All Episodes
July 15, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:16:10
Episode 2898 CWSA 07/15/25

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Facebook Massive AI Data Centers, Conor McGregor, AI Materials Engineering, Mark Cuban, Democrat Messaging, Democrat Messenger, Zohran Mamdani, Corrupt Democrat Judges, Pam Bondi, Epstein Files, Dan Bongino, Alan Dershowitz, FBI Redacted Epstein Docs, Trump's Russia Strategy, Ukraine War, Democrat Party Approval, President Obama, Russia Collusion Hoax Perpetrators, MP Materials Stock, Rand Paul, Anthony Fauci Criminal Referral, Biden Autopen Approvals, NYT Autopen Article, Blue City Police Exodus, Trump Tariffs EU, Country Median Age, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Grab a seat.
We are going to have some fun today.
Won't we?
Happy Tuesday.
I'm checking your stocks so you don't have to.
And we'll see how the stock market is doing.
Well, the S ⁇ P 500 is up a little bit.
Bitcoin's down a little bit.
Tesla's up a little bit.
And Nvidia doing well.
All right.
All right, we'll accept that.
Let me get your comments working, and then we're good to go.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Do, do, do, do.
Bump, bum, boom.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's the best thing that ever happened to you, but if you'd like to see if you could take this rare and special experience up to levels that nobody could even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is, well, I bet you know, all you need is a copper mug or a glass attacker, shells inside a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The jumping end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
go So, so good.
Well, I wonder if there's any science that could have been avoided if they just asked me.
Oh, here we are.
According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is why, which is the only reason that you're hearing about it, is that it's a Chinese study.
It's a study that if you did in the United States, you wouldn't be able to do it in the United States.
Here's what it is.
So Chinese Academy of Sciences determined that intelligence is partly genetic.
How many of you knew that?
How many of you already knew, without any science whatsoever, that smart parents are more likely to have smart children than two dumb parents?
Is there anybody who didn't know that?
They could have saved a little bit of time just by asking me.
But I learned the other day, because I was watching some podcast I don't remember, that in the United States, if you said that intelligence is even partly genetic, you would be called what?
A racist.
You're not even allowed to consider that possibility in the United States.
And the funny part is, 100% of the world is completely aware that intelligence is partly, you know, it's not 100%, but certainly partly genetic.
No doubt about that.
Anyway, we'll see if I get canceled for quoting a Chinese science.
Well, Trump continues to be the funniest president of all.
He was at a White House Faith Office luncheon, which makes this extra funny.
Now, one of the things that Trump really understands in the comedy world is that it's not what you say.
It's the fact that you would say something in a particular audience or at a particular time.
So he's really good at making sure that the things he says are a little bit inappropriate for the audience.
That's sort of the secret of what makes you laugh about it.
Well, here he's talking to the White House faith office at a luncheon.
He was talking about the good things that his big, beautiful bill would do to make everybody richer.
And Trump said, I said to one guy, he's a very, very unattractive man.
So that's the first thing that no president ever said about anybody before.
No president ever has stood in front of an audience and talked about somebody he knew and said they were a very, very unattractive man.
And that's only the first part.
It's already funny.
Anyway, he's a very, very unattractive man, but he's smart and he's rich.
And I said, you better hope he gets this thing passed, talking about his big, beautiful bill, because your wife will be gone within about two minutes.
So he's telling people at a faith luncheon that the ugly rich guy is going to lose his trophy wife unless Trump's tax bill goes through.
Oh, he's the funniest president ever.
Well, Mark Zuckerberg, who allegedly is using gigantic piles of money to recruit AI experts to meta, says it's not just because of the money that people want to work for him for another reason that might not be so obvious to you, but not just about the money.
The researchers want access to the maximum amount of compute because you could be an AI expert, but if every time you log on to do some AI stuff, you don't have enough compute power, you're not going to go very far.
So it sounds like the people who know the most about AI really want to be in an environment where they have the maximum GPUs.
And Zuckerberg promises them that they'll be part of a smallish team that'll report directly to the CEO.
And I'm thinking to myself, that's actually a pretty good package if you knew you were directly connected to the top guy and you were getting a lot of money, but also you had the most compute power, which they don't have yet.
But listen to this.
Now, I saw this on X, a Sawyer Merritt.
He has a good site.
He's a good follow, Sawyer Merritt.
He does a lot of reporting on X about Tesla and Musk-related stuff.
But he's got this story that I'm having some trouble believing.
So it is true, I believe, that Zuckerberg is planning enormous, just enormous build-outs of computer centers to run his AI stuff.
And they're building several multi-GW clusters.
They're calling the first one Prometheus, and they're building another one called Hyperion, to which I say, I love this idea of giving your data centers awesome names like Hyperion and Prometheus.
It's pretty good.
Pretty good naming.
Anyway, the reporting says that just one of these buildings that will compute, will have massive computing, that one of them will cover a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan.
Now, it's not going to be in Manhattan.
They're just using Manhattan as a comparison.
And I saw a graphic of how big the building would be compared to the entire island of Manhattan.
And it covers most of it.
Now, does that sound true to you?
Do you believe that Facebook is right now building multiple data centers for AI?
Each one, just one of them, would be the size almost of the entire Manhattan Island?
Do you believe that?
I mean, it's in Sawyer Merritt's X feed.
So I think he's quite credible.
But I would be surprised if that's even possible.
It doesn't seem like it's possible.
You're probably aware, according to Wired magazine, that there are a bunch of AI Nudify websites, Nudify.
There are about 85 of them.
And what they do is you can take a picture of somebody's face, and it will give them a naked body.
So AI adds the naked body.
And there are 85 of them, and they're making millions of dollars.
And of course, you might be surprised and amazed to learn this.
I know this will be quite a surprise.
But apparently the Nudify AI websites are quite used by male high school students to bully their classmates.
Now, that's the most predictable thing you could have ever predicted.
Scott, we're thinking of making an AI website that will make any picture of anybody look like they're naked and doing embarrassing things.
Who will be our target market?
Well, I'm glad you asked, but teenage boys.
And after that, disgruntled ex-boyfriends and husbands.
And after that, probably memers and all kinds of stuff.
But I'm going to suggest that this might be a self-solving problem.
In 2025, if you were, let's say, a high school 16-year-old girl or something, and some male bully in your class started sending around an AI picture that was your face, but it looked like you naked, but it would be made by AI.
In 2025, that would be terrible because it would scar you for life and everybody would be teasing you and they'd be sending it around and you'd never know who's giggling behind your back and it would be humiliating and horrifying.
But what happens if it becomes so common that the moment you saw somebody you know with a naked picture, you said to yourself, oh, it's AI, you wouldn't be interested at all because you can make your own AI nude stuff anytime you wanted.
And now it's the millionth time that somebody sat around one of your classmates looking naked and you know that's not really them.
It's an AI body put on them.
How much attention would that even get?
So my guess is that the way through it is to do more of it and then just wait for young people to be totally bored by it.
You know, right?
Every time there's a new AI thing, you know, the first time you see it, you go, whoa, are you kidding?
AI made a picture of two cats that appear to be talking?
This is so cool.
I have to show all my friends.
And then by the hundredth time you see a meme of two cats talking and it's made by AI, do you send it around?
Or do you say, oh, God, not another AI of two cats talking.
Now, I know that nude people is more exciting than cats talking.
But wouldn't you get bored with this?
And wouldn't it become a big nothing once everybody understood that the nude person is not really there, it's just AI.
I don't feel like it's going to have much impact, but it might take three to five years to get to the point where people go, eh, don't send that to me anymore.
Speaking of that, allegedly, Connor McGregor sent full nude pictures of himself to rapper Azalea Banks, who apparently posted them on social media to mock him.
To which I say, is it too soon for Conor McGregor to say that wasn't me, that was somebody who did that with AI?
He would be a tough one to nudify because he's got tattoos all over his body and AI might not know where his tattoos are.
So I would do a check on his tattoos.
If the tattoos are under his clothes, or would have been if he had had clothes, and they still look right in the picture, well, he probably took a picture of himself naked and said it, probably.
But if the tattoos don't line up, might be AI.
So Connor McGregor, if he had waited another two or three years, he could probably send his naked pictures to anybody.
And whoever got him would say, oh, I'm so tired of getting AI-generated naked pictures.
And they wouldn't think twice about it.
Meanwhile, over at North Carolina State University is talking about an AI-powered lab for materials science, materials engineering.
So there's now a lab that can, using AI, it can decide what things to test in terms of materials, creating materials that have special properties for making various things.
And it can decide what to test, and then it can very rapidly, because it's machines, test a whole bunch of different material combinations and figure out which ones are commercial.
And it does that without human intervention.
So the AI decides what to test, and then it tests it very quickly and decides whether to keep it or release it.
And that's already up.
That's like a real thing that's already here.
So we've got an automated AI factory.
Do you know how big a deal that is?
Do you have any idea the upside potential of new materials?
You know, stuff that's super hard, but also super light, the stuff that can conduct electricity better than other stuff.
The upside potential of just materials?
It sounds like a boring thing, but it's really a lot.
There was a story that I decided not to talk about until just this moment.
There's some teenage kid who allegedly invented an electric motor that doesn't require these magnets that are rare earth.
And the idea is that he would change the entire situation with making electric motors, because if you could get rid of the magnet part, you wouldn't need any rare earth minerals for making magnets.
Now, I saw in the comments that people said, we've always had that kind of engine.
He didn't invent anything.
I don't know about that.
But that's the size of the opportunity.
It could be as big as, hey, we found a way that you don't need these rare earth materials.
That would be a pretty big deal.
Anyway, Mark Cuban is helping the Democrats decide what to do.
I don't know if the Democrats know that or they welcome it, but he was saying on an interview yesterday, I think, that the Democrats' only message is Trump sucks, and that's not going to get it done.
So how much, I feel as if everybody who cares about the Democrats doing well, that they don't really have good suggestions for them.
It's definitely a good suggestion to stop doing what they're doing.
That part is solid.
But what should they be doing?
I think everybody stops with, you know, you should have a better message.
Well, everybody knows that, right?
They all know they should have a better message.
But who is it who's coming up with a better message?
At what point do you say, we all know we suck?
Do you have any idea how we could do this better?
But of course, it's not just the message, is it?
It's also the messenger.
So if you don't have the right messenger, it doesn't matter if you have the right message.
And that's, of course, the big secret of Zorian Mamdani in New York City.
He's literally a socialist.
Some would say communist.
But because his policy is so clean and well represented, you know, the affordability stuff, and because he's an appealing messenger, he's actually overcoming being a communist.
If you wondered how much power you can get from having the right message and being the right kind of messenger, well, there's a guy called Trump who had the right message at the right time, and he was the right messenger.
And now he's the most influential person in the world.
That's how important it is.
And you might ask yourself, how in the world did voters get comfortable with the fact that Trump is accused of all manner of things I won't even mention?
And the answer is he had the right policy, he had the right message, and he was charismatic and he could deliver that message and deliver results.
So yeah, you could be a communist or you could be accused of absolutely anything.
But if you get those two things right, the right message and you're the right charismatic messenger, people will say, you know what?
That's kind of rare.
So we're going to overlook all those other things that otherwise might bother us.
In other news, the Supreme Court has ruled once again that Trump can do what he wanted to do, which was fire hundreds of employees at the education department, which he would like to get rid of.
And I guess that had been blocked once again by some district judge.
And once again, Trump wins when it goes to the Supreme Court, which you could argue proves that the judges are corrupt.
The judges that block it in the first place.
Because they probably know it's going to the Supreme Court, and they probably know they're going to lose, and that the Supreme Court will give Trump the power to do what the president should be able to do, which is hire and fire people in the executive branch.
But doesn't it feel to you like you're just hearing the same story over and over again?
How many times have you read or heard the story?
Well, a more local judge blocked Trump from doing whatever.
And then it went to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court sided with Trump.
So now he can do it.
I mean, literally, how many times have we heard that now?
I don't know the answer to my own question, but is it a dozen times?
Or am I just remembering it weird?
Is it five times?
How many times has the Supreme Court slapped down the lower court judges?
It's a lot, right?
I don't even know the number.
Well, you want to stop talking about Epstein, but we can't.
We can't quit it.
It's just something new every day.
So yesterday was Monday, and we were all waiting to see if Dan Bongino showed up for work or if he quit.
As far as I know, and of course, things can change quickly, he did not quit.
And there were meetings in the White House in which all three, Bondi and Patel and Bongino, apparently all visited the White House.
There's some reports that JD Vance might have been trying to talk people off a ledge.
There was talk that Bongino had threatened to quit if Pam Bondi didn't get fired or leave, or if she didn't change her approach to what was being released.
So the first thing I would say about that reporting is I don't trust any of it.
This is exactly the kind of reporting that never really captures the whole thing behind the curtain.
I mean, some of it might be true, but it'd be out of context and you'd be missing parts and you wouldn't know who said what and you wouldn't know their internal feelings.
When somebody else says they're really mad, you don't know if they really are or they're pretending.
So whenever I hear these stories about who said I'll quit or if you don't do this, I'll do that, I don't fully believe them to be literally true.
I treat them more like, well, this is what people are saying.
You know, you don't know what's really happening behind the scenes there.
But we would know if Bongino quit, we would know that.
So apparently he did not quit.
And there's some reporting that maybe they're re-looking at their approach to what they revealed about Epstein.
So maybe, possibly, there might be more to come.
And it might be that that more to come is the only thing that keeps Bongino staying there because he needs to get a win because he really, Bongino got kind of screwed in this whole situation.
He gave up this lucrative, incredible podcasting gig he had to have the worst job in the world, which is working for the government and trying to make a difference.
And then he gets totally shat upon by this whole Epstein situation, which he had a reason to believe would go differently.
So to me, Bohungino is the canary in the coal mine.
Meaning, if he doesn't quit and nothing else happens, that's going to give me one view of the whole situation versus if he did quit and says, I can't talk about it, but I can't work here anymore.
And if you're guessing it's because of the Epstein stuff, you'd be right.
But I can't tell you more than that.
Now, that would tell me that the cover-up was something that didn't really need to be covered up.
But maybe, you know, there's some billionaire who's being protected or something like that.
And that would not be cool with the public or with him as well.
But if he doesn't quit, then I would have to assume that he's been convinced that not releasing the information is better than releasing it.
Which would tell us That there's something really big that's been hidden, like really big, more than just one person's career or life or freedom.
Maybe something at a national level, something that would derail the country entirely if it got out.
So I'll be watching him.
Benny Johnson on his podcast says there's a massive disclosure coming on the Epstein files.
So he's got good sources.
And so Benny says that Bongino's back at work and there's a major push for more transparency, etc.
Separately, while we're waiting for that, there's a story in Rolling Stone.
They've got an exclusive, apparently, that way back, Jeffrey Epstein hired private investigators to follow and intimidate the FBI agents who were surveilling him because he knew he was being investigated by the FBI.
So he hired people to harass them.
You know, I don't know about you, but the more I hear about this Epstein guy, the more I'm thinking he's not a nice guy.
Yeah, that's a Norm McDonald joke.
I stole it.
He was talking about Hiller.
But it works for Epstein.
All right.
You know, I always tell you that you don't know what's happening in a story until Dershowitz tells you.
If there's anything that has anything to do with legality, you just have to wait for Dershowitz.
And I've been saying this for years now.
Here it is again.
So Dershowitz was on Chris Cuomo.
Most of you know that Dershowitz was a lawyer for Epstein.
So he's not guessing.
So, you know, a lot of stuff is speculation and guessing.
But Dershowitz is not guessing.
He knows.
And one of the things he knows is that there's not a client list per se, you know, where Epstein put a list together of all of his bad actions.
That doesn't exist as far as Dershowitz knows.
And I assume it does not exist as well.
But he says there is a redacted FBI affidavit from the accusers.
So this would go way back.
And there are several of them.
So several instances in which the accusers have named names, and those documents exist, but they've been redacted.
So Dershowitz says he knows the names because he was the lawyer he was involved.
So he says, now, of course, because as lawyer and I did only investigations, I know who all these people are.
So Dershowitz knows the truth.
He knows who the bad guys are who have been accused.
But because he's a lawyer and ethical, he can't tell you.
But he can tell you that if you could penetrate those redactions, you would know who is being blamed.
Now, to complicate things, at one point, Dershowitz himself was being accused.
And his accuser, who has recently died, that Virginia Joffrey, well, before she died, she withdrew her accusation and said she was mistaken and that she does not,
at the moment she does not, well, she's dead now, but she went to the grave having said that she did not mean it and that Dershowitz did not do anything illegal that she knows of.
So here's my question.
Now that we know exactly what document would tell us what we need to know, but it might not be accurate.
Because remember, if it's true that Virginia Joffrey simply made up a story, and it's also true that apparently there was some kind of fund established that would pay off victims who wanted to settle.
So allegedly, one of the reasons that we're not hearing from the alleged victims of Epstein's Island is that they probably signed NDAs, non-disclosure agreements, and they probably took large amounts, potentially, of money from a fund that was set up, I think, with Epstein's money, to pay off people who had a civil complaint.
So that's something that could be, the NDAs could be penetrated in the context of a criminal case.
So the people who signed the NDAs would probably sacrifice something if they talked, but not if a court made them.
So we've got the possibility that some court somewhere will say, I know you signed NDAs and I know you got paid for being quiet, but there's a legal case here and you just have to tell us.
And then they would know all.
So now we have all the characters are at work today, as far as we know.
Bonginu, Bondi, and Patel still at work.
And now Dershowitz has said, this document or this set of documents, these are the ones.
These are the exact documents which we know exist.
There's no question that they exist.
And all you have to do is penetrate the redactions.
So my question would be, is that what the conversation is now?
Did Bongino say, here's the deal, I'm just going to kick the shit out of the administration if they leave me hanging out to dry?
Which I would love it if he did that.
We don't know anything about what happened.
But I would love it if Bongino said, You guys hug me out to dry.
I'm going to take down the whole operation unless you redact these names and put them out.
What would they do?
Well, they're not going to murder him.
And he has the power now.
He has the power to take down the whole process.
He could take down Trump easily.
All he'd have to do is say, look, I've seen everything.
And if you vote for Republicans in the midterm, you're crazy because the whole Republican thing is covering up stuff.
So weirdly and ironically, Bongino is a blackmailer.
Now, I say that jokingly, so he's not breaking any laws as far as I know.
But don't you think that Bongino knows enough about what's happening on the other side of the curtain that if he had a conversation with Trump, he could say, here's the deal.
You can't make me a liar.
You cannot make me a liar.
If you don't release more, I'm going to tell people what I know, but I won't do it within the administration.
And you're going to have to deal with the blowback for that.
So how would you like to do a better job of transparency?
That's my guess.
My guess is that Bongino had so much power, because he has knowledge, that he can force them to disclose more than they wanted to.
So we'll see.
Now, of course, you know that the risk here, as with Dershowitz, is that people were making false accusations to get paid out.
So if you see a list of people who are accused of being abusers on Epstein Island, my advice would be to assume that half of them are not true, but you'll never know which half.
That's the best I can do.
I mean, it would destroy the reputations and lives and marriages probably of anybody who gets named.
But there's a good 50% chance that anybody named didn't actually do what they're accused of.
So we have to deal with that.
Well, of course, the Democrats are having fun with the Epstein file stuff because as long as we don't know what the story is, the Democrats can kind of suggest that it's much worse than you think.
So Representative Hakeem Jeffries, he says, quote, if you're trying to hide something, as many of Donald Trump's MAGA supporters apparently believe, then Congress should actually work hard to uncover the truth for the American people.
So he's pushing in that division and mega of the people who want to see what's going on.
Then Jamie Raskin, who I call one of the several designated liars on the Democrat side, he said, at this point, the president owes it to the country to put it to rest one way or the other.
And I agree.
I agree with that.
The president owes the country maybe not all the redacted information, but definitely a better excuse for why we're not seeing it.
I don't know about you, but if Trump came out and said, here's the deal, the country would be at a great disadvantage if this information came out, and I can't tell you why.
But trust me, it's not about the individuals we're protecting.
I'm protecting the country.
And I'm making the tough decision.
I know you all wanted to see it, but you're going to have to trust me on this.
The country would be much worse off if I release everything.
Now, I'm not saying that's the case.
We don't know what the case is.
But at least if Trump said that, I would say to myself, all right, you know, under the sort of republic that we live in, we hired him to make those decisions.
He's telling us that he is hiding something, and there's a reason for it.
Some people, not everybody, would say, you know what?
At least that's better than what we had.
I can move on now.
You prefer truth.
Well, what I learned is that many people are really bad at understanding themselves and at understanding how to do a risk analysis.
So if I say to you, releasing the full Epstein files would cause a nuclear holocaust, apparently an alarming number of you would say, that's okay.
I'd rather have the truth.
And you would put up with a nuclear holocaust?
Okay.
If you say that, you're either a liar, you're an idiot.
Is there any other?
Or you haven't really thought it through.
Because I think people want to present themselves as the strongest voice against these particular kinds of heinous crimes against children.
So a lot of it feels like just positioning.
And if you were the president and you really thought, genuinely, they're releasing it would cause a nuclear holocaust, you telling me you'd really release it?
Really?
Really?
If you had to make the decision, you would allow the entire world to burn just to know the names of those accusers.
Really?
Even knowing that maybe they're falsely accused?
I don't believe that.
I don't believe there's one person who would do that.
Not even one.
But I'll bet you a quarter of the people asked would say they would.
Because they'd say it's the principle.
I don't care if the entire world burns up in a nuclear fire.
It's the principle of the thing.
As if your government has been honest to you about the other stuff.
If this were the one thing that the government lied about, I'd say, you know, there is a principle involved here.
We don't want our government to lie to us about even one thing.
But is that the situation?
The situation I see is that the government lies to us about everything all the time.
And this is just more of that.
But okay.
Well, Trump says he's had enough of Putin and Putin talking nice, but bombing Ukraine five minutes later.
And so he has issued a 50-day ultimatum to end the war in Ukraine.
And the ultimatum is that he will do secondary tariffs of up to 100% on Russian goods that are going to other trading partners.
So the tariff would be on anybody who deals with Russia, not just on Russia directly.
Now, I don't know how much impact that would have, because I don't know how much exports Russia does.
I mean, if they're selling stuff to China, will we put 100% tariffs on that?
Will we shut down our own trade with China, which would destroy the United States, so that we could stop Russia from trading with China?
I don't know.
So I'm a little questioning whether this would be effective, but it's better than nothing.
Then Trump confirmed that the U.S. is going to send Patriot missiles and systems to Ukraine, and it will be funded by the European countries and Canada.
Now, he doesn't say NATO, but I'm wondering if he means NATO.
Does he mean NATO?
Because Ukraine is not part of NATO.
So presumably, I'll take a fact check on this, by the way.
Presumably, the budget that goes to NATO would not be used by a non-NATO country.
So it could be that this is on top of that 5% that Trump's trying to get all the countries to.
But it would be the NATO countries.
Not all of them, because I guess Turkey would not be involved here.
So it looks like it's not NATO, but rather the countries individually.
And I'm guessing that because Turkey is not mentioned.
And I don't believe that Turkey would want to be funding weapons over there.
Anyway.
But Trump has said it's not going to be just defensive weapons like the Patriot.
It's going to be everything, all of them.
So he's talking about offensive weapons that we have so far tried to not send there.
And then now he's willing to send missiles that can reach Moscow.
And there's some reporting, I don't know how reliable it is, that Trump is completely aware and checked that Ukraine would use new weapons to attack Moscow itself.
So here's what I think the play is.
I think Trump is literally going to bomb Moscow, but he's going to do it through our proxy, Ukraine.
Literally going to bomb, not bomb, but let's say send missiles and drones at a large scale.
We've been sending offensive weapons for years now.
Probably not the good stuff, though.
So I think Trump is teasing that we may have held back some of the good stuff and that that would be the difference.
But I take that correction.
I would be surprised, very surprised, if we've never sent them any form of offensive weaponry.
And it's also hard to define what is offensive and what is defensive.
So I would say if we're selling them missiles that are meant to be shot at a foreign city as far away as Moscow, to me, that feels like an offensive weapon.
So I think that's what's going to happen.
Anyway, so we'll see how that goes.
It feels like the odds of nuclear war are not that high, just because Putin is not insane, and the last thing he wants is a nuclear war.
So it could be that Trump is just calling his bluff and saying, you know what?
There's no limit to what we're going to do to you if you keep doing this.
There's no upper limit.
We'll just keep ratcheting up.
We're going to give Ukraine better and better weapons.
And I'll say again that we're probably three years away from the front lines of this war being only robots and not even controlled by humans, but just robots, nothing but robots.
Because both sides are going to run out of humans on the front lines.
They'll just be dead.
And the robots and the drones and the AI will be the new battle.
So do you think that Russia believes it could keep up with Ukraine, if Ukraine has the full backing of the United States and the other countries, to make as many drones and the most powerful ones they could possibly make?
Is it possible for Russia to keep up?
Well, they've got China on their side, right?
So they can buy a lot of drones.
And I guess Iran, maybe.
I don't know if they have anything left to sell.
But it's going to be a robot-only war because I don't think that Putin's going to back down and make peace.
And I don't think he's going to quit.
And I don't think Ukraine's going to quit.
And now the U.S. has turned it into a profit center where we're just selling our arms and somebody else is paying for it.
So we're not going to quit.
And Europe doesn't want to lose because they don't want Putin to roll through Europe, they think.
So there's nobody who really has any chance of wanting to quit.
So in three years, the people will be mostly dead on the front lines and just be robots.
And then you're going to really see the future.
All right.
Then Trump wants to put, let's see, what else is he doing?
Apparently, if Trump puts the big tariff on Russian oil, that will make oil prices everywhere go up because Russia is a big enough exporter that if you crush their oil industry and reduce the supply, the entire world will pay more.
According to Bloomberg, so Wall Street and the stock market did not go down when Trump threatened to make oil prices go up by blocking Russian oil, which means, according to Bloomberg, that Wall Street doesn't believe he's going to do it.
In other words, the investors don't believe that Trump will successfully do anything that would cut down on Russian oil sales.
So we'll see.
There's a new poll, Harvard Caps-Harris poll that was just released yesterday that says the Democratic Party's approval rating is at a new low.
It dropped from 42% to 40.
So four in 10 respondents approved of the Democrat Party, which is down from June, two points.
So my question is this.
It's the weirdest situation when the Democrats are at the lowest approval that we've seen, but at the same time, all the smart people are saying that the Democrats are probably going to pick up seats in the midterm.
Now, I know the reason for that is that everybody likes their own representative, but they think that the other ones are bad.
So they vote for their own representative.
And then next thing you know, you get a Democrat win when Democrats have the lowest approval level, like of all time.
I don't know if it's at all time, but it might be.
So that's a weird situation.
Obviously, that's a system problem.
But speaking of bad advice for Democrats, who would you say is the Democrats' smartest player if you had to pick one person, the one experienced, smart, proven, brilliant messenger, not only a good messenger, but somebody who's good at coming up with a message.
Who do you think would be the very best, the best you could get on the Democrat side?
I'm seeing Rocana, Federman, Federman.
I was going to say Obama.
Don't we all believe that Obama was gifted in terms of political skill?
Even Republicans say that.
Even Republicans would admit, yeah, we don't like what he did, but he has skill.
Like he was good at this politics stuff, good at talking in public, good at having messages that resonated with people.
Well, here is Obama's advice for Democrats.
You ready for this?
Here's their best guy, their best, smartest, experienced guy.
He says, don't tell me you're a Democrat, but you're kind of disappointed right now, so you're not doing anything.
No, now is exactly the time you get in there and do something.
Okay, so the first part of his advice is to do something.
So did that help?
Were there any Democrats who didn't know that doing something would be an advantage for them as opposed to doing nothing and continuing to, you know, suck?
So that's a little bit generic, Obama, but there's more.
He said that they should toughen up.
Oh, okay.
So they should do more and they should toughen up.
Okay, that's a little bit generic, but is there more from their best, wisest advisor?
Yes, there's more.
He also said they should do less navel gazing.
And that's it.
Did he have a specific suggestion about some messaging that might work?
Yeah.
No, he didn't.
All he had was generic advice about toughening up, doing something, and having less navel gazing.
Do you imagine that he could have been more worthless if it had been his intention to do it?
It's almost like if he had a contest to see who could do the least useful thing for Democrats, it would be right here.
He would win the contest of the most useless advice ever given.
Do something tough enough and less navel-gazing.
That's their best guy.
If you try to find the second best guy, and here guy means man or woman, it's going to be somebody like Fetterman that even the Democrats are mad at because Fetterman keeps agreeing with common sense.
Anyway, so that's pretty worthless.
So according to just the news, the reason that we're not hearing much from the Department of Justice, I guess, on the Russia collusion investigation is that they're trying to make a RICO case out of it.
Now, RICO means that it's not just an individual bad behavior by any person or persons, but rather it's an organized, ongoing plot to do something illegal.
Now, you tell me, do you think they could make the case that the Russia collusion hoax, which apparently was well known as a hoax, because they knew the steel documentary, the steel document was fake, they knew that Hillary's campaign was paying for it from the start, and that Brennan and Obama and Clapper, they all knew.
So could you think that the Trump administration's people could make the case that would stand up in court that it wasn't just an isolated incident, it was an organized Democrat attempt to do a series of illegal things?
Maybe.
Yeah, the dossier, not the document.
But on top of that, to really round it out would be the lawfare stuff.
So not only, allegedly, was there a conspiracy to come up with hoaxes about Trump, the Russia collusion hoax and all the other ones, but the Russia collusion hoax is the one they'd focus on.
But could they also make the case that they had gone after Trump with lawfare that was organized, let's say, by Joe Biden or organized by the top?
Could they make that case?
Because then they would have two parts that both individually would be a little Rico-like, but if you put them together and you sold both of them to a jury, would it be compelling?
What do you think?
It feels like it probably is too tough to get a conviction because one of the things I understand from Trey Gowdy and people who know more than I do is that getting a RICO conviction, well, we learned this from the Diddy, Diddy situation, because the prosecutor dropped the RICO stuff.
And the reason they dropped it is it's just really hard to make the case that it's organized.
But in this case, do you think they could find enough documents and meetings and connections that they could prove that the law affair was organized and also that the Russia collusion hoax was organized and they all knew they were in on it?
They knew they were doing something illegal, if not just immoral.
I don't know.
I think it would be tough.
I wouldn't want to get you all excited, like the Epstein stuff, where you think that, oh man, now these people are going to pay the price and go to jail.
I doubt this will be successful, but I like the fact they're trying, because I do think that there's a real crime there.
So might as well take a run at it.
Well, here's a little story that makes me or reminds me that who you know makes a difference between whether you get rich or not.
Apparently, the U.S. had one big company that was involved in making rare earth materials, mining it.
And it was called Materials, what's it called?
MP or something.
MP Materials, I think it's called.
And so when it became a big thing that China was going to block our rare materials because of the tariff horse, if I had known, if I had been aware that there was a big American company that was in this space, what would I have done?
I would have bought that stock if I'd known that.
But for some reason, it never really occurred to me that there would be some largish, publicly traded company in the U.S. that would obviously, obviously benefit a lot from the government saying we should do more of this domestically.
Because if you get the government on your side, that's when you have the big gains.
But I didn't know that.
I didn't know that.
Never heard of that company.
Didn't know we even had a big company that was in that space.
But if I did, it was free money.
It's already tripled.
Now, this is not investment advice, because remember, it already tripled.
So that doesn't mean it's going to keep going up.
But the people who knew that, and it was sort of publicly available information, but the people who knew that, they just got free money.
All you had to do is put a few bucks in that company, and it was about as close as you could get to a guaranteed payoff.
It wouldn't be like regular investing or gambling at all.
It'd be just like, here's a dollar, give me $3 back.
And when I look at this sort of situation, I think to myself, it's terribly unfair that some of us are paying attention.
How many people have already made huge gains by investing in AI companies because they were following that and other people weren't?
How many people made a killing in Bitcoin because they simply paid attention and they knew more about it than people who don't know about it.
A lot.
How many people, now this one could be a wildcard, but how many people invested in Tesla and have already made a bunch of money because they understood that Tesla took a different approach to the full self-driving AI?
If you knew that, you'd say to yourself, oh my God, this is going to be bigger than an Uber.
And then if you knew that Tesla was also making robots, which isn't something that most people know, you know, maybe at most 10% of the country knows that Tesla is even in the robot business.
If you follow the news like most of us do, you think everybody knows that, but they don't.
Only 90% of the country would not know that the Tesla company is also making robots.
So that little bit of knowledge I've used because I've invested in AI and I've invested in nuclear power because I've been following the nuclear industry.
And I knew that pretty soon nuclear is going to be on fire.
Well, not in a bad way, in a good way.
So some time ago, I put money in nuclear and ETF because I didn't want to pick individual companies and AI and Tesla.
Now, I feel almost guilty because those are not like regular investments.
Those are simply, I just knew more about the news.
And it's all public.
I just paid attention.
And if you didn't, you wouldn't know that these were all free money.
And I didn't know about this materials company, you know, that does the rare earth.
If I had, do you think I would have invested?
Yes, absolutely.
I would have put some money in it and I would have gotten some free money back already.
So yeah, what you know and who you know and whether you know somebody who's in this space is a difference between making money and not making money.
It's not fair.
It just is.
And let's see what else is happening.
So Senator Rand Paul, he wants to reissue criminal referrals about Fauci and Fauci's involvement with the lab and funding it and all that.
And I think it was related to Fauci allegedly lying under oath.
But when it looked like Fauci had a pardon from the Biden auto pen process, then there was no point in having a criminal referral because he was already pardoned for everything.
But now, since the auto pen is being questioned, and some people are saying, was it even legal to do all these pardons if Biden maybe didn't even know what he was doing or it went through underlings?
So that was enough of an opening for Senator Paul to reissue his criminal referral.
It seems to me like I just see Moby Dick when I read about Rand Paul going after Fauci.
I feel like Fauci is just his great white whale, and Rand Paul will go to his grave trying to put that guy in jail.
I don't know if he ever will, but he's trying.
Let's talk about the Autopen situation.
So if you follow the right-leaning news, as most of you do, but you don't follow other news or other podcasters, you would probably think this AutoPen thing is a real big scandal.
And it really matters, and it's going to change things if we get to the bottom of it.
I don't feel that that's true because I don't feel there's necessarily a crime there.
And I don't feel that any of his rules will be reversed because Biden has confirmed that he individually approved everything that was signed.
Now, did he?
No, of course not.
He didn't know everything that got signed.
I don't even know if he knew his name.
But he's the only one who could testify that he knew or didn't know what he was doing.
And I also think that the excuse that he gave some guidelines, you know, you can pardon people if they fall under these guidelines, I don't think it's a big deal if he didn't know the specifics.
And then his staff said, all right, we have the guidelines.
So as long as we're within the guidelines, he's pre-approved it.
And then you auto-pen it.
Is that the biggest problem in the world?
Not really.
Is that illegal?
Not that I know of.
Apparently, there's enough of a paper trail that you can determine that the aides were talking to Biden in the process of figuring out what to auto-pen.
If you knew that they were talking to Biden about what to auto-pen and what not to, and Biden also said, oh yeah, I basically approved everything, there's not much there, right?
So if you're waiting for this auto-pen thing to become a much bigger legal thing or something like that, I don't think it will.
And I don't think any of them will be reversed.
I could be surprised, but my prediction will be none of the auto-pen stuff will be reversed by a court or anything else.
But I saw Mark Halperin on his podcast, Two-Way, which is great, by the way, great podcast.
He was saying that there's something missing.
There's a dog not barking in the New York Times coverage of it.
Because you probably said to yourself, well, why did it take the New York Times so long to get on that story about the Autopen?
but then they eventually did, and they did a big feature story on it.
So you say to yourself, All right, all right, a little later than I wanted, but at least the New York Times legitimately looked into it.
But then Bark Halperin points out that there are some things that you definitely would have seen in the story if it had been a story about Republicans and Trump.
And he says, so what do law professors think about that?
What do Republicans think about that?
And I thought, yeah, is there no reference to a law professor in the New York Times article where the law professor would say, oh, he could totally use the auto pen.
It's no problem.
Or the law professor would say, oh, no.
If there's no paper trail, he specifically approved it, that can't stand.
So wouldn't you expect that if they had been a Republican, they would have talked to a law professor who would have said, oh, no, Trump can't do that.
We have to reverse all that.
But when it was about Biden, no law professor.
Nope.
didn't need to talk to any law professors um and then And then they'd also have a Republican saying this needs to be investigated.
So that's probably true.
So where is the Democrat?
Is there not one Democrat, nobody in Congress, not one, who says the Autopen thing ought to be investigated?
You would definitely see it if it was Republican.
So he's right from that.
So it's absent from the story, the Daily Caller is writing about that.
You probably already know the answer to this, but apparently the June inflation numbers are out.
Have you seen them yet?
Are the June inflation numbers good or bad?
It looked like the stock market was kind of happy, so it must be in line with expectations.
But that's today.
So keep an eye on that.
We'll see if those tariffs are working their way into the inflation numbers.
Fox News is reporting that police officers in blue cities are leaving in large numbers to go to red states because if you're a police officer in a red state, the people in charge actually appreciate you.
If you were a police officer in a blue city, you might be arresting people all day long and they're just getting released and everybody hates you.
So I would add this to the list of how in the world could blue cities survive?
Because they're spending themselves into ruin.
Their real estate will become worthless, such as a crime scene.
And then the people who could keep the peace are leaving like crazy.
Is there any narrative that would save the blue cities?
And I think the answer is no, no.
I think they will actually fail.
Now, I don't know about New York City, because that's sort of a special case, but I do expect a lot of cities to just turn into escape from New York kind of hellscapes, even more than they are.
So I'd love to see some Democrat even explain how they could ever write the ship, because I don't see any way.
To me, it looks like it's a one-way trip to being Detroit.
Has Detroit ever recovered from the car industry leaving?
It hasn't, right?
Isn't Detroit still in a horrible situation?
I think it is.
I don't see how that's going to change.
Well, Ron DeSantis has a big win.
Fox News is talking about this too.
So six southern states have banded together to create a new accreditation commission for higher education.
Now, if you don't know how important that is, it's really important.
Because if the liberals are the only ones who can say your college is accredited, and nobody wants to go to a college that's not accredited by somebody, then the left has all the power about what is an acceptable college.
So now there's going to be a competing accreditation process, at least for six states, in which if you're a college, you can get accredited by this new organization, and then you don't have to be super woke.
Because I imagine that you have to be super woke to be accredited by the old accreditation system.
So this might be a really big deal.
we'll see All right.
So according to a publication called European Conservative, the European Union is having a tough time trying to figure out how to address Trump's tariff and trade escalation.
So you would not be surprised to learn that the European Union is full of countries that don't all agree with each other about what to do and when.
So it's like herding cats.
So apparently the European Union believed that they were negotiating with Trump on a trade deal and things were going along fine.
They weren't close to a deal, but they felt, things are moving along.
And then suddenly Trump says, Yeah, we're not negotiating anymore.
Here's a 30% tariff.
Thank you for your business, which I'm starting to love as a technique.
I do love the fact that Trump says, we gave you plenty of time.
If you can't come up with a trade deal that we can live with, we'll just send you the bill.
And then if you want to have access to our markets, you'll pay the bill.
If you don't want access to our markets, well, your entire economies will be in big trouble.
So I kind of love the fact that instead of pushing hard, he's simply saying, do what you want to do.
But we're going to do what we want to do, which is charge you 30% if you want access to our markets.
And then just make it their problem.
That's the beauty of it.
It just makes it their problem instead of our problem and their problem.
No, it's just your problem.
You know, just here's the bill.
I do love that.
All right.
I saw Zuby.
You know Zuby?
You've seen him on X. You've seen him on podcasts.
And he was published on X the median age by country.
Now, for those of you who are not nerds, median doesn't mean average.
It means that half of the people are above that and half of the people are below it.
So in Monaco, the median age is 57.
Half of all the people in Monaco are older than 57.
That's pretty old.
But you have to have a lot of money to live in Monaco, so that's probably why.
Japan is 50.
That's the median age in Japan is 50.
That's way up there.
If you get all the way down to China and the USA, we're very similar.
China, the median age is 40, and the USA is 39.
If you took away illegal immigration, I believe our median age would probably jump up pretty high, but I don't know about that for sure.
But then you keep going down the list.
India, the median age is 30.
Just think about that.
In Japan, the median age is 50.
And in India, it's 30.
In Mexico, it's 31.
So these are very young countries.
But it gets younger.
The Philippines, 26, Egypt, 24, Ghana, 21, Nigeria, 18.
And Niger, 15.
The country of Niger, the median age is 15.
In Japan, it's 50.
No, in Japan, it's 50.
Wow.
Now, obviously, we assume that Niger, the people are having lots of babies.
So it's probably, you know, if you look at the birth rate plus the age, you've got a pretty good way to predict who's going to be doing well in the future.
If I had to guess, if I were an investor, and this is not investment advice, but if I were an investor, I'd say, hmm, Japan looks like a problem.
Germany is 47.
That's kind of old.
But then I would look at Mexico, where the average age is, or the median age is 31, where India, 30.
And I would tell myself, hmm, there's going to be a lot of energy in those countries.
So if you had a very long investment horizon, I would favor the younger countries, the ones that at least are developed a little bit.
So don't invest based on my commentary.
I'm not investment advice guy.
But ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for today.
Kind of a slow news day.
I suspect there'll be lots more this afternoon.
And I'm going to say some words privately to the beloved people on locals.
The rest of you, thanks for joining.
I will see you tomorrow.
Same time, same place.
All right.
Export Selection