God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Climate Models Hoax, Micro-Reactor Test Bed, Grok4, AI Employee Performance Reviews, Major Media Collusion, Jordan Peterson, Fox News Viewership Increase, CNN Hosts, Hakeem Jeffries Filibuster, Big Beautiful Bill, Artificial Deadlines, Persuasion "Fake Because", Scott Bessent, Historical Stimulus Results, Congress Spending Addiction, President Trump, CNN Bias Reduction, Farm Hotel Migrant Amnesty, Joe Rogan, Mass Deportations, Migrant Empathy, Non-Citizen Census, Democrat Immigration Bill Hoax, Zohran Mamdani, Bill Ackman, Creepy Smile Mamdani, Eric Adams, President Putin, 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.
Pick up a chair in the front so I can look at your smiling face.
Well, happy Fourth of July.
Happy birthday, America.
And while all the lazy people, lazy podcasters are taking the day off, not me.
No, I'm here for you.
boom boom boom boom boom Um...
*thud*
Good morning, everybody, 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 take a chance of improving how you feel, even though it seems impossible, well, to do that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker chelsucian, a canteen jug or flask.
What else?
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope immediate hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah, thank you, Paul.
All right.
Well, let's check in with science and see if science is enlightening us at all.
Well, here's a story from the New York Post.
It says that just one hot dog a day may increase the risk of colorectal cancer.
So one hot dog, just one hot dog a day would increase the risk of colorectal cancer.
Well, that raises an interesting question.
What would happen if you put the hot dog in your mouth instead?
Everybody?
Anybody?
All right.
It's hard to do a comedy, hard to do a joke on the live stream because there's no feedback.
So I don't know if it just went and clunk or if you're laughing yourself to death.
But that was a heck of a good joke.
Well, according to Joe Nova, whoever that is, there's a unexpected change in the sea ice around Antarctica, where there are 1.5 million square kilometers of sea ice that are missing.
Missing meaning melted.
Now, you're probably saying to yourself, my God, they've proven climate change is real because of all that Antarctic sea ice that melted.
But it's the opposite because the climate models did not predict that there would be a sudden massive decrease in ice.
And not long ago, when Antarctica was moving in the other direction, when it should have been melting, there was a massive increase in ice that also the climate models did not anticipate.
They think it might be because the melting, might be because of a change in salinity in the ocean.
More salt equals more melting.
But they don't know for sure.
But you know what I'm going to say next, right?
Do you know what I'm going to say?
Oh, I'm going to say it.
It goes like this.
Wait until you find out about the climate models.
Honestly, it's going to be one of my best weeks ever.
Someday, and it's probably not far off, it might happen in the next year or two, someday there's going to be a whistleblower who says, I worked on climate models, and I can tell you for sure, they're complete bullshit.
And we just do it for funding.
Oh, it's coming.
It's coming.
Well, another sign of the golden age, Idaho National Laboratories is putting together a nuclear micro-reactor testbed.
So this is a U.S. government project.
So the reason you need a micro-reactor testbed is that if you want to build and design an innovative small nuclear power plant, there might be a number of resources you need to test it and perfect it.
So now the U.S. has a place that you can take your small nuclear reactor design and test it out.
Now, how much do we need that?
A lot.
A lot.
We really, really need that.
And we haven't.
So another sign of the golden age.
We're going to maybe catch up with other countries like China and the nuclear department if we keep doing things right.
Well, Elon Musk says that Grok, the AI, has improved significantly as of today.
So it was released today, a new version.
And I did a little test, I think I told you, before the upgrade, just two days ago, maybe.
I asked Grok to tell me what I had contributed to society, not counting Dilbert.
And it hallucinated like crazy.
So I'm reading the list of all the things it says I contributed to the world.
And I don't know, half of it was made up.
Stuff I'd never seen, participated in, you know, had no connection to.
And I thought to myself, huh, another perfect application of Gel-Mann amnesia.
Now, you all know what that is because you're regulars.
But in case there's somebody new here, that's an observation by a famous physicist whose last name was Gel-Mann, who noticed that when he read a story about physics in the news, it was always wrong.
But that's because he was an expert on that field.
But the moment he turned the page, he would see an article on some other industry or field, and he would assume that that was accurate.
And then eventually he figured out, wait a minute, what are the odds that every time I know something about the story, it's inaccurate, but when I don't know anything about this story, I assume it's accurate?
Is it possible that they're only inaccurate on stories that I know something about?
And that's when he correctly generalized that to the idea that the news is probably inaccurate all the time.
Well, sure enough, when I asked Grock before the upgrade, so this is just yesterday, the day before, it was hallucinating really badly.
So if you were doing a school report and you were going to do it about some public figure and you used AI to find out about me, oh my God, would your report be wrong?
And then I go, and how many times have I used Grok in just the last week?
A whole bunch of times.
And I've even reported to you about what it said.
I'll do it today, actually, a number of times.
But I assumed that all the things Grok was telling me on those other topics that were not about me, I just figured those were true.
But again, what are the odds?
What are the odds that the only thing it hallucinates about is me?
Very low, vanishingly small.
So I don't know how much of the other stuff it's hallucinated, but boy, did it hallucinate about me.
So I tried it again today with the new upgrade being announced.
And I don't think, I'm not sure, but, oh, the only thing it got wrong, all the other details were accurate for the first time.
So the upgrade really made a difference.
The one thing it didn't get right is understanding my cancellation.
But to be fair, it didn't describe it the way the internet would.
It's just that the internet doesn't have the right answer either.
So I'm going to give that an A plus, because even though it was wrong about the one thing that sort of matters the most to me, it was not out of whack with what the internet in general says.
So, you know, I'll accept that, even though it was wrong.
All right.
So then I asked Grock, who is the first public figure to refer to Democrats as, quote, theater kids?
What do you think Grok said?
When I asked it, who came up with the idea that the Democrats were, quote, theater kids, just acting out?
Well, Grock said that it was Scott Jennings, who you know is a superstar conservative on CNN.
And so I went back to Grock and I said, when is the first time that Scott Adams used the phrase theater kids?
And it went back and found out that three months before Scott Jennings said it on TV, that I had been tweeting it or posting on X. And then I said, did you get that wrong?
Why did you tell me it was Scott Jennings?
And then as soon as I asked you a deeper question, you correctly pointed out that I had said it three months before he said it.
And it said, oh, sorry, you know, it took me a deeper look based on your question.
And then I realized I got it wrong, so I corrected it.
So as soon as I dug down a little bit, it was hallucinating.
Now, I don't know that it was hallucinating, but I think what it did is stopped looking after it satisfied itself and found the answer.
And it didn't look at me.
So, and by the way, I don't know that I invented that.
It may be something I heard, but I heard it before Scott Jennings did.
So I don't know if I had any role in that other than repeating it.
Do not know.
So then I asked it, who was the first political person who used the phrase the golden age to describe Trump's administration, the golden age?
What do you think he said?
Well, apparently Grok isn't able to search on old Twitter, you know, back into 2016.
So it said it had a limitation there.
I couldn't look back that far.
I don't know why.
But when I pressed it, it said the earliest golden age reference was by Scott Adams.
But I didn't even know where it was.
Apparently, I used that phrase in my very viral 2015 post that was right after Trump had announced in 2015.
And I wrote a post called Clown Genius.
And I said that if Trump becomes president, we will enter a new golden age of persuasion where facts don't matter and outcomes due.
Does that sound like a good prediction?
That we entered a golden age of persuasion where the facts don't matter.
That's pretty much a precise explanation of everything you see in politics right now.
It's all about persuasion.
So I nailed that.
But I do not believe that that reference caught on.
So it's more likely that the golden age is a common enough phrase that more than one person would come up with it as the appropriate way to describe a Trump world.
So I would not take credit for theater kids nor for the golden age.
Except maybe, you know, maybe the minor credit for being on the same page was something that caught on.
But I don't know who said it first.
I may have been influenced by somebody.
Hard to know.
I've told you before that one of the ways I try to track my own influence, because the size of my podcast is relatively small compared to the top 20 people that you could think of off your top of your head.
But it's more influential, in my opinion, than most or maybe all of the political podcasts.
It's hard to know.
But one of the ways I track my influence or try to is by the presence or spreading of unusual wording.
So whenever there's unusual wording that's not historically common, if I thought I was either promoting it or saying it first, both of them would be similar.
If it catches on, like the golden age was trending on Access Today, it was one of the top trending things that I think, hmm, that might have been me.
But you can't know for sure.
Anyway, Newsmax is reporting that managers are now using AI to decide on employee raises.
Most managers.
So the majority of managers, according to Newsmax, are using AI to determine raises.
Do you believe that?
Well, I don't know if it's true, but it's definitely going to be a Dilbert comic next week.
Talk about writing my comic strip.
Using AI to give performance reviews.
Oh, I like it.
I like it a lot, especially when AI hallucinates.
Oh, I like it good.
So that'll be a Dilbert comic coming up.
Breitbart News.
Kurt Zandoka is reporting that entry-level job hirings in Britain are down by a third since ChatGPT was introduced.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the existence of ChatGPT is why Britain is way down in hiring entry-level people?
Well, it might be true that ChatGPT was introduced and it might be true that they're way down in hiring, but I do not believe that a third of the entry-level jobs are being performed already by AI.
Does anybody believe that?
Now, I do understand AI is a big productivity booster for programmers, but that's not really an entry-level job, is it?
When I think of entry-level jobs, I think, well, maybe answering the phone, you know, are they replacing some phone workers?
I don't see it.
To me, that looks like a sort of an unexplained stat, but I wouldn't explain it by AI because it would be happening in the United States as well.
If one-third of the entry-level people in Britain were replaced already with AI, that would already be happening in the US.
And there's no way you wouldn't notice.
It would be impossible that we didn't know it by now.
So I'm going to say I got some skepticism about the connection between AI and entry-level hiring going down.
Might be.
I mean, I wouldn't say zero chance that they're related, but I'm pretty sure you would see examples in the U.S. And I haven't seen any.
All right.
So the DOJ is joining with the lawsuits against the alleged media tech giant collusion.
So this is according to Reclaim the Net.
Dan Friedh is writing about this.
So the accusation is that some big media companies like BBC, Reuters, AP, etc., they're up in arms about alleged suppression of independent media.
Now, so I guess I would assume some collusion.
So do you think that's a good thing?
Well, I think so.
What is this about?
They're accused of stifling independent journalism.
So not having necessarily links to independent journalists.
You know, more like just giving it to the big guys.
But I think there's a bigger problem now, that Google's AI is answering questions as soon as the search results come up.
So people are less likely to even click on a link.
So, if you were a big existing media giant and you depended on a lot of traffic coming from Google, well, that's all going away really fast because Google will give you the answer.
You don't have to click on the link.
So, that's a big change in the world.
We'll see what that does.
Well, according to Fox News, the Pentagon is claiming that the strikes on Iran's nuclear project set back the program two years, to which I say, is that a success?
If it's only two years?
Doesn't it seem like, unless it's completely stopped, that it would be not a success?
Because in two years, they're going to know more and act faster and be more angry than they were before?
I don't know.
Two years doesn't sound like a big success unless the real story is that they won't bother to try it because they'll get bombed again.
And they would get bombed again.
But how many of you think Iran is just going to say, ah, it's not worth it?
We're not going to build up our nuclear capabilities.
It just doesn't seem possible, does it?
I feel like they're going to try as hard as they can to rebuild it.
They've already kicked out the UN watchdog group, whose job it is to make sure they don't do that.
They just kicked them out of the country.
And the watchdog group said that they could probably start re-refining uranium in a matter of months.
So I don't know what to believe about that.
But we'll see if they're afraid.
Sorry, I've got something in my lungs.
Yesterday, I recorded a podcast with Jordan Peterson for his podcast.
I didn't see him in person, but we were remote.
And his camera crew and audio guys, well, the ones I hired, came to my house.
So we converted one of my rooms into a little studio.
Sorry.
I'm going to die here.
And I think you're going to like it because we were planning to go an hour and 15 minutes.
And we just sailed through that.
I think we were well over two hours.
And I probably could have talked to him for another two hours because everything he says is interesting.
And we just had a great time.
So look for that.
I'll let you know when it's released.
It'll be on YouTube, most of it.
And then some portion of it will be on beyond a subscription wall for the Daily Wire.
Should happen fairly quickly.
I'll let you know.
New York Post is reporting.
How many times have you heard this story?
But it keeps happening.
That MSNBC and CNN's ratings continue to fall through the floor at the same time that Fox News ratings are sharply up.
So if you were going to say to yourself, hey, it must be that people don't want to watch TV news.
Nope.
Fox News proved that if your content is good, your viewership goes up.
I don't know how much of that is because Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Waters in particular are monsters of entertainment at this point.
They're in that domain.
The domain is news, but they're both just monsters.
They bring a whole different dimension because there's nobody on CNN or MSNBC that is like either one of those personalities.
And I think Jesse learned what he learned from Greg, which is a great mentor to have, by the way.
What Greg brings to his two top-rated shows on Fox News is unpredictability, and he doesn't say what everybody else is saying.
And he breaks all the rules.
And he goes for the greatest entertainment, and you know it.
So if you're watching him, you know he's going for the joke, he's going for the show.
And watching Fox News, even including the other shows, is a whole different experience.
So I can completely understand why they're just destroying the field.
Anyway, that story seems to repeat itself every month or two.
Well, they're down again, but Fox News is up again.
So I told you that the CNN, in my opinion, and I could be wrong about this, but it'd be weird, seems to be trying harder than I've ever seen them try to talk about the news in the middle of the road instead of just being an anti-Trump bias machine.
Now, they do have their biased people, like Anderson Cooper is ridiculous.
He doesn't look like he even belongs on the network anymore.
They say he's getting paid $18 million a year.
I'm thinking, really?
Is that just to make the CIA happy?
I mean, does he even work for the network?
Or does he work for some intelligence group that wants to say bad things about Trump?
Well, it's hard to tell if you watch him.
But the other hosts on CNN, a number of them, seem to have very much and very obviously looked for the middle.
And we see more of that.
So In the last few days, the CNN hosts have been willing to say it's about the best two weeks of any president's performance ever.
Trump's had the best summer, the best six months, and the best two weeks that you've ever seen.
Just unbelievably successful.
And so CNN just frankly just admits that now.
They just say it directly.
It's like the best two weeks.
But Hakeem Jeffries tried to stop the big beautiful bill with a filibuster, which is just one person talking for as long as they can to delay it.
What exactly did he think he was going to accomplish?
Did he think he was going to filibuster it until it couldn't get done on July 4th?
Or did his filibuster guarantee that it would be done and signed on July 4th, which it will be today, which made it even a better show than it would have been if he'd signed it on July 3rd, if Trump had signed it on the 3rd?
You really can't beat a Trump signing of his most signature important legislation on July 4th.
How do you beat that?
But anyway, Hakeem Jeffries is another theater kid, and instead of offering something constructive, he decided to put on a one-man show that nobody cared about.
It's almost like the poor man's Corey Booker.
If you added Corey Booker and Hakeem Jeffries together, you would have a person with normal eyes.
Think about that.
Corey Booker has these big saucer eyes.
And Hakeem has these sinister, half-closed eyes.
So they're always half-closed, like he's scheming.
If the two of them got together and had a child, totally normalize, somewhere in between.
Well, as you know, the House has passed the big, beautiful bill, and Trump's going to sign it today.
And here is another example of what I've taught you.
This is a little persuasion lesson.
Do you remember I told you that artificial deadlines work really well, even when everybody knows it's artificial?
So when Trump said we want to get this signed by July 4th, or ideally even on July 4th, did people say, oh, that is a very important deadline.
If you miss that deadline, we're all dead or something?
No.
There's no reason it couldn't have been on July 6th, right?
You would tell yourself, well, we get exactly the same outcome two days later.
But there is something magical about having an artificial deadline.
That's what the July 4th deadline was.
Very artificial.
And they hit it.
If you were going to bet, would they hit the artificial deadline?
It's not guaranteed because there are a lot of variables in play.
But it would have been a good bet.
The odds of them hitting the artificial deadline are way higher than you imagine.
And it's because people just organize for deadlines and they modify their behavior for the deadline, even if they know the deadline's going to be S, it doesn't make that much difference.
I mean, the country wouldn't go out of business if it got signed on the 7th.
So artificial deadline for the win.
What did Trump have to do to get the bill passed?
Well, apparently he made a bunch of vague, unspecific promises to the whole ounce.
And they're all reporting that that satisfied them.
His vague, unspecific comments.
So one of the complaints was it doesn't lower the budget enough, or it doesn't address the deficit, which, you know, that's debatable, depending how you calculate it.
But instead of making big cuts, Trump said, oh, I'll take care of that with my executive orders later.
Sort of a big, vague promise.
And that was enough to get the, I guess, the Freedom Caucus got on board.
So the Freedom Caucus, of course, wanted, you know, to be more aggressive, taking down the debt.
But here's your other persuasion lesson.
It's called the Fake Because.
Now, you've heard me talk about it, but every time you see an example of it in the wild, it'll reinforce it.
The fake because is a reason you give somebody who wants to change their mind, but they need you to give them a reason.
So this is somebody who really, really wants to give you what you want, but you're going to have to come up with something that sounds like a reason, even if it's sort of ridiculous and fake.
So do you think the Freedom Caucus believes that they will get much lower deficit because Trump will do some executive orders about something or other in the future?
Do you think they believe that?
I don't.
I don't think they believe that.
Now, he might take a swing at it, because he is good at keeping his promises.
But I don't know if it's possible.
I mean, how many executive orders can he do that would reduce the deficit?
So, to me, that qualifies as a fake because you know the Freedom Caucus wanted to Keep Trump happy because the alternative is very bad for the people who didn't keep him happy.
You know, they might get primaried.
So they wanted to say yes, but they were on record being hard-nosed about the deficit.
So, how do you balance that?
You really want the president to get his way because of all the blowback if he doesn't, but also you support the president.
But at the same time, you've gone on record saying you would never support something that might be negative for the budget.
So you have two impossibles.
They solve it with a fake because.
Oh, yeah, no problem.
Now we're going to say yes and vote for it because the president said he'd take care of it with his executive orders sometime in the future, unspecified.
That's a fake because.
Used well, by the way.
So that's not a criticism.
It's actually just a lesson.
So you can make your own judgments about it.
All right.
Treasury Secretary Scott Besant says that markets anticipated this bill was going to pass.
I think he's right about that.
And markets understand the non-inflationary growth that we're going to get here.
All right.
So Scott Besant, who I find very credible, says that the bill will reduce the deficit over its full 10 years or whatever.
But it's because it will spur growth.
So there will be more economic activity because of the bill, and that will create more income for everybody, and that causes more taxes.
So that actually, if you look at what they call a static versus a dynamic analysis, static means that they just look at what the bill does, and dynamic means that they look at what the bill does immediately, as in what dollar amounts are allocated, but they also look at how that might affect the overall economy.
And if it gooses the economy, that's not included in the official numbers you usually see.
So Scott Besant says it's going to make the economy grow faster.
So my question was, and I asked this of Grock, which part of the Big Beautiful Bill is going to make the economy grow faster?
Because there's a whole bunch of stuff in there that's not directly related to making the economy grow faster.
I mean, you could argue it, but it doesn't seem like that's designed to do that.
And Grok said that the tax cuts would be part of the stimulation.
But then I asked it, how often do tax cuts increase government tax revenue?
And Grok said, and remember, I just gave you a whole conversation about how Grok might be hallucinating.
I'll just tell you what it said.
And if you want to fact check that, please do.
But it said President Kennedy did a big tax cut in his day, but that's when taxes were like 90% on rich people.
He reduced it to like 70% or something.
And apparently that did increase revenue of, you know, tax revenue coming in.
But one of the problems that all the presidents have, if they do anything that increases income for the IRS, Congress figures out, just guesses it's free money, and they start spending it.
So even if you did increase the money coming in for taxes, Congress would look at it and they wouldn't say, oh, finally, these tax cuts spurred the economy on and now we're going to reduce our deficit.
They would not do that.
Instead, they would say, looks like we got another $100 billion to spend.
All we have to do is go back to the deficit we had, and it didn't kill us last time.
So you have to be careful about these stimulus packages, because even if they work, Congress could snatch away the benefit almost immediately.
And then there was the Reagan tax cuts that, according to Grok, did not pay for themselves.
I know you think differently, but according to Grok, it did not pay for itself.
And there were Bush tax cuts that, according to Grok, again, it might be hallucinating, but Grok says did not pay for itself.
And it says that the Trump's first term tax cuts, the ones you've already seen from his first term, did not increase or did not decrease the deficit.
So is Scott Passent right that the Big Beautiful bill will improve the deficit?
Well, it's not just tax cuts.
It's also 100% expensing of assets for manufacturing.
That's a pretty big deal.
He talks about no tax on tips or overtime and a deduction for senior citizens or something.
But all of those are essentially tax cuts.
So how many of you believe that the Trump Big Beautiful bill will boost the GDP so much that it pays for itself?
How many of you believe that narrative?
I'm very interested because I think most of you would just side with Trump because his credibility is kind of high at the moment because he's had such a good six months.
But do you believe that?
Well, I think the answer is it depends.
Yeah, it depends.
There is a way it Could work.
It could definitely work.
But maybe not just because of the bill.
So Trump is doing a lot more than just the big beautiful bill, right?
What about reducing the number of migrants coming across the border?
So that's in the bill.
If he reduces the number of migrants coming across the border, wouldn't that give more jobs to citizens?
And wouldn't that be a good stimulation that maybe we didn't include yet?
Could be.
Could be a big deal.
What about boosting the military?
Well, if boosting the military spending causes another country to say, we don't want to get into war with you because you've got a lot of toys over there.
Well, that would save us the cost of a war, which would be good for the deficit.
So pretty much everything the government does has either a direct or indirect effect on the deficit.
So I don't know that you could ever calculate which way it's going to go.
Too many variables.
And I would compare this to climate models.
The reason climate models are ridiculous is because you can tweak it to be anything you want based on the assumptions that you put into it.
That would be true with this deficit reduction stuff and the big beautiful bill.
Depending on what assumptions you made, it would either be wildly positive or wildly negative.
And the assumptions are things that are unknowns.
So if you believe anybody's estimate, Scott Vescence or anybody else's, I wouldn't do that.
I mean, somebody's going to be right.
And then afterwards, they'll say, look how right I was.
But it's only because it's a binary.
It's either going to increase the deficit or it's not.
And there are going to be people on both sides.
So somebody's going to say, see, I told you, because there's only two ways it could go.
It's either up or down.
But can you calculate that with any kind of degree of certainty in advance?
Nah, not really.
Not really.
But it's definitely possible.
And as I've said before, Trump is the only president who could maybe make that work because he's a salesman.
And he is selling America hard.
He's got the tariffs going on.
He's got the trying to stay out of wars, which is a real good idea.
He's closing the border.
He's doing a lot of stuff that should be good for the economy.
He's reducing regulations like crazy.
He's promoting nuclear energy in just the right way, as far as I can tell.
He's drill baby drill.
So it's just one thing after another that Trump is doing that should have a good impact on the economy.
So yeah, there's a solid possibility, not because of the big, beautiful bill, but because of all of the things that Trump is doing, that he could goose the economy enough, especially if he gets Jerome Powell to reduce the interest rates by a point.
If all of that came together, and at least by May of next year, I'm sure there'll be an interest rate reduction because you'll have a new head of the Fed, somebody that Trump puts in there.
If you put it all together, could it goose the economy enough to reduce the deficit?
Yes.
Yes, it could.
The thing you have to watch out for is what I warned you of, that Congress says, hey, look, we reduce that deficit.
I guess that's free money we can spend on our other stuff.
That's the thing you got to watch out for.
All right.
Here are some examples of CNN trying to find the middle of the road on their bias.
So the CNN host, Sarah Sidner, was talking to Debbie Wasserman, prominent Democrat.
And the CNN host said, here are some things that have happened.
Gas price is down.
Economic indicators are decent.
The brand new job report shows that's much better than expected.
And border crossings are down.
And now Trump's mega spending bill looks like it's going to be passed by Republicans.
And she said, how do you Democrats fight back with the wins that Trump can tout?
Now, is that middle of the road?
It is.
It's a really good example of them trying hard not to be just full of TDS.
Because the things that she lists as Trump's accomplishments are all real.
And it's almost exactly what you would have said, right?
I mean, you would have said the same thing.
He did all these things.
Gas prices are down, blah, blah.
So they're not denying him, as you might imagine before.
In the old days, I think they would have said, well, you know, Trump doesn't really have anything to do with the jobs.
So you can't give him credit.
But they don't do that.
They just say that Trump has had a whole bunch of wins, which is the way you would have said it.
CN also were surprised and in a positive way that the jobs report was so strong.
So instead of saying, oh, this is Joe Biden's job report, because Joe Biden set us up so that the jobs this year would be good, you know, that's sort of what you expect, didn't do that.
They just said the jobs report was incredible under Trump.
You know, full credit they're giving him.
And then CNN's Berman, he's one of their hosts, he said predictions of job losses and inflation due to tariff policies have been wrong.
That doom just hasn't happened yet.
He did throw in yet.
So it's hard to break habits.
So he had to give you a little bit of yet.
But that's fair.
I also say yet on that, the question of the tariffs.
It's possible that the tariffs will cause a little bit of inflation, but I would say the optimistic view is the strong one right now, that it probably won't.
And it might be just extra revenue for America while inflation stays in a reasonable place.
Good chance of that.
And then Trump said, now that he's got the big beautiful bill passed, Trump was at an Iowa rally and he said that he's working on a mass amnesty for millions of illegal farm, hotel, and leisure workers.
Does that sound like exactly what you didn't vote for?
Mass amnesty of undocumented workers in this country?
Now, it's not all of them.
It's the ones that are in the farming and hotel leisure business.
But do you also say to yourself, well, that's mighty convenient because Trump is in the hotel leisure business and it's probably exactly what his properties want.
So there's a little bit of conflict of interest there.
But as I've said a million times, and I've said it about not just Trump, when things are completely transparent, they just don't bother me as much.
It would be the lying and the cover-ups that would bother me.
But if a guy who's famous for owning hotels tells you he's going to do something that's good for the hotel industry, I say to myself, okay, that's transparent.
You don't have to wonder if he thinks it's good for his own properties.
That's just a yes.
So is the only reason that he would consider this, that if you throw in the farm workers, it looks like it's not just about hotels.
And he can act like the industry forced him to do it with their good arguments?
Well, to me, the interesting part of this story is that he has so much credibility now with his base, because of his great six months, that he can reverse himself on something that probably matters quite a bit, at least in people's minds.
And they would consider this, as he says, the radical right.
I haven't heard him use that phrase before, but he's minimizing the people who would disagree with him on this, even though it clearly is a reversal of what you expected.
But he's created so much credibility that if he does a reversal of one item that you thought was going to go the other way, my reaction was, oh, all right, let's see how it works out.
Joe Rogan was saying, and it's important because the only reason I'm mentioning this, he's got some comments about the deportations.
The only reason I mention it is that Joe Rogan's platform is so big.
And I don't call him a Republican.
I don't think he's ever been a Republican.
But people do consider his opinion worth their time.
So he's just sort of a middle-of-the-road, common sense, smar guy.
So when he says something, it's not like random people saying it.
He's got a big platform and he's created a good reputation for his own opinion.
So I listen to him when he talks.
And what he said was about the mass deportations, he says, it's insane.
The targeting of migrant workers, not cartel members, not gang members, not drug dealers, just construction workers showing up on construction sites and raiding them.
Now, we don't need to have a conversation about whether Joe Rogan has the best take on it.
I tell you because that's probably a pretty common opinion at this point.
You know, maybe people don't say it out loud, and especially pundits who are pro-Trump like myself, we probably don't say it out loud enough.
But you know, that's my opinion, right?
You know, when Trump was saying we're going to start with the worst first, I said to myself, you know, you'll never get done with the worst.
But if we get rid of the worst and you close the border, we will, in maybe just a few short years, will absorb the ones who already came.
They're already working.
They're probably paying taxes.
And, you know, I would treat the people who were productive members of society differently.
I would probably not deport them at all if I were president.
So I would agree with Joe Rogan on that.
However, let me just say as clearly as I can, if you were in the camp of, well, screw that, they came here illegally, you have to send the ball back.
And no matter how much it hurts employers, no matter how much it hurts the economy, no matter how much lack of empathy it is, what we voted for, you might say, is send the ball back.
So that's the only thing I'm going to accept.
And so you would feel maybe backstabbed by Trump because he's softening up on the farming and leisure industry.
But my own opinion probably matches Joe Rogan exactly.
So I'm just being transparent as well.
I completely understand your argument.
If you think send them all back is what you voted for and what is best for the country.
I get it.
I understand every bit of that.
And if there's one thing I've taught you, it's that people don't make decisions based on facts.
This is an example of me not making a decision based on facts.
I do not have a factual argument.
I have an emotional one.
My emotional argument, and I would bet, without knowing, that Joe Rogan has the same emotional argument.
It goes like this.
I've had a lot of interaction with undocumented south of the border people, and they're wonderful people.
And they're just trying to make a better life.
And to me, they feel like Americans.
You know, no matter how much they still have their accent.
They're religious, they're family-oriented.
They're here for work.
They're here to stay out of trouble.
They won't even drive over the speed limit because they don't want to get picked up and deported.
So there's a bunch of people who, if you were going to rank how much you liked them, just your empathy, you would rank them pretty high, even compared to the citizens who are already here.
And some of them are unpleasant.
Now, that's a completely different argument than the ones who are criminals.
And, you know, we all agree on shipping them back.
But I would say that my empathy, Gene, makes me argue to keep the ones who are doing everything right.
But if you say, I don't know anybody in that community, and I'm using my logic and my facts, and saying, if we send them all back, there'll be Americans who take that jobs.
It's all good for us.
I get that.
I get that.
I would love to tell you that my logic on this debate is better than your logic.
It isn't.
I'm completely aware of the fact that whatever my logic is, is really just a positive feeling about that community in general, because I spend a lot of time around them.
And that's it.
I just have an empathy response that I turn into an argument.
All right.
I saw somebody ask this question.
You can remind me who it was, because it was a public figure.
Why is it that only Western countries are expected to have open borders?
Have you ever noticed that?
Like, nobody's on Putin for saying, you know, you really need to open your border.
You know, even as a side conversation, it's just not a conversation.
What about China?
Do we ever say, we're not going to do a trade deal with you unless you open your borders?
It doesn't even come up.
Is Japan opening their border a lot?
No.
It's basically English-speaking white countries that are being asked to destroy themselves with unlimited immigration.
And whoever it was who said this first, I wish I could credit them because it was a good observation.
I don't think there's any way this is a coincidence.
It looks to me like countries that would like to destroy the United States and Europe and other white dominant countries.
It looks like an attempt to simply destroy white people and white people's assets for whatever reason, either for their own domination or because they're mad at us or whatever it is.
But to me, it's just purely racist against white Western people.
And that would be a good enough argument to ship everybody back.
So if you look at it as an attack, which is sort of the view that I'm starting to come around to, I don't think it's a bunch of Americans who have a different opinion about the border.
It feels to me like our enemies have weaponized citizens of this country who are unwittingly working for the opposition.
The opposition being, let's say, China or Russia or somebody who doesn't like us.
So to me, the border, the open border thing, looked like an attack.
And sort of a modern way that countries fight.
Instead of having wars with bullets, they influence and they do dirty tricks and they infiltrate and they send their spies over.
If you look at the number of Chinese spies that are being captured in America, it's an alarming number of spies.
You know, if I asked you, what do you think is the total number of Chinese spies in America?
I don't know what you'd say, but I almost guarantee you would guess too low.
I feel like they've really flooded the country with spies.
And we don't have any sense of how many there are.
Maybe Iran is at the same time, maybe some other countries.
But to me, the open border looked like a military action that was disguised as something else.
So that's my current view.
The Blaze is reminding us that if Trump gets away with doing a new census where he does some executive order and doesn't count non-citizens, that blue states would lose a bunch of representatives and maybe red states would gain them.
Well, they would gain them in comparison and could completely change politics in this country.
So just as the Democrats trying to bring in a bunch of voters, if Trump uses the census and his executive orders to minimize their impact, he could be able to lock in a much, something like a Republican majority for a long time.
So the stakes are very high on that question.
All right.
I saw a post by Fisher King, 64, who's a great follow on X. He said that after Trump, no future president will be able to pretend that he cannot close the border.
It will be impossible to say that the only way to control illegal immigration is through a quote comprehensive immigration reform.
That amounts to amnesty.
Now, what do you think of that?
I'm going to say that the comprehensive immigration bill was a hoax.
It was always a hoax.
And your news sources, except for Fox News, never told you that that was fake.
So on CNN and MSNBC, they would let pundit after pundit after freaking pundit say, oh, we could close the border, but the only way to close the border is with a comprehensive immigration bill that basically would let a lot of people in.
And you probably said to yourself, well, I know that's not true.
We could definitely close the border without a comprehensive immigration bill.
And then Trump comes in and immediately does it.
He closes the border tight as a baby's ass.
Is that a saying?
No, tighter than a gnat's ass.
It's smoother than a baby's ass, but tighter than a gnat's ass.
So he closes the border tighter than a gnat's ass with no comprehensive immigration bill.
Can we finally admit that the comprehensive immigration bill was nothing but a hoax and that even the Democrats knew that they were lying about the need for it?
They all knew they were lying.
Come on.
They all knew it.
So that hoax is buried.
It might pop up again.
Who knows?
Well, Trump said at his Iowa event, he said that the celebration for the country's 250th birthday, which is next year, might include a UFC fight on the grounds of the White House lawn.
Oh my goodness.
Does Trump know how to put it on a show?
So apparently Dana White would be either tasked with doing it or he volunteered.
But can you even imagine a more Trump-like spectacle than a UFC fight on the grounds of the White House for the 250th anniversary?
I mean, I just want to stand up and give that like a full ovation.
Put that in the category of things that only Trump could do.
Only Trump.
No one else.
And by the way, I'm not a fan of UFC.
You know, to me, it's brutal.
But it's like a car accident.
I would definitely watch it.
I would watch it.
I mean, 100% I'm going to watch it if he doesn't.
But, you know, it's not my preferred sport to watch.
But it is entertaining.
So there's that.
Only Trump could do that.
Well, the New York Times has a story in which our favorite communist, Zorian Mamdani, apparently got into Colombia, where he got his degree, I believe, by claiming he's black.
Now, he's not black and he's never been black, but he was born in Africa of two Indian parents.
And when he was asked about that, he admits he's not black and he would never claim he was black.
But not too long ago, he claimed he was black to get into Colombia, and apparently it worked.
So did he take the spot of a black applicant?
I would say yes, because if they let him in thinking he was black, and those were spaces that they would have given to black applicants, yes.
Yes, he took a black applicant's job or college education, I guess, first.
So that might cause him some trouble.
We'll see.
Well, Bill Ackman, famous investor, billionaire Bill Ackman, who has been quite active in at least posting on acts about politics, he's decided to back Eric Adams.
And he had a very long post, as Bill Ackman famously does.
His posts are wonderfully long, but always well argued.
So he has the longest posts that are also still worth reading.
So he's got that going for him.
But here's one of the things that he said in his analysis of Eric Adams versus Zuran Mamdani.
He said that, quote, Adams, not me, but Eric Adams, is also always authentically himself.
His smile is real, unlike the other guys.
And in my experience, the more authentic candidate always wins.
There it is.
So Bill Ackman, either because he heard me or somebody that heard me say it, is starting to focus on Mamdani's fake smile.
I told you that as soon as you hear the criticism about his smile, you will never forget it.
How many of you have looked at him since I mentioned that his smile is creepy?
How many of you have seen a picture of it and said to yourself, oh man, I didn't really notice before, but his smile is really creepy?
Tell me in the comments, how many of you were instantly flipped to see his smile as a negative when in fact it was maybe one of his strongest political assets?
Did I reframe that?
I did.
Now, I'm not saying here once again, I would not say that Bill Ackman was influenced by something I did or something that somebody else copied and then he saw.
So I have no reason to believe that.
But I do believe he's very smart and insightful and may have just come to the same conclusion, that his smile could be seen as a negative.
And I would double down on his statement that Eric Adams seems genuine.
I don't know if any politician is genuine or authentic.
Maybe that's never a thing.
But he does seem like it.
Whenever Eric Adams is talking, even though he's not my reference on every policy, but whenever he's talking, I say to myself, there's a common sense, authentic guy who's trying to do things which obviously are good for the city.
So every time I see Eric Adams, I have an immediate positive vibe that goes beyond the policy stuff.
So I can see myself supporting him even while disagreeing with some of his policies.
I don't know which ones I disagree with, but I'm sure there are some, because he is really charismatic.
And he's charismatic in that Trump way where you see him as genuine and you see his empathy and you see that it looks to me like he's really trying to make stuff better.
You know, I mean, it's also a job and it's politics, but he really looks like he really wants it to be better and in a common sense way that always appeals to me.
So we'll see.
All right.
Apparently the Saudis are not that keen to recognize Israel and make a deal and join the Abraham Accords because they are not really over the bombing of Tehran.
Because I guess they had, you know, I always thought that Saudi Arabia and Iran were basically just enemies, so that Saudi would just be happy that Iran got bombed back a few years.
But no, they're calling Israel's war, I think they're talking about Gaza, they're calling Israel's war genocide and saying that they couldn't possibly normalize with Israel without having a Palestinian state.
And since Israel, in my opinion, is never, ever going to agree to having a two-state solution, that would sort of suggest that Saudi Arabia is out of play.
Now, but if you introduce Trump, who is the miracle man having the year of best year ever, could he flip Saudi Arabia all the way from we can't be friends with Israel because we accuse them of genocide, all the way to, hey, why don't you guys be friends and be part of this big old group, the Abraham Accords?
Could Trump do it?
Well, probably everything depends on what the crown prince is thinking and not this.
I think the comments came from a lower official in Saudi Arabia.
So I feel like probably the personal relationship with the crown prince is going to matter the most and that the crown prince is not predictable.
He's not predictable because you expect him to do whatever Saudi Arabia has always done.
But he's just not that guy.
He could do something that they've never done.
And that's sort of what makes him interesting and what makes him especially interesting if he's paired with Trump.
I would love to know what he thinks of Trump.
I'll bet he has a really positive opinion of Trump that maybe he doesn't say out loud so much.
But maybe.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin continues to gain ground in Ukraine.
And apparently he had a phone call with Trump in which he showed no interest whatsoever in ending the war.
So he talks like he might want to, but when it comes down to the actual phone call with Trump, no.
He's happy just grinding away on Ukraine until he gets it all, it looks like.
But there's a side story here, which is there's a video of Putin he was on the panel on a stage at some big event.
So there were multiple people in chairs on the stage.
He was one of them.
And he's told while he's on stage, in the middle of an event, somebody tells him that Trump is on the phone.
And instead of saying, you know, I'll get back to him, he explains that leaving Trump waiting, you know, might be disrespectful and that he's going to leave the audience waiting instead.
And he gets up and he leaves and tells him he's going to take the president's phone call because he wants to show him the respect of immediately taking the phone call.
So Trump and Putin have an interesting, respectful relationship.
Maybe that'll turn into something better.
At the moment, it doesn't help us at all.
But maybe someday it will.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is your 4th of July.
Happy birthday, America.
That's your podcast for the day.
Like I say, there may be a lot of lazy podcasters who don't do any content today, but I'm not one of those.
If you're going to be here, I'll be here.
That's my deal.
Or I'll try to be.
Do the best I can.
So I'm going to say some words privately to the beloved subscribers to locals.
