Washington Post has a big opinion piece about how Trump can lead the U.S. to a nuclear energy revolution by supporting innovation and removing bureaucratic stuff and red tape and stuff.
Now, hold that in your brain.
Do you remember 2016 or so when I was one of the people on social media who was lobbying really hard for both sides of the aisle to understand that nuclear power was not just better than you thought it was in terms of safety and economics,
et cetera, but required that we would never make it into the future as an important country unless we had turned around completely our nuclear energy policies and made them pro-nuclear power plants being built.
So that's now the common opinion on both the left and the right, because the Washington Post opinion piece would represent, I think, the left fully embracing, maybe not the left, left, left, left, but the ordinary left embracing nuclear power as a requirement.
But also the fact that they would write an article saying that Trump might be exactly the right person to get us there because he's big on removing the unnecessary regulations.
That's amazing.
It's just amazing that this even exists in the Washington Post.
And then I said to myself, oh, wait a minute.
Did the Washington Post just think from first principles and came to this idea that now they can be full-throatedly embracing nuclear energy?
Is that what just happened?
Or, or is it possible that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos?
It is.
And that Jeff Bezos needs massive amounts of electricity to run his robot factories and his own AI.
Oh yeah.
So the owner of the Washington Post absolutely cannot survive in the future without massive nuclear power and every other kind of energy.
So did the Washington Post, on their own, come up with a new love for nuclear energy or did they know who they work for and they know that the business of the owner, you know, the extended business of all of his businesses, can't survive without a robust nuclear energy industry in the United States.
Just ask them.
All right, according to Modernity, John Fleetwood, the Xfinity company, the one who provides cable and Wi-Fi to your house, at least does in my house, they now can spy on your physical movements in your house via your Wi-Fi.
So you've probably seen stories about this, where Wi-Fi can see interference and it can draw a little picture of where you are in your house.
Did you know that?
Now, that's not a big problem, except there's an allegation that Palantir, which is a big government contracted company, that has connections to a whole bunch of data about you.
So do you feel okay that Palantir might, I don't know this for sure, but might someday have access to the Wi-Fi movement information so they can tell where you are in your house and maybe even decisions about what you might be doing and what you might do in the future.
I don't know how much of this is real and how much of this is people just worrying that it could become real.
But it's pretty scary.
So I don't know if it's real or just a potential real thing.
It is real that they can determine where you are.
So even Xfinity is advertising that.
What we don't know, or I don't know, is if Palantiru is going to have access to that data and use it in some way you don't like.
All right.
Fox News is reporting the IAEA has warned that Iran could restart their uranium enrichment within months, despite the U.S. strikes.
So do you buy that?
So even Iran has admitted that the nuclear program was hit hard and a lot of destruction.
But do you believe the IAEA, who are experts in this field, that they could start enriching in a few months?
I don't know.
I don't know how they would know that.
But we also wouldn't know what they can do that we don't know about.
So, I don't know.
So anyway, some bipartisan lawmakers, people on both sides, have proposed that we put together a plan to sell B-2 stealth bombers to Israel so that we don't have to be involved if Israel wants to re-bomb Iran.
Is that a good idea or a terrible idea?
Because I feel like Trump got a lot of benefit from being the only one who could do these bunker buster bombs.
If Israel could do it on its own, then Trump would have had no leverage over Israel, right?
And we like it when, you know, because we know Israel is influential in the United States, in Congress.
Wouldn't it be good if there was some influence that worked both ways and it was pretty strong influence?
Because then you've got a more productive, you know, ally situation where you both got your hand on a lever and sometimes one prevails and sometimes the other, but you're both pushing.
I don't know.
I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea.
There's another report, news, Max, that North Korea is going to be sending 25,000 soldiers to boost the Russian military in Ukraine.
25 to 30,000 more.
Is that because Russia is running out of troops?
Or whether they were running out or not, it's just cheaper and easier to burn up these North Korean soldiers who don't even know why they're there.
So it could be the one.
I'm not sure I'd read too much into it.
All right.
That is all I have to say today.
And look how I came pretty close to 8 o'clock.
So did the big beautiful bill get voted on?
You remember my prediction?
My prediction is that they would delay it after July 4th.
So I don't have a prediction about whether it gets signed, just a prediction that they're not going to make the July 4th deadline.
They tried, and I think there's still a really good chance they're going to hit it.
So we'll compare my prediction that they won't hit it to all the reporting that's a lot smarter than me that says, yeah, it looks like they're going to hit it.
So I see in the comments that Jack Posebock thinks it will happen today.
I think most people think it will happen today because Trump's going to put the pressure from hell on the Republicans.
Trump really, really, really, really wants this to happen before July 4th or even on July 4th.
And he's going to push as hard as anybody ever pushed anybody about anything to get it done.
So I would agree with Jack that the odds are it'll get done, but I'm still going to go with my prediction that it won't, just to be a contrarian.
All right.
All right, that's all I got.
I'm going to say a few words to the people on locals, my beloved subscribers on locals.
