God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Unsolved Murder Rate, Apple AI, Tesla Stock, Elon Musk, Epstein Client List, Jeffrey Epstein Speculation, Ghislaine Maxwell Client List, President Trump's Legacy, Epstein Cell Video, Hamas Unpopularity, US Mass Amnesty Rumors, Charlie Kirk, Ukraine War, Space-Based Solar Energy, Midterm Elections, Weak Republican Messaging, Democrats Demanding Violence, Tariffs Stock Impact, Trump's Strategy Successes, Anti-ICE Violence, Tucker Carlson, Iran President Interview, No-Pushback Political Interviews, Biden's Debate Advisors, Jack Dorsey Bitchat, Climate Change Phaseout, Mayor Bass, LA Rebuilding Permits, 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.
Everybody, say hi to all of your best friends and find yourself a seat because we got a show.
But first, I'll make sure I can see all your comments, especially the locals' comments.
There we go.
Do do do do do do do do do do do do.
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 on elevating this experience to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mugger, a glass of tankard, shells, to stein a canteen, sugar, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dope meeting at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen now.
Go.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
You know what is interesting?
Well, I'll tell you.
Everything.
No.
What is interesting is that I'll bet if you measured the dopamine of the people watching this on a regular basis, I'll bet it would be higher.
Because if you listen to somebody tell you that you're going to get a dopamine hit every day, probably over time, your dopamine actually does spike when you do the simultaneous sip.
So according to CBS, we will no longer need to remove our shoes to go through airport security.
How much do you like that?
Don't have to remove your shoes.
So all you shoe bombers, go wild.
According to Victor David Hansen, whose article is being rerun in the post-millennial, guess what percentage of murders go unsolved in the United States?
Unsolved murders.
It's 58%.
What?
58% of all the murders in the U.S. are unsolved.
Apparently, other countries that are civilized, they solve like 80 to 90% of their murders.
But in the U.S., unsolved.
Now, I do not recommend that you murder anyone.
But if you have to, I would do it in the United States because it looks like a pretty good deal.
Now, why in the world do you think that U.S. murders are less solved?
I have a hypothesis, and it's just a guess.
But it might have to do with the fact that there's more gun-related murder.
Because if you murder somebody with a gun and nobody sees you and they don't find a gun, you probably get away with it, right?
But if you had a society where there weren't that many guns and you had to beat somebody to death personally or stab somebody or strangle them, you're probably going to leave some DNA on something, right?
So it makes me wonder if the gun culture is the reason that there are fewer unsolved crimes, especially if you're doing a, you know, like a gang drive-by shooting.
Yeah.
So we got that going for us.
You can murder and have a good chance of getting away with it.
But don't do it.
Don't do it.
I have to add that.
Don't do it.
It's just that your odds of getting away with it are not too bad, 58%.
So Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, they just poached another AI expert, but this one they poached from Apple's AI department.
So how would you like to be an AI expert, but you're working for Apple?
I'm not even sure Apple is building its own AI.
Isn't Apple just looking at other people's AI and figuring out which one to build into its phone?
So if you were the Apple AI guy, you probably really, really, really wanted somebody to make a better offer.
You heard about all those people getting poached who might be getting something like tens of millions of dollars just for moving to another AI company.
I've got a feeling that the Apple AI researcher, maybe he paid them.
It's like, look, I know you're giving $100 million to some people who are going to Meta for AI, but I really, really need to get out of Apple's AI group because it's embarrassing.
So I will give you $500,000 if you will hire me away from eight.
No, that's not what happened.
But wouldn't it be funny if it did?
Well, Tesla's stock went down yesterday.
It's up a little bit today.
But it went down 8% because, of course, Elon Musk getting political scares people off the stock.
And I'll tell you, it's getting harder and harder to be a Tesla stockholder, which I am, because you just look at it and you say, you know, I do respect the effort and the energy you're putting into trying to save the world and save the country from deficit.
But wouldn't it be great too if my stock went up?
So I've got it's not for sea turtles.
Okay, never mind.
This is a funny comment.
Anyway, so it's hard to be a Tesla investor lately.
You gotta have a lot of guts.
I would guess, and don't buy any stock based on me, but if you would purchase stock every time Elon Musk did something provocative and the stock went down, wouldn't you be in the money now?
I feel like people go, oh, something might happen.
And then he just does his thing and then he retreats.
And then people say, all right, we're back to normal.
And then the stock goes back up.
We'll see.
So I saw a video from Jay saying that back in February of this year, when I made my prediction about Epstein's client list, and I forgot how tight that prediction was.
So as you know, I predicted that you would never find out about Epstein's client list.
But when I saw the video played back, I realized that I'd given a tight little reason for it.
And the reason was this.
If the client list doesn't exist, then obviously you'll never see it.
Everybody agrees with that part, right?
If it doesn't exist, you're never going to see it.
But if it does exist, it would be too valuable to give away, meaning that whoever had that list would have blackmailed control over some of the most powerful people in the world.
Who would give that away?
So there were only two possibilities that I imagined.
One is it doesn't exist, so you won't see it.
And if it does exist, it's way too useful for whoever has control over it, whoever's the president at the time, etc.
So that was the basis for my prediction.
I saw Alex Jones seems to be on the side of thinking that maybe Trump is using it for his own blackmail.
Maybe, maybe.
I wouldn't rule it out.
I saw a rumor on social media that Cash Patel has a girlfriend.
I don't know if this is true, by the way.
So don't believe this is true because I saw something on the internet.
But if any of you have some better sources, some people are saying that Cash Patel's girlfriend is an ex-Israeli intelligence officer.
Is that true?
It feels a little too on the nose, but really?
Is there any chance that's true?
So I'm not going to assert that is true.
It's just something that's on the internet right now.
Then, Then the other possibility is that you wouldn't see it because the current government doesn't want to take down some allied government.
So what if the Epstein list, as it were, what if it implicated an allied country?
You know, somebody that we didn't want to destroy?
Well, that might be enough reason to withhold it.
But let me mock the first possibility first.
If Epstein was as smart as they say, and I believe everybody agrees that although he was evil, he was very smart.
If you were a really smart person who controlled a big blackmail network, would you also keep a document that showed all of your crimes?
And if you had such a document, would you have it in a digital form where somebody's going to find it someday?
Or would you write it on a piece of paper and keep it in your pocket?
Who in the world runs a major blackmail operation and then writes down, well, we got Prince Andrew.
And if you think about it for about a second, doesn't it occur to you that there couldn't possibly be a list, you know, a list literally of all of his crimes or all the people that he coerced into crime, allegedly?
No, there's no chance there was a list.
If you've been thinking, oh, where do we see the list, the client list?
How in the world could there be a client list?
You know, there is a list of people who flew on the plane, but that's because of some flight regulation kind of thing.
It doesn't say that any of them were involved in a crime.
But do you think he would actually keep a list of the people that were involved in a crime?
To me, it's just funny that anybody would think he was such a criminal mastermind and he kept a list of his crimes.
What kind of criminals would you be?
You would be terrible criminals.
If you even thought for a second that he kept a list, You would be a terrible criminal.
You would be caught in five minutes because apparently you do not know how to get away with crimes.
All right, so here's some other things we know.
We know Mike Serovich is reminding us that at one point there was a butler.
I guess it was a butler who said he was aware of all of Epstein's crimes.
So should we be hearing from the butler?
Well, if the only thing the butler knew was that Epstein himself committed a whole bunch of sex crimes with underage girls, that part's not new.
And Epstein's dead, so, you know, that's not really going to change anything.
So I guess we can ignore the butler's commentary.
It might be interesting, but it wouldn't tell you anything new about anybody who's alive.
And then the Gateway Pundit is pointing out that at one point they tried to get some information and their lawyers moved to intervene in the Lane Maxwell case.
And apparently an anonymous John Doe, I think the Gateway pundit was trying to give some more information or something.
And then an anonymous John Doe appeared, we still don't know who it was, who filed an objection to TGP, the Gateway pundit, unsealing the sex client list.
So there was somebody who stopped the process of revealing the client list, but there is no client list.
So there was a court case in which an anonymous person prevented the gateway pundit from seeing the client list, but also there is no client list.
Huh.
So maybe we're not being told the truth, or maybe there was something about this John Doe that we'll never know.
And then, let's see, we had Ben Shapiro who's weighed in on this, and he accepts the word of Cash Patel and Bongino and Pambandi because he believes that they would not lie.
He knows two or three of them, and he's sure that they would not lie.
And so he says that unless you have some information that's not available to the rest of us, then it's sort of a case closed.
Was that what you expected?
Did you expect that Ben Shapiro would say, oh yeah, I'm satisfied.
So I guess there was no blackmailing.
And I guess he killed himself in his cell.
And I guess there's no client list.
So it looks like Ben Shapiro is accepting that, unless some new information comes to light that we haven't yet seen.
But then let's check in with Matt Gates.
So Matt Gaetz is saying there's just no way that the story we're getting is a real story.
Oh, so Matt Gates will be on the other side of it.
And he thinks that it was a foreign government that took him out.
A foreign government.
Hmm.
I wonder what foreign government he'd be referring to.
Could it be France?
No.
If you were going to just read the tea leaves of what it feels like is happening, let me give you some other unrelated news.
Unrelated to this.
Completely unrelated.
Oh, and let me add in that Mike Cernovich is pretty active on this topic.
And he thinks that Trump's legacy will suffer if this is the final answer.
You know, that we don't get anything.
And I think to myself, hmm, will it?
Will his legacy suffer?
Let's take it a little bit further.
You ready for this?
So Netanyahu was in town, and Netanyahu apparently brought with him a copy of the document where, if I'm reading it correctly, Israel has submitted Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for all the good peacemaking he's done.
And at the same time, we're hoping that Trump has the magic to pull off a deal that Israel would agree to, that would work for Gaza, that would lead us to a gigantic, just gigantic change in the entire Middle East that would be an expansion of the Abraham Accords.
So let's see if we can connect all of our dots.
Cash Patel may or may not have a girlfriend who used to work for Israeli intelligence.
I can't confirm that.
Ben Shapiro, who is often accused of being a little bit too pro-Israel, is seemingly quite happy with the story that other people don't seem to be happy with.
And then Matt Gates, who has seen a lot more behind the curtain than you have, suggests that a foreign country took him out.
Does anyone Think that he's referring to anyone but Israel?
And then at the same time, if you imagine that, because we don't have evidence of this, there's no evidence of this, but if you were a conspiracy theory person, you might say to yourself, wait a minute, what if Israel was behind it and we didn't want that information to get out?
What would be a reason that we would protect that information if that were the case?
And again, I have no information that that's the case.
But what if it were?
What would Trump do that would be the smartest thing for Trump to do?
On one hand, he had committed to tell us everything and not hold anything back.
But what if they had information that suggested that Israel might have been, in any way, involved with Epstein?
Do you think this would have been the time to reveal it?
When Netanyahu is literally nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize, he's coming off a gigantic win with the Iran situation.
And we might be getting close to some kind of a Gaza peace deal or ceasefire or something.
And then, if he gets that, that would open the door to all the countries that are waiting to join the Abraham Accords.
So let me ask you, if you were Trump and you had promised to be completely transparent, but you didn't really, maybe you didn't know how it was going to turn out yourself, you said, be completely transparent.
But hypothetically, what if that transparency would destroy the best chance for peace the Middle East has ever seen?
By far.
I mean, nothing's ever been close.
And it would also completely destroy his reputation.
Well, it would destroy his chance of getting the Nobel Peace Rise.
So his legacy would be destroyed.
Trump's would.
Compared to what it could be very soon.
So I'm not suggesting that Israel was involved in any way.
What I'm saying is, if that were the reason that you're not seeing the truth, it would make perfect sense for the good of the country.
So I would agree, and again, this is purely speculative.
I have no insider information on this at all.
But if it's true that Israel was deeply involved with Epstein, this would be exactly the time not to bring that up.
You know what I mean?
And if I someday learned that Trump knew exactly what was being withheld and he decided to just tell everybody to lie about it, and if he went to Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and Bondi and said, here's the deal.
If you tell the truth about this, again, this is just speculation.
This is not real.
We'll lose the biggest chance for Middle East peace we've ever had.
So I'm going to give you an order that this is such top secret that you just have to lie.
You're just going to have to lie.
And I know he hate it, but we've got to protect this deal.
It's just too big a deal.
Would you then, if that were true, and again, I have no evidence to suggest it is, if that were true, would you tell yourself that Trump had screwed the country or maybe took a chance with his own legacy to do the thing that would be good for the country and good for the world?
It's a complicated world.
So I would say that I don't believe that we're being told the truth.
But I also don't think that it's lying in the traditional sense.
Because if our people involved in our intelligence groups or just people who know what these secrets are, if they lie to you for the good of the country, which would be normal, your own intelligence people lying to you for the good of the country, is that lying?
Is that the lying that you would hold against somebody?
If you knew that the reason they were lying is for the good of the country?
I don't know.
I wouldn't hold it against any of them because that would be their job.
It would literally be their job to sometimes tell us that they don't know something when they do know something.
The other possibility, which has got to be way at the top of the possibilities, is that by the time those three people got into their jobs, Patel and Bondi and Bongino, that anybody who had access to that file had long ago gotten rid of anything that was damning.
Do you think that if the files had such explosive damning materials in them, that the people who had access to it and were hiding them up till now would have said, ah, well, we tried pretty hard to hide them, but I guess here you go.
Here's all our damning files that we didn't want you to see.
In what world would that happen?
No world.
In every world I've ever lived in, the people who had access to the files would have lost everything that needed to get lost before the people who were likely to at least even consider making it public got into office.
So it doesn't mean that the three people in charge that we've heard of are lying.
It could be that literally everything was removed.
Have you seen the video they released of what alleges to be the entrance to Epstein's cell?
And it alleges that that's proof that nothing happened to, at least in terms of murder, nothing happened.
And then we find out that there's a minute that's edited out of the video, a full minute.
I don't know if you've seen somebody who's already used AI to insert Hillary Clinton into the video.
So the missing one minute, they say, is Hillary Clinton entering Epstein's cell.
It's pretty funny.
Well, if you're going to release a video and you're not going to explain why there's a minute missing, because you can see the timer.
So we know there's a minute missing.
We're not guessing.
There's a timer on the video and it's literally just missing the minute.
So I would say that it's a suspicious situation.
But it doesn't mean that the people involved are traitors or that they're being blackmailed or whatever.
Now, the other strong possibility is that Trump found out that, let's say that Trump needed Netanyahu and Israel to make some concessions in order to get a big lasting peace deal.
What would be the best way to get Israel to make some concessions?
Well, you might suggest that the only person preventing the public from seeing the Epstein files is you.
And that might be the case.
It could be that the only person who's standing between the public and those files is Trump.
Maybe.
And if he's using that to negotiate with Israel to get a lasting Middle East peace deal, well, would that be bad?
Would you hate it?
Would you hate it if Trump was using the information as blackmail just to make sure he got a peace deal in the Middle East?
I wouldn't hate it.
I'm not saying it's happening because, again, I have no information that would lead me to that conclusion.
But if it's happening, I wouldn't be too opposed.
I mean, if you hand Trump an asset, he doesn't leave it on the table.
He has a long history of not wasting money.
He doesn't leave money on the table.
It would be free money.
So he'd probably just pick it up.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Maybe someday we'll know.
Maybe not.
I said this before, but the BBC is telling us that Hamas in Gaza is completely destroyed.
95% of the leadership is dead.
The ones who are remaining are just disorganized.
And essentially, there's no more Hamas leadership left.
But that means that there's chaos there.
And that there's a bunch of little warlords, criminal gangs are running certain areas, etc.
So it's complete lawlessness.
And it seems like Israel's getting everything it wants in that area.
Because have you noticed that there's a complete lack of complaining from the other Arab countries?
Isn't that weird?
I thought the reason that the other countries were not joining the Abraham Accords is because the Palestinian situation had not been solved.
Now, I know Gaza is not by itself the Palestinian situation, but does it seem weird to you that nobody's complaining?
Not at the moment, is there?
Is there any Middle East country who says, we will never deal with Israel?
I feel like the Middle East was happy to take Hamas off the chessboard.
They just can't say that out loud.
So that was good.
There's a rumor that I don't think is confirmed, but Charlie Kirk is a good source, and he says he's been hearing from people that there are Republicans pushing Trump to do a mass amnesty of migrants who are undocumented.
Does that sound real to you?
And if somebody is pushing it, do you think there's any chance that Trump would agree to it?
Maybe they're only talking about a mass amnesty for a couple of industries.
So it might be industry specific, because Trump has talked about not deporting hotel workers and farm workers.
So could it be that there's a push for him to make citizens out of the people who have been working here a long time in some specific industries?
Or is it possible that none of it's true or that only a few people are pushing for it, so it's nothing to worry about?
Yeah, he did talk about industry specific, but that doesn't mean that that's connected to this rumor.
Anyway, so that rumor is out there.
Putin recently fired his own transport minister, who then coincidentally died by gunshot hours later after getting fired.
I believe they're calling it a suicide.
Boy, getting fired in Russia, that's a pretty brutal deal, Isn't it?
Well, you've been fired, but I've got some bad news and some worse news.
Well, what's the bad news?
Putin just fired you.
Oh, god, no, I lost my job.
What's the worst news?
You can't fly.
I can't go in an airplane.
No, no, they're going to throw you out of a high window to your death, and you can't fly by flapping your arms.
So bad news there.
So do you think it's a coincidence that the guy that Putin decided to fire tragically died very soon after?
I don't know.
President Trump said yesterday that he wants to send more weapons over to Ukraine because, as you know, Putin has shown no interest whatsoever in peace, and he appears to be back to his winning property or winning territory and grinding down the Ukrainian military.
So Putin seems to have no interest in peace, and he was just dicking Trump along.
And Trump is not happy with him.
So, but Trump also has no levers to press, no buttons to push, levers to pull, I guess.
So what do you do if you have no leverage whatsoever?
Because I think it'd be hard to come up with new sanctions that they haven't already used.
And what else do you have?
He's just got no weapons.
So Trump is okaying some extra weapons for Ukraine.
But is that the best that we have?
Is that the best we can do?
Because that's not going to get it done.
So the thing I would be looking for is for Trump to do something that's out of the box.
One thing that might be out of the box is I could imagine Trump approving some weapons for Ukraine that Ukraine has never seen yet.
And maybe Russia has never seen it either.
So it could be that Trump would say, all right, we've been holding off on our really good weapons.
We're giving you the best that we have for shooting down incoming missiles.
That's a defensive weapon.
But we really haven't given you our best offensive weapons because we like to keep that a little secret from the bad guys.
And the moment you use them, then they're going to know they exist and they're going to develop defenses against them.
We don't want that.
But would that be enough to stop Trump from saying, all right, let's see what happens if we give them the good stuff.
Just try it for a month.
What if suddenly Ukraine, which apparently is doing great with their own domestic drone-making industries, they're making their own drones and making lots of them and making really good ones.
What if the U.S. has the next level of drone, like the drone that is so good, you just say to yourself, now that's a hell of a drone.
I had no idea we had that kind of drone.
What if Trump said, all right, Putin, we've got some surprises for you.
It's not every surprise we have, but we're going to open the box.
And Ukraine, take what you want.
Because it seems to me that our best weapons could just rip a hole in the entire Russian front line.
And probably there was a reason that we wouldn't want to allow them our best weapons.
So we'll see.
Did you see that China separately, China is putting a gigantic, I guess it's a solar satellite that would collect a bunch of solar power in space and then it would beam it down to where it was needed on a microwave.
And when I read the story, the story was about energy production and how they could produce more energy because there's nothing blocking the sun when you're in space.
So the satellite with the big solar power parts to it would collect energy really efficiently up there in space, and then it would microwave it down to Earth.
Now, the first thing I thought was, really?
That microwave is just to transport energy to their domestic audience?
Wouldn't a microwave beam from space be kind of a good weapon?
Is it my imagination that if you send a microwave beam from space and aimed at somebody's equipment or their power station, that it would fry it?
Wouldn't it?
So when you think about what kind of weapons the U.S. would have, we wouldn't, obviously, we wouldn't give Ukraine a satellite-based death beam.
But there might be something we have that we're willing to say, all right, try this, try this for a month.
Well, if you can think of even, if you can come up with even one idea that's better than that, let me know, because I'm not aware of any idea that would make Putin even consider slowing down, because he's winning.
Well, according to Remix, a bunch of Ukrainian oligarchs have become incredibly rich from the war.
So there's something like five oligarchs who have cleverly played the whole war situation.
So they've gotten richer and probably more powerful.
And so Zelensky's got these five oligarchs who seem to be pretty happy with war the way it is.
So I'm not expecting the powerful people in Ukraine, the most corrupt place on earth.
What's that?
All right.
Let's see.
Netanyahu, who, like I said, is in the U.S., said that any future Palestinian state would become a launchpad for attacks on Israel.
So in other words, Netanyahu is saying that there will not be a Palestinian two-stage solution.
And that probably is what the other Middle East countries are looking for as their trigger to join the Abraham Accords.
So if the main thing is they want a two-stage solution, and that's the one thing that Netanyahu says, nope, how could you ever get to a solution?
Well, maybe somebody has some blackmail on Netanyahu.
We might find out.
We'll see if he gets flexible.
But at the moment, he's saying no to a future Palestinian state.
But would that rule out the emirates?
Remember, I told you that there were some people in the West Bank who wanted to create an emirate.
So it wouldn't be the entire West Bank.
It would just be like one city, but there could be other emirates and other cities.
So what would happen if it's not a two-state solution, but it's like one state plus half a dozen emirates?
Would that give everybody enough of what they wanted?
So if you wanted to live in an emirate, there would be one nearby.
You could move to it.
And if you wanted to live in a non-two-state solution and just stay under Israel's rule, you'd have the option of doing it.
So could that be a partial solution?
I don't know.
I doubt it.
I mean, I'd bet against it, but at least it's new.
Let's talk about the midterms.
And so the current, the smart people say that the Republicans will probably keep the Senate.
I don't know with what kind of majority.
But they might lose the House because that would be a typical situation for a midterm.
So usually the party in power, the one that has the president, usually loses seats in the midterm election.
So what are the Democrats using for messaging and what are the Republicans?
Well, if you're a Republican, here's the bad news.
The Democrats have a much better message for the midterms.
Because if they keep it simple, which so far they are, they say stuff like, Trump is going to cut your health care, already has, with the big beautiful bill, cutting your health care to give tax breaks to the rich.
Now, is that technically true?
Sort of, because he's definitely cutting some health care benefits for millions of people.
Now, he has reasons, and the reasons are pretty darn good, which is either you didn't qualify for those benefits, but you were getting them, or you weren't working, or you weren't adding to the country in any way.
So the Republicans have an argument, but it's sort of an unwieldy, multi-point argument.
It's not the kind that moves anybody.
Whereas the Democrats have a nice, tight little message that although you could argue, well, you've exaggerated the impact of this to the point where it might be a little bit technically true that rich people got a tax break and that healthcare got cut, but it's not exactly true that it was cut for the purpose of tax breaks.
But it doesn't matter.
What matters is what will Democrats think and will they adopt that messaging in their own brains as their own opinion?
And they will, because it's tight and it's easy to remember.
They cut your health care to give tax breaks to the rich.
That is a Trumpian level framing.
Now, the good news for them is that they didn't have to think about it.
It was just sort of in their laps.
But that's tough to beat.
Now, let's take what the Republican take is.
They're going to say, we gave you no tax on tips.
First of all, how many people who work for tips actually vote?
Well, it's probably not the most voting public.
I would guess that people who work for tips are probably the least likely to vote in the first place.
But suppose I worked for tips and I really appreciated it.
I would say, well, I already have that.
You're not promising me anything.
I already have that because it already passed.
I'm already not being taxed on tips.
So I don't need to vote for you because I'm not going to get anything new.
I already have that.
Suppose they say no tax and overtime.
Same thing.
I don't need to vote for the Republicans to get that because they already gave it to me.
So what's my reason to vote?
To get the things I already have?
Because they wouldn't really feel like they would lose those things.
I mean, it'd be pretty hard for the Democrats to take it away because that would be so unpopular.
So the Republicans have what would be a logical, strong argument for a rational public.
But we Don't have a rational public that's really paying attention.
So they don't really have a message they can sell.
They have a laundry list of things they say they got right.
But that doesn't really get you elected.
You need to scare somebody and ideally have a visual element to your persuasion.
It should be repeatable.
It should be brief, like build the wall.
They don't have that.
So we'll see if Trump can solve that by coming up with a framing and a messaging that's got the right bite to it and that's memorable and maybe it rhymes and it hits people in the feels.
And I would argue that one of the driving forces for Republicans is reducing the debt.
But try selling that to the public.
If you could sell the idea of reducing the budget, or at least not letting it grow as fast, if that were even sellable, somebody would have sold it already.
In other words, we would already have leaders who had been brought into office because they would cut the deficit.
But nobody really believes the Republicans are going to cut the deficit at this point.
It just doesn't seem real.
And so they're not going to get any votes for that.
So there is a real problem right now.
Trump could solve it because he's the messaging king.
But at the moment, they really don't have anything to sell.
So that's a problem.
There's a report, Fox News Digital has this, that Democrats, the elected Democrats, say that their followers are demanding more violence.
Quote, our own base is telling us that what we're doing is not good enough.
There needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public, one lawmaker said.
But it's more than one lawmaker.
Another said, their constituents are convinced that, quote, civility isn't working and that they should prepare for, quote, violence to fight to protect our democracy.
And a third one said, some of the messages coming in from people online are crazy shit, and some of them told them to storm the White House and stuff like that.
Now, I don't feel like that's the majority of Democrats.
It's probably just the extremists.
And wouldn't you assume that Republicans also get a bunch of extremists whenever things are not going their way?
Don't you think the extremists online start saying stuff like, well, it's time to get your Second Amendment involved?
So I wouldn't worry too much if the losing team is talking about, well, maybe we should get a little violent.
Because I feel like there's always going to be an extremist who says that, depending on which team looks like he's losing at the moment.
Anyway, so Trump with his tariffs, he's sending out the letters telling people what they're going to pay.
But they've got to August 1st if they want to still try to rush through with a proper trade deal.
So stock market seems to have absorbed it.
And stocks were down yesterday a little bit, but they're up today.
So it looks like the stock market completely understands Trump and his tariff approach, wouldn't you say?
In April, when the stock market just went straight down, because what Trump was doing wasn't transparent enough.
And if you were an investor, you said, I don't know where this is going, but it might be really bad.
So I'm going to take a pause and take my money out.
But at the moment, it appears that the market has seen enough back and forth.
And they've seen that Trump is willing to use the tariffs, sometimes as a trade deal, sometimes as a lever.
And they see that he seems to be using it successfully.
For example, Canada immediately removed its tax on our digital platforms because he threatened tariff.
So now when he says it's a weapon, people can go, oh, okay, yeah, it is a weapon.
And he used it and it worked right away.
And they can also say, now that there's a bunch of money coming in from tariffs, which by the way, is paid by the American company, you know, more so than it would be paid by the foreign company.
But the revenue is way up.
So now if you wondered if there could be a lot of tariff revenue, the answer is yes.
If you wondered if there would be a screaming increase in inflation because of tariffs, there still might be some ahead.
But so far, so far, no.
And if you wondered if he could use it as a club without it being used against us, kind of looks like it can be.
So the most important claims that Trump has ever made about this, it won't hurt your inflation.
It will have a lot of revenue coming in that we wouldn't have otherwise.
At least the government wouldn't have otherwise.
And it would cause a repatriation of our companies.
We're seeing that.
There are a bunch of examples.
And what was the last thing?
Oh, you can use it as a weapon and get away with it.
So everything that Trump promised That all seemed unlikely and dangerous, every one of them is true.
And so I think the market just said, all right, it looks like you can do all these, let's say, unclear things with tariffs because you do know what you're doing.
And it does look like he's going to have 100 tariff deals in 10 minutes because the deal is, here's your new price.
That's the deal.
The deal is you did not make a trade deal with us.
So we'll just tell you what that's going to cost you.
Here's your bill.
And indeed, he's going to have 100 trade deals done this week.
Well, you could argue they're already done if he sent out the letters.
We're done.
Yep, here's your bill.
Thanks for nothing.
All right.
Apparently, according to Zero Hedge and some other people, there was a gunman who ambushed some Border Patrol agents in Texas.
And this was in the context of all the anti-ICE rhetoric from Democrats.
Do you think that a gunman would have ambushed the Border Patrol agents in Texas if there had not been so much Democrat messaging about how bad ICE is?
I don't.
People wouldn't have even thought about it.
Because it probably was, I don't know yet, but correct me if I'm wrong.
But I don't think it was a migrant that did the shooting, right?
I think it was probably an American citizen who thought, oh, I got to help the migrants.
I don't know.
So maybe you can tell me in the comments.
Was it an American citizen, the guy who shot the Border Patrol?
Don't know.
But I would argue that as long as the Border Patrol is being called a bunch of Nazis, that you are encouraging that behavior.
So I wouldn't take my mask off if I'm one of those guys.
I guess there were, according to End Wokeness on X, I saw End Wokeness said that there were 11 far-left extremists just charged in a major terror plot to kill ICE agents in Texas.
And End Wokeness says it's not getting any coverage.
Well, not getting any coverage might mean that some of the news entities don't know if it's real yet.
So I would hold my fire on that one until we get some confirmation.
Well, Tucker Carlson had his interview with the president of Iran, and you would not be surprised to learn that there's some pushback to that.
So I guess when you have an interview with somebody like Putin or the president of Iran, and Tucker's done both, if he just lets them talk and doesn't push them back too hard, it looks to other people like he's just being a propagandist for an enemy state.
I don't get that vibe.
To me, it seems like if you could score an interview with Putin, who wouldn't do that if they're in that business?
Is there anybody who wouldn't score an interview with Putin?
And probably knowing that he's not going to push back that hard might be what gets him the deal.
Maybe Putin would say that if Megan Kelly asked him for an interview, he might say, I don't know, she might push me too hard.
So I'm going to say no to that one.
As long as you know that the Putin or the president of Iran are just giving you an hour worth of their own propaganda, does that hurt anything?
I guess it might a little bit, because the documentary effect that I talk about all the time, the documentary effect is if you're one side of anything and you don't hear the counter argument and you get an hour of it in a row.
An hour of one side of any argument is really going to be convincing.
There might be a great counter argument that's even stronger, but if nobody shows it to you, an hour of propaganda is going to be really convincing.
So there is that risk that Tucker platformed to people who would be spreading their BS and people would be believing it.
But isn't that the problem with all free speech?
So I'm going to go full free speech and say, absolutely, Tucker should talk to these people.
And if not pushing back is what gets them to say yes, as long as we know that, I mean, you can kind of tell that that's part of the dynamic, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Yeah.
I feel like even unsophisticated viewers of the news would look at Putin and say, well, I don't know if that guy's telling me the full truth.
I feel like we would know not to automatically believe the president of Iran right after we bombed him.
So, you know, there's definitely a little bit of negativity that could come from letting the bad guys have an hour of just giving their point of view.
But free speech.
i gotta go with the free speech um According to the Washington Free Beacon, Biden's advisors, there's a document that shows this, that Biden's close advisors pushed Biden to debate Trump as early as possible to show strength.
Now, the reporting Is that his advisors believed that he could show strength in a debate?
I'm going to read you what they said, and to me, it reads like they definitely know that he's not strong and that it will end his campaign, and that's what they wanted.
Here's some of what that letter that's been uncovered said.
This would be a letter from the advisors to Biden, trying to convince him to do this early debate.
Here's the part.
The earlier you are able to debate, the better.
Now, this is just a conclusion of a longer letter.
The earlier you are able to debate, the better.
The memo goes on, so that the American people can see you standing next to Trump and showing the strength of your leadership compared to Trump's weakness and chaos.
Now, do you think they really talk like that in person?
I understand why when the Democrats go on CNN, they say Trump, oh, he's chaos.
He's full of chaos.
But privately, they know that doesn't mean anything, right?
Why would you say that to Biden?
Do they think Biden was so out of it that he would be sold by, well, once we put your strength next to Trump's chaos, it almost feels like it's tongue-in-cheek.
Right?
Now, I'm not saying it is, because they wouldn't write a tongue-in-cheek memo to the president and put it in writing and all that.
So it's not tongue-in-cheek.
But does it feel like what close advisors would really say?
It doesn't.
To me, there's something about that wording that almost is like a signal, maybe to historians in the future or something.
It feels like it's a signal that they don't really mean it.
Because who in the world would have said that when they know that Biden was just decomposing right in front of them at that time?
Would they really say, showing the strength of your leadership compared to Trump's weakness and chaos?
Did they really think that Trump would look weak in a debate?
They've watched Trump debate.
You could say he won the debate or he lost, but whoever said that Trump looked weak in a debate?
None of this looks genuine.
It just looks almost like they were playing a prank on him or something.
They weren't.
But anyway, I've told you before that one of the things you learn when you study to become a hypnotist, or at least I did, is that people choose their words in a way that reveals what they really think on the inside, even if they're not telling you that.
And when I say their choice of words to go for the stupid show your strength compared to his chaos in a private memo that was not for public consumption, to me, that's revealing an internal thought.
So I might be reading too much into it, but there you go.
Well, Jack Dorsey, who you know as the founder of Twitter, he has a new app.
He's also a big part of the Cash app.
I guess he'd be a founder of the Cash app.
He just released a new app that uses Bluetooth, but not the Internet.
So it doesn't go over the Internet, just goes Bluetooth to Bluetooth.
And it's called BitChat.
And so you don't need cell service, and you don't need the Internet.
It just goes over Bluetooth.
So obviously it's only going to work in the same room.
But here's the funny part.
The name of it is BitChat.
B-I-T-C-H-A-T.
It's also could be pronounced bitch at.
Did he do that intentionally?
I don't know if he did that intentionally, because if it's a way to communicate, you're usually bitching at people.
So it's brilliant, or if it's true that nobody thought of that second way to conceptualize it, that would be weird.
But bitch at.
It's out there.
Well, Zion Tree, who's an activist in the nuclear power domain, tells us that in Germany, nuclear power provided nearly 30% of Germany's electricity in the 90s.
Now that's been reduced to zero because of the activists who didn't like nuclear.
So now that their nuclear power has gone from 30% to zero, if they had not done that and they just kept the power plants they had, they would be using no coal whatsoever.
But at the moment, you're using a lot of coal.
So has nuclear energy proven that it's the better way than getting rid of nuclear energy?
I believe it has.
Meanwhile, over at Politico, Politico is complaining in an article that Democrats have, quote, retreated on climate and that it's a disappointing turnabout.
Remember I told you just the other day that it seems like the conversation about climate change just sort of got really quiet all of a sudden?
Well, I would summarize the reason for that.
It's because affordability Is a better message than climate fear.
So I guess people weren't buying the climate change argument.
It wasn't moving any elections.
But affordability really hits people right in the heart and the wallet at the same time.
So if the Democrats are being smart, they are phasing out their complaining about climate.
Because I guess, you know, if it goes long enough, people are going to see the predictions didn't work out.
And I think we're there.
So there's enough counter information about temperature and all that that I just don't know that the climate story is believable anymore.
But affordability certainly is believable.
You tell people that things are hard to afford and you're going to help.
That's pretty activating.
So it makes sense that the Democrats would show us that it was never serious.
Because if they were serious about climate change being the biggest existential risk, they wouldn't push it to the back just to win an election, would they?
Unless they're terrible people?
Well, they might be terrible people.
You never know.
Victor David Hansen's writing in the post-millennial, they've got his article, that in LA, the landscapers and construction sites are already understaffed because the undocumented population have been deported and or they don't want to come to work because they might get grabbed.
So we will see in LA what happens when you deport the people who are doing a certain number of jobs.
Now, we did see the one anecdote in some Midwestern state, I forget which one, where when ICE grabbed almost all of their workers in some food processing plant, that that didn't cause a long-term problem because the company immediately said, all right, we have lots of job openings.
And there was a gigantic line of citizens who wanted those jobs.
But will that happen in LA?
If LA loses its construction workers and landscapers, will there be an immediate uptick in American citizens taking those positions?
I don't know.
It's too early to say.
But we'll see if it operates the same as it did in the Midwest.
Rick Caruso, you know him from LA.
He's a developer.
I think he ran for mayor once.
But he's talking about Mayor Bass.
And he says she's repeatedly emphasized the rapid pace of rebuilding after the fire.
And only 100 building permits have been issued after six months.
And there are thousands of homes that need to be rebuilt.
And only 100 building permits after six months.
Now, the cleanup of the toxic stuff did go faster than historically you'd expect it to.
So they did a great job on the cleanup, apparently.
But the part where you get rid of the red tape and approve some new homes, not so good.
Not so good.
So that's my, I like to end by saying how bad my state is compared to yours.
So if you don't live in California, you can say to yourself, well, thank God I don't live in California.
At least I got that working for me.
Scott, how did these jobs get filled before 20 million people came in?
Well, they weren't.
The answer is they weren't filled.
Yeah, they didn't exist.
So I do think they need more jobs for teenagers.
When I grew up, we did not have any immigrants in my little town of Wyndham, New York.
So the people who did all the lawnmowing were high school kids.
I mean, I did a lot of lawn mowing.
So maybe you'll see high school kids do it.
Not the construction stuff, but at least the lawn care.
Maybe, we'll see.
All right.
Well, keep in mind, the size of the industry is matched to the number of workers somewhat.
So if we have a much bigger industry because of the foreign workers and they all left, would that mean that we had a bunch of people who were looking for jobs and wanted those kind of jobs and would be willing to work them?
We'll find out.
If you believe that those jobs will just naturally be filled by Americans, you're probably right.
I wouldn't argue the point.
But I do think there's enough variability in it to say wait and see.
Because if it's like everything else in the world, there'll be some type of jobs that immediately get filled.
And then there'll be other kinds of jobs where, for reasons we don't fully understand, nobody really wants them.
So it could be a little of both.
We'll see.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, part of this is my, well, no, I think we'll end here.
All right.
I'm going to talk to the beloved subscribers on locals, and I'm going to talk to them privately.
So the rest of you, I hope you enjoyed our time together.
And I will see you again tomorrow, same time, same place, for more fun with the news and persuasion too.
