God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Psychedelics Therapy, Perplexity Comet AI Browser, Privacy Illusion, Delta Variable AI Pricing, CA High-Speed Rail Cancelled, UAE Underwater Bullet Train, Gavin Newsom's Nickname, Democrat Congress Approval Rating, Columbia Antisemitism, Male Dancing Decline, Loneliness Epidemic, Halt Fentanyl Act, Jerome Powell, Bill Pulte's Fed Tour, Paid Anti-Trump Protesters, DOJ Maurene Comey Fired, Tariffs Revenue, Balanced Budget Objective, Democrat Hoaxes Review, President Trump, Epstein Files Speculation, Alan Dershowitz, Mike Benz, John Brennan Investigation, Zohran Mamdani, Global Intifada, Adam Schiff, Russian Police Shortage, 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.
Let me get my comments going and then we got to show.
Don't want to miss anything.
Come on.
There we go.
So it looks like I can't do this upside down and I can't do it right side up because it's got a cord in the way.
How will I make this work?
Like that.
Will not be defeated.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Oh, Gene, stay awake.
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 try desperately, oh, my phone fell over, to elevate this experience to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cupper, a monger, a glass, a tanker, chelis, stein, 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 of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Exactly.
go So good.
So, so good.
Well, let's check the world of science to see if we can save them any money.
Oh yeah, here's one.
According to Cornell University, Sarah Magnus Sharp is writing that they did some studies and found out that the secret to keeping your New Year's resolution is that you have to like the process as much as the goal.
Hmm, the process as much as the goal.
Huh, does that sound familiar at all?
Yes, if you don't like this system, you're not going to get to the goal.
A perfect example of that is exercise.
If you choose an exercise that you hate, you're not going to get in shape, not a chance.
But let's say you follow the disgraced cartoonist advice and you find some exercise that you enjoy and you reward yourself for it.
I used to like going to the gym because I liked the social element of it and I would give myself a healthy snack when I was done and I was addicted to the process.
So yes, the reason that some people achieve their goals is that they enjoy the process.
The Atomic Habits Guy wrote about this.
Well, yes, the Atomic Habits Guy wrote about a few things that I also wrote about first, which he admits.
He does give me credit for stuff in his book.
Anyway, let's see if science has any more surprises for us.
Oh, here Eric Dolan is writing about there were psychedelic retreats for people with PTSD.
And they found that if they did psychedelics, it helped them with their PTSD.
Now, does that story sound familiar?
At least once a week, there's a new study where somebody gave somebody some psychedelics and discovered that it helped their mental situation greatly.
It either solved their depression or their PTSD or some other major mental problems.
Have you ever seen a story about people responsibly using hallucinogens where it didn't work?
I feel like it works every time they test it, no matter what the domain is, as long as it's something about mental health.
It helps every time.
Every person, every time.
Now, there must be situations where it goes wrong for some people.
So don't take any, don't get any medical advice from me.
I'm just noting that every time this story is in the news, it has the same ending.
Yeah, it was a big difference.
Something should happen.
If we could replace, I believe, all therapy with AI as your therapist, just telling you to responsibly take some hallucinogens, maybe, maybe that's all you need.
I saw a post by Wall Street Apes on X. They showed a video of there's some company in San Francisco, I don't know what company, that's testing a little robot on wheels, not the kind that looks like a person, but a little robot on wheels for delivering stuff in urban environments.
And they're testing it.
This doesn't seem real, but I think it is.
They're testing it in LA to see if it can deliver things on the sidewalk.
But they had to do a test where they put mannequins on the sidewalk like homeless people who had passed down from fentanyl.
And then they had to test the robot to see if it would go around the bodies, the homeless people lying on the sidewalks.
And I think it did.
But we're just assuming from the video that what they were testing was if the robots could go around the humans.
What we didn't see is if they're testing the robot to kill the humans and then go around them.
I don't know.
I don't know.
We just saw the bodies.
We don't know how they died.
But it might be the first step in the robots destroying all humanity.
Speaking of that, perplexity, the AI company that I've said good things about in the past, it's a hot little AI company.
I don't know if it will survive because it's not one of the top three.
If you're not in the top three, I don't know if the government will even let you be successful.
So maybe Apple will buy them or something.
But Perplexity has rolled out its own browser called Comet.
And I saw one report on tech radar by John Anthony DeSoto, who tested it, and he was impressed.
Now, the reason that an AI company would want to make its own browser is so the browser could act as your agent and do a bunch of stuff while you're doing whatever you want to do.
So as John Anthony points out in his article, that when you first start using it, it doesn't seem like it's a big time saver because you tell it to do something and then you sit there and watch to make sure it did it.
So it takes about, you know, it's not really that much of a time saver because you're prevented from doing something else because you're watching to make sure it worked.
But as he points out, you eventually reach a point where you realize, wait a minute, this usually works.
So I'll just tell it to make some reservations or whatever, whatever you're telling it to do.
And I'll do some work on something else in the meantime.
And apparently that is a big wow experience because when you get back to it and it did what you wanted, it saved a lot of time.
Now, here's my take.
I've been saying this for probably 20 years or more in public, and people always fight me on this.
And you will fight me too.
So get ready to fight me.
Here's what I believe.
I believe that humans want to maintain privacy as much as possible.
So far, we're on the same page.
Everybody likes privacy, mostly about themselves.
We don't care about privacy for other people, but we like it for ourselves.
But in order to use and really get all the benefit from these AI agents, they're going to need to have your passwords.
And they're going to need to know all about you because the things that you want them to do, such as making reservations or whatever, it's going to require a lot of knowledge about you.
Your name, your address, in some cases, maybe your social security number, if you're telling it to deal with something financial or banking or whatever.
How many of you would feel comfortable giving your own AI if they told you, oh, it's totally secure.
We'll never look at it at the company level.
How many of you would feel comfortable with an AI that has your password for anything important?
Maybe for making restaurant reservations, maybe.
But would you let it have access to your bank?
Because if you did, think of all the time you would save.
I would love an AI that had access to my bank because I'm continually signing up for things that are autopay or debugging some problem with my bank or there's a credit card that got stolen.
Just always, I'm just always dealing with bank and IRS stuff.
How many of you would trust your AI to have access to all of that stuff?
The answer is none of you.
Not a single one of you, and certainly not me, would feel comfortable with it.
Now, here's the part that I've been predicting.
We'll all get over it.
We'll get over it.
Once you realize that privacy was always an illusion, you're going to let it go.
It's always been an illusion.
The only thing that protects your privacy in a world where the government can get access to anything that they want, they only need to have a reason.
And it doesn't have to be even a good reason.
It could be a reason they made up because they're lawfaring you.
So you don't have any privacy.
The only thing you have that protects you is your boringness.
Have you heard me say this before?
The only protection you have is being boring and not being interesting to the government, not being interesting to hackers, not being interested to people at banks and other places that have access to your private information.
The only reason that all of you have not been victimized is that you're boring.
There is somebody who can get access to everything you have, the government.
They just need a reason.
As long as you're boring, no reason.
But the moment you do a freak off, you know, sort of Disney style, well, suddenly they're accessing your phones and your computers and talking to everybody who ever knew you.
You don't have privacy.
You don't even have a little bit of privacy.
You have zero privacy.
You only have the right to be boring.
That's it.
Nothing else.
So I'm not saying that you should give up your privacy, and I'm not saying I would enjoy it if it happened, if I lost mine, wouldn't like it at all.
But I bet you, once we realize that privacy went away a long time ago, or maybe you never had it, that you'll just say, yeah, I don't really have any serious privacy because my government can get whatever they want, if not hackers.
But I can use these AI agents to make my life 10 times easier.
So I think people will just get over privacy.
That's my prediction.
And again, I'm not saying you should or that you'll like it.
I'm just predicting that's where it will go.
Well, SoftBank, the company's SoftBank, according to Digital Trends, Trevor Mogg is writing that they've developed AI agents to make each worker like a thousand-armed deity.
So the head of SoftBank, San Mayashi, Masayoshi, he said that they now have this technology that would allow the AI to make its own agents, and you could have potentially one person could have a million AI agents doing stuff for you.
But I say, I don't believe this is a fruitful direction, because if you had one AI agent and you told it to make some hotel reservations, it wouldn't be a big burden on you to check and make sure it did it right and then correct whatever wasn't right.
But if you had a million agents that were doing things on your behalf, or even 100, how in the world would you supervise all that?
And would you feel comfortable that if you didn't supervise it, the AI was going to go and do it correctly the way you want and not cause you any problems?
I don't know.
I feel like there will be a natural limit to how many AI agents anybody will ever want working on their behalf because you've got to check their work all the time.
So maybe three might be your limit, not a million.
Well, Delta Airlines, according to Fortune magazine, Irina Ivanova is writing, they're eliminating set prices for their flights in favor of having the AI determine how much you personally will pay for a ticket.
And apparently, this is already being, it's rolled out and it's being tested on a small percentage of their customers.
To which I asked the question on X and everybody had the same answer.
How much would you be happy to find out that the price you were paying for your airline ticket at Delta was determined by the AI figuring out the most you were willing to pay?
I can't think of anything that would make me hate the company more than that.
Can you?
Because how would the AI determine how much you're willing to pay?
What does it know about you?
Let me give you an example.
Let's say one of your parents is elderly and you're making frequent flights to spend time with them.
Wouldn't Delta figure out that this person is going to book those frequent flights because there's obviously something on the other end that's important to that person?
And so they raise the price for you to see your dying parents.
Now, it wouldn't know it's doing that.
It would just say, I feel like this person's going to pay a little more for a ticket because they fly a lot.
So there must be something on the other end of that flight that they really care about.
How in the world could it possibly charge me more than other people for whatever it is I want where I wouldn't want to go in with a machine gun and kill everybody at their company?
Don't do that, by the way.
That is not a call to violence.
Oh my God.
I really can't think of a worse idea.
But we'll see.
They swear they're going to roll it out.
All right.
Trump announced yesterday that they're cutting federal funding for California's ridiculous high-speed rail project.
They had billions of dollars approved, but it managed to build basically no high-speed rail at all.
And I said to myself, well, that'll teach California because once that federal funding is cut, there's no way they're going to keep wasting this money.
But then I looked at the context, and the entire project is currently estimated to cost $128 billion to build California's high-speed rail.
I didn't even know they were still working on it.
Did anybody know that I thought that project was killed a long time ago?
But the amount that the and that's the estimate is four times the original estimated price of $33 billion.
So it went from, I think we can do this for $33 billion to, I don't know, but we might be able to get it done for $128 billion.
And you learn that after you start.
That's like every project I did in my corporate days.
It was my job to evaluate vendors for various technology purchases that we needed.
And so I'd go out for a bid.
I'd ask companies to bid on it.
All right, we need to replace this internal storage device.
And then all the companies would bid.
And then I would take the low bid of the best company that was qualified to do it.
And I would take it to my boss.
And I'd say, here's the one that's the lowest bid for this exact thing that we want.
And then what would happen after I signed the deal every time?
What would happen?
As soon as you sign it, or maybe as soon as you install it, you immediately learned that you needed to spend more for something that hadn't been mentioned.
And so, on day one, your low-priced vendor, the one that had the lowest price, surprises you with, oh, well, it looks like we specified something that's a little underpowered for what you need, but no problem.
If you just pay more, you can have the better model.
And then it's too late to start all over again, and you don't want to tell your boss that you screwed up.
What are you going to do?
Well, the vendor knows exactly what you're going to do.
You're going to pay the higher price.
So in the real world, things do go the way that this high-speed rail went, which is somebody bid, I could get that done for $33 billion.
And then probably the moment it was improved, the people who said they could do it for $33 billion started doing, probably it was lots of different entities, but every one of the entities said, all right, yes, totally.
Yep.
Our portion would only cost a billion.
Well, unless you want to go all the way down to state, which is what you want, well, that would be $2 billion.
And then all the other people involved do the same thing.
So, well, now that it's all approved, I got to admit, we're taking a closer look, and we probably can't do it for that price.
But for twice that price, we could totally get it done.
So that's the way of the world.
Everything gets approved at an artificially low price, and then the bad people creep it up.
But apparently, the federal amount was only $4 billion.
So if we think it'll cost $128 billion and Trump only took away $4 billion, it shouldn't make any difference at all to whether it gets built.
I mean, it's such a small percentage.
But we'll see.
I expect nothing to happen.
But do other countries have the same problem where they can't get stuff done?
Well, it turns out that the UAE is planning to build an underwater bullet train, which doesn't exist anywhere.
So they would connect Dubai and Mumbai.
So from Dubai to Mumbai, there would be this cool underwater train experience, high-speed train.
And they would make it so that the underwater view is amazing, so that you're looking at amazing underwater stuff as you go.
So that's what the UAE is doing.
How does the UAE get something done like that?
Because it feels like in the Middle East that things are getting done.
Maybe not that big city of OM or whatever it is, Saudi Arabia.
I think Saudi Arabia is having that cost overrun thing too, building their big futuristic city.
But we'll see.
We'll see if the UAE can do what California cannot do times 10.
If you watched the Sean Ryan broadcast podcast with Gavin Newsom, you saw that Gavin Newsom was angry at Trump for, among other things, giving him the nickname New Scum.
And the problem that Gavin Newsom has with his nickname New Scum is that he has children and the children get bullied in school and they get called New Scum too.
Now, I am very much opposed to this situation where you call Gavin Newsom New Scum, but it has a downhill impact on the children being bullied.
And I think you need something to distinguish the two, because you don't want the father and the children to be suffering under the same nickname.
So what I recommend is that Gavin be called Old Scum, and maybe his children would just be New Scum, sort of like Junior.
No, I'm against bullying.
That's just a joke.
But it's kind of funny, new scum and old scum.
If I were his kids, I don't know how old they are.
I think they're probably teens.
If I were his teenage kids and people were calling me new scum, I would insist that my father be referred to as old scum because it would be funny to me.
All right.
Well, apparently there's a new poll of Democrat congressional people approval.
And the job approval, according to the New York Post, Victor Nava's writing about this, they've hit a new all-time low.
So they're now at 19%.
Only 19% of registered voters approve of the way Democrats in Congress are handling their job.
That's a Quinnipiac university poll.
19%.
Is that the lowest it's ever been?
It feels like it, right?
Newer scum.
New scum and newer scum.
That's pretty funny.
So I'm going to predict that Democrat congressional approval will hit single digits.
So, you know, something below 10.
If there are doubts of 19, I don't know if there's a bottom for this.
So we'll see.
Well, Newsmax is reporting that Columbia University is trying to address the problem that the Trump administration is withholding something like $400 million in federal funds because they say Columbia is not doing enough to fight anti-Semitism.
So Colombia has decided to try to get their $400 million back by agreeing to a bunch of requirements placed on them for fighting anti-Semitism.
And I said to myself, well, what are they asking them to do?
Well, here's a list of things they're going to do.
They're going to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.
So they won't have as much ambiguity about what is and what isn't.
They will accept that organization's definition of anti-Semitism.
Now, what would that be?
What would their definition be?
Their definition would be that some critiques of Israel, the country, as a Jewish state, might cross a line into anti-Semitism.
They gave some examples.
So if you were to publicly deny the, well, or privately, I guess, deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination, you would be anti-Semitic.
The right to self-determination, what does that even mean?
What would it mean to deny somebody's right to self-determination?
Doesn't everybody sort of have that right a little bit?
I don't even know what it means.
So that would be trouble.
Or claiming, so it would be anti-Semitic according to this definition, if you claim that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor.
So don't do that.
And if you compare the current Israeli policies with that of the Nazis, that would be considered anti-Semitic.
So you can't call Israel Nazis.
But just to be clear, you can still call everybody else a Nazi.
You can call Trump a Nazi.
You can call me a Nazi.
You can call everybody a Nazi, but you cannot call Israeli policies Nazi.
Now, here is something you need to know.
I talk about this a lot, actually, but I'll put it in this context as well.
Whoever controls the definition of words controls you.
Let me say that again.
Whoever controls the definition of words, in this case, anti-Semitism, controls you.
Because they can decide, well, according to my definition, you just did something illegal, so you go to jail or you get kicked down or whatever the penalty is.
So whenever you see this, we've decided this one organization will be in charge of the definition of the word.
You don't want to be in that situation.
You want to be able to have the right to use words the way you would like them to mean.
And if other people have a different definition for it, well, you can fight it out, you know, verbally.
But if you let somebody else decide what your definitions of words are, they are in charge of you.
So I would suggest that Israel is making a step in the wrong direction because one of their biggest complaints is that the anti-Semites say Israel has too much control in the United States.
Well, they're talking about this.
Now, it's not the country of Israel.
In this case, it's the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which I'm sure is a fine organization.
I have no problem with it whatsoever.
And obviously, if they have the option of being in control of the definition, of course they'd want that.
Why wouldn't they?
You should want it too.
We should all want to be in charge of the definitions, because that puts you in charge of everything.
But they're working with, so Colombia is also working with the Anti-Defamation League.
And what else are they doing?
They're going to appoint a coordinator to ensure compliance with whatever Civil Rights Acts.
Sounds good.
And they're going to work with the Anti-Defamation League to create training on anti-Semitism.
So a little bit like the definition thing.
So if Colombia delegates the training materials to the Anti-Defamation League, they're really putting the Anti-Defamation League in charge of some important stuff.
So I feel as though this may be one step forward, two steps back.
It's good to try to battle anti-Semitism.
So I'm all in on that.
But if the way you're doing it is you're putting in some organization's definition of what would allow you to be kicked out of school or jailed or punished or canceled or whatever, that's a horrible idea.
And I would imagine that for the people who are paying attention at some level that's beyond what the average public is paying attention, that this would make them even more angry about what they would see as Jewish control of America.
Now, since I don't go to Columbia, I don't really have a dog in this fight.
But it looks like the thing that the Trump administration is requiring of them to get on the right side of anti-Semitism probably will make it worse.
I think it would make it worse.
So I'm going to blame not Columbia for this, but whoever is making Columbia do it, which is the Trump administration.
So bad on the Trump administration for putting somebody else in charge of definitions of words.
According to an ex-user called Cartoons Hater, must be a cartoonist, I don't know, She talks about how in the old days, not too long ago, being a good dancer used to be something that men tried to do.
So apparently, men at one point tried to be good dancers because they thought it would attract women.
And it was, I remember when I was younger, that was one of the main things that people said, is that, yeah, just learn to dance and then you'll have all these women.
But according to Cartoons Hater, that dancing is now a social activity that is uncommon.
Did you know that?
Did you know that dancing is no longer as big a deal as it used to be?
I didn't know that.
I assumed it was always the same.
But in the current day, when men dance, in quotes, dance, they either do slow dances or they barely move.
So back in the 80s, you know, people would try to be doing disco and they'd have, you know, John Travolta moves and stuff.
And people are trying to figure out why, what changed, that men don't dance anymore.
And somebody said it's because dancing looks gay, maybe.
But also that if you didn't dance very well, somebody with a phone is going to take a video of you and humiliate you in public.
To which I thought, hmm, that might be, that might be true.
But I think in general, just men are not trying as hard.
Men are just not trying to even attract women.
And I'll talk about that a little bit more, but Victor Davis Hansen has an article in the Post-Millennial talking about this TikTok influencer who says that women are stealing salads at restaurants when the order is up for some order to go.
The TikTok influencer say women are stealing salads of what they think would be maybe some guy that they could date in the future.
And then they use LinkedIn to stalk the real owner and contact him and say, oh, I'm sorry.
It appears I accidentally got your salad.
And it's a way for women to somewhat casually meet a man.
Now, first of all, I don't believe anything about this story.
I do not believe that that happened more than one time in the entire world.
There may have been one person who once stole a salad or got one accidentally and thought, oh, I think I'll contact this person.
Maybe one person ever.
So I do not believe this is any kind of a trend.
But it does speak to the fact that the regular dating apps and all that stuff are not working.
Dance is not working.
Dating apps are not working.
And some people are complaining that men don't approach women anymore and ask them on dates.
Is that something you've heard?
I've heard this.
I've heard it from single women.
They say that men just don't approach them.
They just don't.
They used to, but they don't.
Now, why do you think that is?
Let me fill you in on why men don't approach women.
Are you ready?
It only works for handsome people who are tall and have most of their hair or are in good shape at least.
If you're a really good-looking guy, you can walk up to anybody and they'll be like, oh, maybe.
If you're not a good-looking guy, which would be 95% of the public, you can't walk up to a stranger and get a good reaction.
Because the only thing they have to go on is your dumb opening line, which is always dumb, and what you look like.
It doesn't work.
Why do you think people put photos on dating apps that don't look anything like they actually look?
It's because if they walked up to you in person, you'd say, no thanks.
So dating is mostly trickery, you know, trying to fool somebody into being attracted without them knowing that's what you were doing.
So I would say that if you're not among the 5% tall and handsome guys, the only way you're going to attract women is to not approach them, but rather be talented at something in a public way.
If you can be rich and successful in a public way, you will attract all the female attention that you've ever wanted.
If you can't show that you have something going on, that you're good at a sport or good at making money or good at something, you're not going to attract anybody.
So dancing doesn't work, dating apps don't work, walking up to women doesn't work.
But if you got something going on, women will come up to you.
And in my limited dating experience over my lifetime, I've never been confused about whether a woman was interested in me because they show it so obviously.
Is that your experience, men, that when a woman is interested in you, you know it so easily.
It's never a surprise, is it?
So anyway.
According to Daniel Greenfield, he's writing that one in three Americans feel lonely every week and one in five feel lonely every day.
And less than half of households are headed by married couples now.
And 63% of single people are not looking for a relationship.
And this next one is the thing that blows my mind.
The majority of Gen Z didn't date as teenagers.
They didn't date.
Almost two-thirds of the young generation didn't date at all as teenagers.
I wonder what they used to be.
Well, Well, so things are bad there.
According to Nick Nolte on Bray Bar News, during the first half of 2025, reruns of the old Gunsmoke TV show in black and white from, what, the 60s, reruns of that earned more streaming minutes than any of the Disney syndicate movies.
So I have to confess that recently I sampled some old gun smoke TV show on Netflix, I guess.
And the reason was that all modern content is terrible.
And I discovered that looking at really, really old content is kind of fascinating.
It's not entertaining in the traditional modern way, but it's absolutely fascinating to just see the old sets and the way they did things, the way they talked and how rapidly they developed a story instead of making you watch two gay people make out forever so that you can know, okay, I got it, I got it.
They like each other.
I got it.
Okay, I got it.
So the old stuff would just skip everything that was boring and just give you like a tight little story.
The modern stuff usually has some director who's got power and the director says, oh no, we need a good 10 minutes of these gay people making out.
Because otherwise, how will the audience know how much they like each other?
So the old days was much better content, even though even the old comedies I was watching, like New Heart.
I watched New Heart, the original old, very old black and white, because I remember laughing hysterically at it when I was a young child.
There are not even any jokes in that thing.
By modern standards, there's not a single joke.
And it's a comedy.
Now, that's fascinating to me to find out what used to be funny, but you would not laugh once.
You could watch, I think I watched about several episodes in a row.
Not one laugh, but yet fascinating to see how they made it in the old days.
I liked watching it, but no jokes that you would recognize by today's standards.
Well, Trump has signed something called the HALT Fentanyl Act.
It's going to permanently classify all fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I, and it gives the law enforcement some tools to work on that.
That's good.
I don't know if that'll make any difference.
And separately, you know that China has agreed to do more on fentanyl because they've got a permanent tariff on them.
Trump has put an extra 20% tariff on China because of fentanyl.
They weren't doing enough to stop the flow into the U.S., the precursor flow.
So China has done some things and arrested some people and acted like they're doing something about it.
Now, like I said about Trump monetizing the Ukraine war, instead of solving it, he said, well, all right, if you Europeans really want this war to go on, how about we just sell you weapons and we make a profit?
So he monetizes the Ukraine-Russia war, which I have to admit is kind of smart, just monetizing it.
And then you can wait as long as you want.
Like your whole who wants to blink first is totally answered.
Well, we're not going to blink.
We're making money.
We'll just keep making money.
If you guys want to keep fighting, go ahead.
But now Trump has monetized fentanyl because we assume that China won't do enough to stop the flow because they probably want it to keep going.
But we'll just keep charging them 20% extra tariff.
So do I want the fentanyl trade to be stopped?
Yes, of course.
But if you know you can't stop it, why not monetize it?
Now, Trump could never say that out loud, that he's just monetizing the horrific fentanyl trade because it's killing people like crazy.
But if your option is it's going to happen anyway, you might as well monetize it.
There's something about that that I hate and I love at the same time.
I just love the fact that Trump keeps finding ways to monetize our problems.
If he can't solve them, you might as well monetize them.
Charge other countries for it.
Okay.
Well, if you're watching the drama with Fed chair Jerome Powell, and Trump wants him to quit, he thought about firing him, but he says he's not going to fire him, which the markets liked because they thought the idea of Powell getting fired for what would be no legitimate cause at this point would be a bad move.
So if Trump ever wanted to do that, he says he's backed off it or he never thought about it.
I don't know which, but he says he won't do it.
Now, the exception would be if they found some malfeasance or corruption or something that we don't know about, and then there would be a reason to do it, and then he could do it.
But one of the reasons, the potential reasons might be that the Fed is building a new headquarters, and I guess it was like $2.5 billion they needed just for renovations.
And some of it looked a little extreme.
So Bill Pulte, who's the head of federal housing, director of federal housing.
He's volunteered to take a tour of the construction project because he's an expert on construction.
That's his background.
And to let us know if there's anything that looks corrupt there, as in, how can you possibly spend $2.5 billion just renovating?
I mean, if you were building it from scratch, maybe, but renovating $2.5 billion?
And that would be an interesting idea.
So if Trump agrees to that, I guess Trump could probably authorize that.
You might see Bill Pulte doing a tour of the headquarters construction project and letting us know if Jerome Powell should be fired.
Now, as far as I can tell, Jerome Powell would never spend a day in that new headquarters, right?
Because his term is over in May, no matter what.
And I can't imagine they'd be done with this project by May.
So it doesn't seem like he's building this project for his own consumption.
But there might be something going wrong here in terms of who got the contracts or just essentially managing the project correctly.
There may be poor management here.
So Bill Pulte might find enough to make a move there, give Trump enough ammunition to make a move.
And by the way, if you're not following the career of Bill Pulte, you really should pay attention because I'm going to tell you right now, he could be one of your future presidents.
If you're not already keyed into that idea, start paying attention.
He has the full talent stack, and he's clearly highly America-first superpatriot.
And he doesn't need the job.
He's very successful in his life.
He doesn't need the work, but he's putting in serious work into making our country better.
So keep an eye on Bill Palte.
He has the entire talent stack to take it as far as he wants.
I don't know how far he wants, but he can go as far as he wants.
Let's see.
I asked, today is the day that there's a national protest against Trump, right?
That is the day, July 17th.
They should be doing some national multi-city protests, generic.
Now, this would be a paid, professionally organized protest.
It's not organic.
And so we really shouldn't care about it at all, except have fun mocking it.
But I asked on X yesterday, what would be a name for these protests that are not organic?
You know, they're just Democrat-funded trouble.
I started with the idea of pro-pesters.
Instead of protesters with a letter T, it would be pester with a P as a puppy.
So pro-pesters.
But a number of people had a bunch of other suggestions, so you might want to look at those.
They're on my X feed.
Well, the Department of Justice fired James Comey's daughter.
She was an attorney who worked for the Southern District of New York, I believe.
And she handled the Epstein case and the Ghillaine Maxwell case and the Diddy case.
There's no word as to why she was fired, but one assumes it's just some kind of a revenge-y thing on top of she would be maybe, you know, anti-MAGA.
And maybe if you were in her crosshairs, you would not get a fair trial.
I don't know what the reasons were, but it's not a big surprise, right?
It's not the biggest surprise in the world.
She got fired.
And I don't think we need any reasons.
Do you care?
Obviously, there's a political element to that.
Well, the estimates for how much the Trump tariffs might bring in, and remember, they're not entirely paid by the foreign countries.
They might pay for some of it, but it's paid by the companies in the U.S. who are importing.
But the estimate is that it will bring in $300 billion in tariff revenue to the government by the end of the year.
Now, what if it turns out that it can make, I don't know, half a trillion dollars a year just on nothing but tariffs?
Suddenly, you're starting to look like you're balancing the budget.
I think there's still a billion and a half, no, a trillion and a half left that they would still need to cover.
But you're goosing the economy.
You're making some cuts to the budget.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
And you're adding tariff revenue.
So Trump is thinking he might be able to get the budget balanced within his term.
Do you believe that?
You know, I think there were lots of things we didn't believe about tariffs that are turning out to be Trump was right.
So I'd hate to say he can't do it, but it's quite a stretch to get the budget balance.
Maybe.
There's nobody else who I think could come close.
So maybe.
The former chief of staff to First Lady Jill Biden was interviewed by the congressional people who were looking into the Autopen stuff.
And he took the fifth.
He refused to answer questions about whether the White House Concealed Joe Biden's broken brain or not.
So let's do an update of all the frauds and hoaxes that we've uncovered from the Democrats.
Now, I'm not going to say the Republicans are totally innocent of all bad behavior, but here are just the ones from the Democrat side of things.
We have learned that the NGOs were mostly fraudulent money laundering situations.
Now, there would be some Republicans involved there, too, but the ones we hear about seem to be all Democrat badness.
So learning the immense fraud of the NGOs that are getting unwound at this point, that's huge.
Then we know that our protests, which we used to believe were organic, like Black Lives Matter and NT, we now know that those are just a sort of a hoax, fake, you know, organized protests.
So we know that now.
Now we've got the FBI is looking into the crossfire hurricane thing, which was the idea that Trump colluded with Russia, which we know now was just a hoax perpetrated by the Hillary campaign.
And the effort is to find out if there's a case that can be made against Obama and Brennan and the top people in the FBI.
And of course, there's already enough information that largely guarantees that it was a plot, which is maybe one of the worst things that's ever happened in this country.
Then there's the Autopen and Biden's brain and how that was all hidden.
That's one of the worst things we've ever seen.
Then there was all the law affair against Trump.
And yes, I understand that there was a jury and he was found guilty of some things.
But nobody reasonable thinks that anybody else would have been even brought to trial on any of that stuff.
So the law affair against Trump, Democrat plot uncovered.
Then there was the fine people hoax that the media contributed to.
And Biden actually ran his campaign on the fine people hoax.
Then there was the January 6th insurrection hoax, which the entire country doesn't know was a hoax yet, but obviously was.
The hoax part is not that there were agents or provocateurs in the audience.
There might have been, but I've never been really interested in that part.
The part I'm interested in is that the news never talked to anybody who was a protester to ask them why they were protesting.
The most basic thing you would want to know about that story.
Because if you ask them, they would not say, not any of them, well, we know Trump lost, but we wanted to install him like a dictator anyway.
Not a single person thought that.
They thought that Biden cheated, and they wanted to slow things down to find out if that were the case.
So that turned into massively jailing MAGA people and using against Trump.
So that's one of the worst hoaxes in American history.
Then there was a whole climate change hoax, which I think at this point you could definitely call a hoax.
There was a Hunter Biden laptop thing, the cover-up of the Biden crime family activities.
Nothing ever went anywhere on that.
And now we've got what Trump calls the Epstein hoax.
Now, Epstein, of course, was a real person who did real bad things.
So that part's not a hoax.
The hoax is that the reason that Trump and company are not giving you more information about it is that they're covering up something and maybe it's something about Trump himself.
Now that part's a hoax, the part about Trump.
There's no evidence that he was involved other than he knew Jeffrey Epstein until he decided that he had to part ways with him.
And then look at the fake news.
We've learned in the Trump era that the news was really not even trying to be real.
It wasn't even trying to be real.
And I don't think everybody knew that.
So when you put all these together, it's the most criminal looking activities I've ever seen in my life.
So the Democrat Party appears to be just a criminal organization.
Now, clearly there are also Republicans who break laws and, you know, sometimes in big ways, but I don't know of any major stories that would blame the Republicans of breaking some major laws that are real.
I mean, if there are those stories, they're usually hoaxes themselves.
So it's unbelievable that we consider this some kind of a political contest.
One side are criminals, top to bottom.
They're just criminals.
And, you know, they've got these upstanding jobs and stuff.
But to me, it looks like an organized criminal enterprise, the Democrat Party.
And I mean that with no hyperbole.
I gave you the examples, right?
If you simply accepted that most of the things I listed that we do know that the Democrats were involved with, if most of it's true, and most of it's true, of course, it looks like a criminal enterprise.
I don't know that you could do the same thing with the Republicans.
Could you make the same case that the Republicans are basically a criminal enterprise?
I don't feel like you could.
When we talk about Republicans, it's usually something like they're fighting with each other about something.
It's not that they've organized a multi-year, gigantic, organized hoax.
I don't see that.
It's only one side that seems to be doing that.
Well, here's a semi-fake news: that NPR and PBS funding has been cut by the Senate.
Now, of course, the House would have to approve of the tweaks that the Senate made, but we assume that will happen.
So the Congress will pull back $9 billion in funding, federal funding, that would have gone to NPR and PBS.
Now, the part of it that's fake news is that I think most people assume that's where all the funding comes from.
But I think the reality is it's a somewhat smallish percentage of their total operation.
So it doesn't mean NPR and PBS will go away.
Probably just means they'll work harder on their private fundraising, my guess.
President Trump apparently sidestepped some Epstein questions at his latest spray, they call it.
Some reporter, CNN reporter, asked whether he'd consider appointing a special counsel to look into the Epstein stuff.
And I think he's not opposed to it, but maybe he didn't weigh in on it.
But he does say he wants people to move on from that story.
And he says that the people demanding the Jeffrey Epstein files be released are, quote, stupid and foolish.
Now, what's interesting about that is that he's describing about half of his supporters as stupid and foolish.
Now, I'm not one of them, meaning that I've not demanded that they release more, because I'm satisfied that we elect people whose job it is to tell us if there's something we need to see.
And I like those people.
And I think that if they decided we shouldn't see something, I'm okay with that.
I don't feel like I'm the backseat driver, where if Dan Bongino says, no, there's nothing here to see, I don't feel like I need to dig into it personally.
Didn't we hire Trump to hire people, you know, to appoint people and hire people who would get what we want done?
So there's no guarantee that there isn't some dirty stuff in there that we'd like to see and we should see.
But I don't think it's stupid or foolish to ask for it.
So...
So Trump is trying to turn this into another Democrat hoax, and only part of it is a hoax.
The hoax is the part that the reason he doesn't want to release things is because he's involved.
But suppose they got some kind of special counsel to look into it.
Would you be satisfied with whatever the special counsel came up with?
Because what would happen if the CIA said, here's the deal, special counsel, it's a state secret and you're not allowed to tell anybody.
Could the special counsel say, well, I'm special counsel.
You can't tell me that.
I'm going to do it anyway.
I don't know.
I don't know if a special counsel would get us everything we need to know.
Elon Musk is still on this, and he asked Grock on X, he said there was a leak of cell phone tracking data on the island, Epstein's Island.
And he asked Grock, can you correlate that with the individuals who visited the island?
And then assess the probability that those who went to Epstein Island, despite having planes of their own, did so purely to save gas.
And Grok said, the flight logs show Bill Clinton visited Little St. James 12 plus times.
Prince Andrew was there multiple times.
Alan Dershowitz was the lawyer.
Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, they have all been there.
And Trump flew on the plane seven times, but he never went to the island.
So, and then there were a bunch of devices that were logged.
And hypothetically, you could find out who was using their cell phone on the island to confirm that they were there.
Now, if Bill Clinton went to Little St. John's 12 times, do you have any question whatsoever about what he did while he was there?
Do you really believe that Bill Clinton went to Little St. James without his wife 12 times and that he went there because he liked the beach or he liked hanging out with his friend?
Really?
There's actually no other reason that he would have gone there 12 times unless he was doing some stuff that maybe you wouldn't want to know.
So I'm wondering if Bill Clinton is the reason that these files are not fully disclosed.
Do you think it's Bill Clinton?
It might be, because he would be certainly somebody that the entire Democrat machine would want to protect, because it would be a way of protecting Hillary at the same time and, you know, sort of protecting the Democrats in general.
But I feel like if we know that Bill Clinton went to the island 12 times and then nothing is being released to us as in nothing happened, come on.
Let's be serious.
At the very least, they're covering up for Bill Clinton.
Would you agree?
Whatever else they're covering up for, I don't know.
But if you're telling me that they're not covering up for the guy who went there 12 times with Anna's wife, 12 times.
I mean, let's be serious.
Of course he was involved in things he doesn't want you to know about.
I mean, I feel like it's just screamingly obvious.
The people who were on Epstein's plane, like Trump, I feel, you know, there's no direct evidence that he did anything illegal on the plane.
And I guess they lived in about the same place and traveled back to New York City a lot.
So sometimes it was just, I don't know, just easier or want to hang out with his friend or whatever.
I don't know.
But what we know from Dershowitz is that there was no client list per se.
Remember, Dershowitz was Epstein's lawyer, so he knows more than we do.
He knows the names of the accused, so there are people who have not been named to have been accused.
He says that Trump is definitely not accused.
There's nothing about Trump there.
That's an accusation in the files.
And he believes that the CIA were not involved with Epstein because Epstein would have mentioned it to his lawyer, who was Dershowitz, if he wanted to have the best leniency.
To which I say, really?
Do you believe that the CIA would agree that he was working, that they were working with Epstein if the topic was underage children?
I don't think so.
I think that if the CIA were involved in that operation, that if Epstein gave up the CIA and said, oh, you know, not only is Epstein himself doing these illegal underage women things, but the CIA is part of the operation.
Do you think he would throw the CIA under the bus and say, yeah, they're trafficking children?
If they were.
I'm not saying they were, but if they were?
So I'm not buying Dershowitz's explanation on this.
I'm not buying the explanation that if he was working with the CIA, he would have mentioned it.
You would mention it if you were working with the CIA to spy on Russia.
Well, then you would mention it.
Or to get secrets from China.
Well, then you would definitely mention it to your lawyer.
But if the context is did you do some of the worst things that the public can imagine, sex trafficking of minors, do you think that even Epstein would give up the CIA?
Because it seems like they would have to kill him if he did.
Well.
And then I guess I would take some fact-checking on this next point I'm going to make.
Did Dershowitz say that Epstein was not involved with an intelligence entity?
Because he would have told Dershowitz so he could get a better deal.
But would that include if he worked with Mossad?
If Epstein had worked with Mossad, and I don't know that he did, but if he did, how would that get him a better plea deal in the United States?
That doesn't seem connected, does it?
So can Dershowitz really say, well, and he didn't say this, but could he say, I know he wasn't working with Mossad or MI6 or the Saudis because he would have mentioned it to be his lawyer so he could get a better deal.
How would you get a better deal if you were working for the intelligence agency of another country?
That would be the opposite of getting a good deal, right?
So I feel like Dershowitz is finding some clever ways to say that Epstein didn't have that intelligence contact, but it doesn't sound believable.
So judge for yourself.
All right.
And then Mike Benz, who's also on the case here with the Epstein story, he notes that there is a normal and routine thing that the press does and the CIA does when somebody is alleged to have worked with them.
Apparently there's a database that you can search for somebody's name to find out if they work for the CIA.
Now I think only the CIA has access to it, but it's fairly routine that people get blamed as being a CIA asset.
So the CIA also doesn't know, you know, at some levels of management, they don't even know who's working there because there's so many secrets.
So they have a system where if there's something in the news that says some character works for the CIA, they can type that person's name into their database and then they can make a statement later saying, no, he's not ours.
Or if it is theirs, they can say, no comment.
And Mike Benz has some way that he can check to find out that there has been no name search for Jeffrey Epstein, despite it being the main question that's been in the news for years.
And he's having trouble believing that this search was never done because it's the most routine thing you would do.
And since it's such a high-profile case, of course you would do it on this one.
But the evidence is it wasn't done.
Why would that be?
Well, we can only think one reason.
Trump was meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain, who really looked like he liked Trump.
You know, they were sitting together in the Oval Office, and whenever Trump turned to him, he would have this big smile on his face, and he laughed at his jokes and stuff.
So he looks like he's getting along with Trump well.
But Trump answered questions about all manner of things, and he said that the press should be focusing on Biden and the Autopen, not the Epstein stuff.
All right, here's the thing.
When Trump tries so hard to tell us that we should not talk about Epstein, isn't he winking as hard as you can?
Yes, there are secrets there.
I know the secrets.
I'm not going to tell you, and I'm not even going to tell you why I can't Tell you.
Let's just please move on.
So, when I agree with that strategy of moving on, people say, Oh, you're covering up for the what are you doing?
You're covering up for the pedos.
No, I'm simply saying that if we'll never know the real answer, we should default to a process you're comfortable with.
A process that I'm comfortable with is that we elected people to make these decisions for us.
And apparently, Trump has made the decision for us that we're not going to see much more, even though he acts like he's open to it.
I don't think we'll see more.
Whatever it is that he's covering up, and obviously he's covering up something, is important.
And we hired him to make the important decisions for us.
We did not hire him to tell us everything that he knows because there would be lots of topics where he knows things you're not supposed to know.
So that's my summary.
If we can't know for sure, and we can't, what's the real story, the only thing you can be comfortable with is who's in charge of deciding if you know.
And it's Trump.
I'm comfortable knowing that he's lying.
Can anybody else say the same thing?
I know he's lying.
He's obviously lying.
It could not be more obvious.
It's so obvious that he's lying that it makes it feel like he wants us to know he's lying.
Because it's easier for me to move on if I know he's lying.
Right?
Because if I know that he's decided to keep it from me and the public, then I say, well, that's your decision.
You get to make that decision.
And then I'm willing to move on.
Would justice be served?
Probably not.
Trump also has this new phrase he uses a lot, that the U.S. was considered a dead country before he got in.
Nothing was happening.
And now it's the hottest country.
That is good persuasion.
He says it a lot, so it's really sinking in.
So he's persuading other countries that might want to invest with the U.S. or get on board with us.
He's persuading them with his hypnosis that we're not like we used to be.
And now it's, you know, the U.S. is the place to invest and the one to follow and the one that's doing all the good stuff.
And there's a basis for that.
So it's not like it's a crazy thing to say.
So I love his persuasion on that, from dead to hottest.
Let's compare that to one of the stars of the Democrat Party, Stacey Abrams, who is now calling Trump an autocrat.
All right.
Compare these two persuasions.
The U.S. went from a dead country to the hottest country.
Okay, that's just A-plus.
Because everybody knows what dead means.
Everybody knows what hottest means.
And there's enough basis that people can say, yeah, I can see that.
I see why you're saying that.
But when Stacey Abrams says Trump is an autocrat, why don't you go do an interview on the street and ask people if they know what an autocrat is?
If they do, give them question number two.
Do you know what an oligarch is?
Probably not.
Number three, what does it mean to be an authoritarian?
Maybe a third of the country knows what that means.
What about the plutocrats?
Yeah, what about the plutocrats?
Why is it that the Democrats have no sense whatsoever of what a regular human being would be persuaded by?
Pencrats.
That's funny.
Auto-Pencratz.
Well, Trump says that Coca-Cola has agreed with his suggestion to make America healthy again by removing what they were using for sugar and putting in real cane sugar.
So I guess that's for the non-diet version of Coke.
But I was not aware that whatever Coca-Cola was using instead of real cane sugar, I was not aware that it's dangerous and that real cane sugar would be healthy.
So I don't understand that story at all.
But if RFK Jr. agrees that this would make that drink healthier, all right.
Okay.
But I do like when Trump brags about successes, because that feeds into his, we're the hottest country and everything's going right.
And I love it when he does that.
I love it when Trump is a salesperson for the country, which is a lot like being a salesperson for his own administration.
He should be doing that and he should be talking it up like crazy.
And nobody does it better.
He is the best salesperson I've ever seen.
And he's selling the country.
He's doing a good job.
But meanwhile, in the Palisades, where there was that big fire, apparently nothing's happening to rebuild, basically.
Rebuilding after the fire is almost nothing.
And they're thinking it would take four years to get things approved and rebuilt.
Four years.
And all of it because California is a bureaucratic red tape woke mess.
Apparently, there's some real movement on this Russia collusion hoax investigation that the FBI and I assume the DOJ are doing.
So I was reading in Real Clear Investigations, Paul Sperry was writing, that there's been meetings and there's new information on RussiaGate.
New documents have been released.
There's a new secret 200-page congressional audit.
I feel like this is looking like something might happen.
As in the idea that the Democrats organized a RICO criminal attempt to lawfare and disgrace Trump and get him out of the government and get him out of the election, it looks like it's all documented.
So, you know, unlike the Epstein thing, where there's nothing to look at, we just have a lot of assumptions and speculation.
It looks like this whole Russia hoax thing, there's going to be memos and handwritten memos and a whole chain of command where you can see the entire criminal enterprise.
So I don't know how far this could go, but is there a possibility that Brennan would be put in jail?
There is.
Yeah, there is.
It would be tough.
I think the odds are way against it, but it's possible.
So if I were John Brennan, I'd be worried a lot.
You know, we get new inflation numbers in the country on a regular basis, just got some that look kind of good.
But would you be surprised to learn that economists say that our inflation data is all bullshit?
Does that surprise anybody?
That the data that they use to figure out if our prices went up?
So part of it is a labor shortage.
So the way they check prices is have a little army of people call certain places and say, what are you charging for this or that?
And then they compile it.
When they don't have the information, they estimate it.
They estimate it.
How exactly would you estimate the price of a thing without checking any base source?
You just make it up, right?
So it sounds to me like some of the inflation numbers are literally just pulled down to somebody's ass.
So I think the administration in charge probably can make that inflation number just about anything they want because it's sort of made up and based on assumptions and stuff.
And of course, what I say when we find out that the inflation numbers are probably BS, I say, wait until you find out about the climate models.
Wait until you find out how many estimates are in the climate models.
If you're worried about the inflation numbers not being perfectly accurate, oh, wait, you find out about temperature.
Yeah, there are some estimates there.
Zoran Mamdani had a meeting with a bunch of important business CEOs, and they were asking him about his use of the phrase globalize the intifada, which is taken commonly as a call to violence toward Israel and Jewish people.
And Mamdani claimed that for him, the slogan is not about that violence, but it reflects a protest against what he called the Israeli occupation of Gaza and not an endorsement of violence.
So he says he'll still be in favor of the idea of that he's opposed to the occupation of Gaza, as he would call it, but he does not endorse anything about it that is violence.
Now remember what I said about whoever gets to decide what the definition of something is is in charge.
So here is Zoran trying to make us accept his definition of what globalize the intifada means.
If he can get us to accept that definition, then he probably has a good chance of getting elected.
And it looks like he's winning.
But do you buy that?
How many of you think that that phrase is sort of innocent and it's only talking about the occupation?
It's not really believable.
So I don't think that he has the power to redefine that.
So it means that at the moment he's not in charge of you because you still have your own definition and you would be willing to use it in public if he had to.
But he's trying to redefine it to get power over you.
And so far, not as successful.
And then he was asked about whether he still supports defunding the police, which is something he had said in the past.
And he decided to avoid the question.
Avoid the question.
How in the world would all these top CEOs like Jamie Diamond and a bunch of people like that, how in the world are they going to back this guy?
Well, we don't know if they will or not.
But apparently a bunch of out-of-state people are donating to Mom Donnie's campaign.
He's got $350,000 since his primary win from out-of-state.
Now he gets also in-state, but that's a lot.
And I'm wondering if Republicans are donating to him.
Are there any Republicans who are so Machiavellian that they say to themselves, you know, if we let the Communists completely destroy New York City, the Democrat Party will be dead for a generation?
Is there any Republican with enough money that they actually think that?
It's like, well, you know, I don't want to destroy New York City, but they apparently want to destroy themselves.
So we'll just give them the tools to do it.
And then nobody will vote for a Democrat ever Again.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Well, Adam Schiff, who used to say no one is above the law, now says that Trump's attacks on Schiff are more dangerous than ever because it involves the law.
So Adam Schiff, who apparently broke the law when it came to saying what was his primary residence, because he had two primary residents, which is not a thing.
It's illegal.
But he's saying the real problem is Trump's abuse of law, not the fact that he broke it in the most obvious way.
Allegedly.
According to the Wall Street Journal, vigilante groups are taking control of Russia's streets because so many of their police officers have been shipped to the war.
Now, the way the story reads, the reason so many police officers in Russia have been sent to the war is because it pays better to be a soldier than it does to be a police officer.
To which I say, how much more does it pay that you would go into a meat grinder where you can't walk outside without a drone killing you?
What police officer would give up their police job to voluntarily go to the front lines of the Ukraine-Russia war that's just grinding up all the humans?
I don't know about this story.
I believe the vigilante groups, and I believe that there may be not enough cops, but I don't believe that the cops were mostly leaving for the high pay of being killed on the front lines.
That doesn't seem doesn't seem likely, does it?
All right, people, that's all I got for now.
Sorry if I went long.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the locals subscribers, who I call Beloved.
