God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, President Trump, Trump Harvard Dispute, Trump's Problem Monetization Skill, Sam Altman, ChatGPT Remembers, Russia Collusion Hoax, MSM Hoax Collusion, Gina Haspel, Josh Hawley Tariffs Rebate, Axios Democrat Midterms, Mike Benz, Republicans Fund NED, ICA Susan Miller, Drone Tanks, Gaza Starvation, Keir Starmer, Palestinian State Recognition, Word Definition Debate Technique, Genocide Definition, Israel Hamas War, EU Trade Deal, Bill Maher Tariffs Certainty, James Carville, Democrat Talent Bucketload, Oligarch Taxing Tariffs, Sidney Sweeney American Eagle, Cincinnati Brutal Attack, Imposter Syndrome, 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.
May I remind you that you're the sexiest person in your house right now?
Probably.
Okay.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating this experience to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
Well, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard shell, a cysteine of canteen, juggernaut, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope of being at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Well, if you were one of the subscribers to the Dilberg comic, which would mean you were either an ex subscribing or on locals, you would know that Wally has done the impossible.
He figured out how to not work at work, but then he got a Tesla self-driving car so that he doesn't have to work at his commute, and then he doesn't have to work at his job, and then when he goes home, he doesn't have to work on his commute again.
Wally finally figured out how to do no effort whatsoever all day long.
Thanks to Tesla.
Well, I wonder if there's any scientific news about studies that you didn't need to do because you could have just asked me.
Oh, here's one, according to Science News, Simon Macon is writing, that if you show people sick faces, it primes the immune system to repel invaders.
So all you need to do is show people pictures of sick-looking faces, and it will cause your immune system to kick in so that you don't become one of those sick-looking people.
Now, how did I know that that was probably going to be true?
It's a hypnosis thing.
A hypnotist would know that your body works in two directions.
One, if you're happy, it might make you smile.
But if you smile when you're not happy, it might help you make you happy.
So your body is sort of a two-way system.
But it does make sense to me that if your body recognized a threat by looking at somebody who looked unhealthy and you think to yourself, oh, I can catch that maybe.
I can see how your body would have evolved to automatically go to defensive mode.
So next time, just ask me.
Well, there's a new article from the University of Michigan, a new study, that ultra-processed foods trigger addictive behaviors and that it meets a clinical criteria.
So we might be approaching the time when addiction includes more than alcohol and illicit drugs.
It might include ultra-processed foods.
Now, I told you, well, some of you, about my experience several days ago, which is I was trying to gain some weight because I lost too much weight battling this.
Well, you know.
So I'd lost too much weight.
So I was just trying to gain it back as quickly as possible.
And I said to myself, I'll bet you I could eat ice cream, which I hadn't had in 25 years.
And I thought, well, I'll just eat some ice cream.
And I ended up, I probably had a quart.
I think a container about this big.
I just ate it right to the bottom.
And I could not stop.
It was addictive.
And because I don't normally eat food that is processed or highly processed, I'm not really exposed to addictive foods.
I just avoid them.
Hey there, Gary.
Come on up.
So after avoiding all the sugary addictive foods for years, really, I don't even keep them in the house, when I finally let myself experience the ultra-processed foods, I was so aware that my body had been taken over.
The experience was like being in a robot and watching the arms and the legs and the mouth and stuff.
I couldn't stop.
It was every bet an addiction.
It totally took over my brain.
So the only way that I can avoid stuff like that is I can't have it in the house.
Otherwise, it is just too strong.
Well, 21 states, I assume these are the red states, have warned JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan, and BlackRock's Larry Fink that both of those banker types, those money guys, need to get rid of their woke environmental requirements.
So a letter was signed by 26 state financial officers, and they ordered those firms to take five concrete actions to demonstrate their commitment to a fiduciary model grounded in financial integrity, not political advocacy.
So in other words, they wanted to make sure that the big money people were making decisions based on their customers and not making decisions based on climate change.
And, you know, I want to change the world and have more diversity and stuff like that.
So the pendulum has completely reversed.
And now it's, if you're doing those things, you're somebody who needs to change what you're doing.
All right.
Well, you've been following the dispute between the Trump administration and Harvard.
Harvard was too woke and too racist.
And now Harvard watched what happened when Columbia, was it Columbia?
Which is the one that, yeah, Columbia just settled for 200 million plus.
And now Harvard is indicating that it might be willing to settle up with the administration for as much as $500 million.
Now, I don't know if that's true because this is a sword reporting that feels a little mind-reading, readerish.
So I don't know that that's a real number.
But Newsmax is reporting it, that they might be ponying up $500 million just to resolve it and to get their federal funding released.
And so once again, I am impressed at how President Trump can monetize his problems.
Not only will the universities, ideally, you know, address their racism, but they will also pay a bunch of money into the treasury so that Trump can lower the deficit.
I just love that.
No other president has really ever tried to monetize all of his biggest problems, but Trump is doing it one after another.
And every time he does it, you know, you kind of fail to notice that it's part of a pattern that he's just monetizing everything.
It's very impressive.
So you want to be frightened about something?
You should be.
So Sam Altman warns, I think he was on Theo Vaughn's podcast, and he warns that ChatGPT remembers its conversations with you.
It also remembers what you've asked it about.
So if ever there were some kind of lawsuit in which it became necessary to find out what you've been saying and thinking lately, they could, with a warrant, they could access all of your questions to AI.
So how many people do you think have contemplated breaking the law and asked AI how to do it effectively and get away with it?
I don't know how many, but I'm guessing a lot of people.
I'm guessing that a lot of people have asked AI how to get away with a crime.
A lot of people.
At the very least, you know, how to hide your tax money illegally or how to do something illegally.
So I'm proud to say that I knew that was a risk from the start.
And so I do not use Google search engines to look for anything that I wouldn't want the entire world to know about.
You should adopt that standard.
Let me say it again.
Don't use a search engine or AI to look for anything, anything at all, that you wouldn't want the whole world to see publicly.
Because the odds of them someday seeing it publicly, not very bad.
There's a good chance they will.
So follow that advice.
So you may have noticed that the whole Russia hoax collusion story should be the biggest story in America because now even more than we already knew, we know that I think we know it.
I feel like the information is sufficient at this point for me to call it a fact.
It's a fact that Obama and Brennan and Clapper and Comey and a bunch of others colluded to overthrow the government of the United States.
To me, based on what we've been told by Tulsi Gabbard and what we know from other reporting, I believe that that's no longer in question, is it?
Is there even a question about whether those cats I mentioned were trying to change the result of elections or get rid of Trump once he got elected?
There's no doubt about it.
Right.
So the question is, why is it not a bigger story?
If you're following only the news on the political right, you think it's a big story.
But nobody on the political right is changing their opinion about any of it because we already knew, we kind of already knew it, right?
But the people on the left who don't know anything about it and indeed still think that the dossier was real and that Mueller proved there was collusion.
If you talk to Democrats, they will tell you that.
That Mueller proved collusion, that Russia tried to help Trump, and that's all there is to the story.
They'll have no idea that the worst political actors in our lifetime, maybe ever, pulled off the most despicable coup attempt.
And it's just not really something their news is interested in.
Now, it makes sense that the mainstream news wouldn't cover much of it.
They've all mentioned it, of course, so it's not like somebody's completely ignored it.
But they can't really say what's true because that would implicate themselves.
And they're already implicated enough with the Biden-brain cover-up.
Imagine if they go from the Biden-brain cover-up to, well, I guess we also covered up the Russia collusion hoax.
Yeah, that's the other thing we did.
We covered that up.
And now they're covering it up again.
How in the world can they get away with that?
And the answer is, because it's a complicated story.
All you need is a complicated story with lots of actors and actions.
And, you know, it goes across time.
You combine the complicated story with all of the people on the mainstream media for their own use, their own reasons, so they don't have to be talked into it.
Minimizing the story and acting like there's nothing there.
That's all you need to make it go away.
So what's interesting is the only way this story, which is the most relevant story in American experience at the moment, it's the biggest one, but it's totally going away.
And the Democrats will succeed in disappearing it right in front of you.
And their voters won't even imagine that it matters when they go to the voting booth.
It won't even be on their minds at all.
Won't be in the top 20 of things they're thinking about.
The only thing that would change that is a perp walk or actually arresting Obama or Brennan or Clapper or Comey.
So, you know, I've said before that normally I'm not too keen on one administration punishing the last administration because, you know, that's a slippery slope to complete chaos.
But that's only if you're the one who's starting it.
If the other side started it and they made it clear that they will do absolutely anything, including the fine people hoax, including covering up Biden's brain, including saying things that would get Trump assassinated, and including the Russia hoax, there's absolutely nothing that they wouldn't do to retain power.
So anyway, that's happening.
The only way to keep it in the news is to arrest a high-level person.
So if I were Trump and his team, I would be thinking, who should we go after first?
And somebody needs to get arrested.
Now, that doesn't mean they'll go to jail.
I think the odds of any of them going to jail are pretty low because there's a thing called lawyers and there may be some credible deniability.
And I feel like they may have created a situation where they can weasel it, sort of like they did the Hunter laptop, where they say, we never said it was Russian.
No, we never said that.
That's what you believe we said.
But if you look at our actual words, what we said was, it has all the look of being a Russian product.
We didn't say it was, which would have been wrong.
We just said it really looks like it.
So there's going to be some version of that that would probably be a sufficient defense, you know, at least with the jury trial.
Anyway, Sean Davis is pointing out that Gina Haspel, who had been the head of the CIA, she reported prior to the 2020,
oh, I guess Sean Davis was writing about this all the way in 2020, that she personally blocked the release of key documents exposing the Russia collusion hoax, and that she was personally banking on a Trump election loss to keep all the evidence hidden.
Now, I don't know exactly how Sean Davis has that exclusive scoop, but he's a credible guy.
So if he says so, I believe it.
So could that be much worse than having the CIA, the CIA working against the country?
Well, that's about as bad as it gets.
All right.
Senator Hawley, Josh Hawley, is introducing a bill to take the $600 million, not million, billion, right?
$600 billion that we've made from tariffs or that we will make from tariffs by the end of the year and give rebate.
Oh no, he's talking about a $600 tariff rebate check.
Sorry, it was written.
So he wants to give rebate checks based on all the tariff money coming in.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that Trump's base wants to get a tariff rebate check?
It would only be for people under a certain income.
And do you think they'd rather do that or have it go toward paying down the national debt?
Well, the answer is, I'm pretty sure most Republicans would say pay down that debt.
Remember I told you that Congress is so broken that no matter how much money Doge could save, And this applies to the tariffs, no matter how much money the tariffs make, that instead of seeing it as a reduction in your expenses or a reduction in your deficit, that Congress would see it as a source of money to spend.
That's what this is.
So, Josh Hawley is seeing this tariff stuff as a source of money to spend to, what, directly buy some votes by just sending people a check.
I assume it polls well, because Hawley is pretty smart.
So he wouldn't suggest it unless he probably had some internal polling or something that says, oh yeah, if you send people a check, they remember the check and they might want another one.
So it'll help Republicans get elected.
But I'm opposed to it.
I can understand why they'd want to do it, if it's good for them getting re-elected.
According to Axios, Democrats have a reason to be optimistic about the 2026 midterm elections.
So here are the reasons that Axios gives for why Democrats would do well in the midterms.
Now, keep in mind that you don't need any reasons.
We have such a long track record of the party that's not in power gaining seats in midterm elections.
So it almost doesn't matter who the president is and probably it's just going to go that usual way.
However, if ever there was a time that it wouldn't go the usual way, it would be this time.
So the historical trend, which, you know, even if it had been 100% of the time up until now, this would be the one time you could legitimately say, well, this situation is fundamentally different.
And what's fundamentally different is that the favorability of Democrats is at an all-time low, and that Trump is having the presidency of all presidencies.
Now, not everybody's going to give him as high marks as his base, but we'll talk about that.
Even the Democrats are starting to say, all right, well, okay, I got to admit, that was pretty good what you did there, Trump.
So that's a situation that's very rare.
Will it be enough?
I don't know.
But listen to Axios' five things that would make Democrats have a better midterm, right?
They say the Big Beautiful Bill is polling terribly.
Well, I think people would only care about individual things that are in the bill.
I don't think they would vote or show up to vote or decide not to stay home because of the big beautiful bill.
Does that one sound persuasive to you?
That because people don't like the big beautiful bill, that more Democrats will show up for the midterms?
I don't feel like it.
I feel like if you had a conversation with any Democrat, you stop them on the street, you go, tell me about Trump and why you'd want Democrats to win the midterm.
Would any of them say, well, I'm still mad about that big, beautiful bill that I don't even know what was in it?
I don't feel like it.
So I'm going to disagree with Axios on their first one.
Number two, custom Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which is part of the big, beautiful bill, that to be mad at that.
That's a possibility.
But if we go another year and the people who vote have not personally lost their health care, do you think they'll have as much interest in it?
It will be true that illegal non-citizens will lose their coverage.
It will be true that some able-bodied people who should have done something more to make sure that they got their health care, i.e.
get off the couch and get a job.
Are those the people who are going to vote?
If you were so lazy that you wouldn't even get a job so that you can also have health care, do you think you're voting?
I don't know.
So it's possible that while in concept, the Democrats would be very against anybody losing health care, but they might just forget about it because they might not know anybody who actually loses their health care and didn't have it coming.
So we'll see.
So that one could make a difference, but not 100%.
Then there's the fact that prices are still high under Trump and he had promised to lower them.
Let me ask you this.
How many of you think that a president has any control over prices?
Why are we even talking about it?
The only thing a president can do is not overspend.
That's it.
They basically have one button.
Don't run up the debt so we have to print a bunch of money.
Nothing else.
Now, Trump also has the energy thing, which is an inspired way to look at it.
So if he gooses energy production and he has been, let's say, judicious with the debt so that it's not spiraling out of control and he's doing some doge things, that's all he can do.
Well, if you look at things like eggs, the government can subsidize one area of expenses for a while, or they can change some regulations so that one part of the economy improves like eggs.
But basically, you don't have really any tools.
You're just doing more energy because that lowers all the energy costs.
And you're, yeah.
So, I don't know.
I do think that people have an affordability problem and that that will matter, even though it shouldn't, maybe.
Then there's Trump's deportation because he's sending back more than just the worst first.
But I have not heard anybody complain about it yet.
Have you?
Is there anybody in your real world who's complaining that too many of the wrong kind of people are being shipped out of the country?
I've complained.
Nobody I know has been shipped out of the country.
Nobody I know has been deported.
But I do have a problem with somebody who's lived and worked here for 20 years being deported.
I'm not going to hide that just because I know that's not popular to say on this broadcast.
And you might have a different opinion, and I would respect that.
But the one thing I'll tell you is that the more personal contact you have with members of the immigrant community, there's no way that doesn't affect you.
And I've had a lot of contact.
So, you know, if you had as much contact as I did over the course of your adult life, you would probably agree with me.
But most of you haven't.
So on paper, if there were no humans involved just on paper, I would say, yeah, of course, deport everybody.
Absolutely.
But once it becomes personal, well, it's harder.
All right.
Then the fifth thing from Axios is that Democratic enthusiasm to go vote in the midterms is much higher than Republican enthusiasm.
But I wonder if that's something you can measure yet.
Because when the midterms get close, Trump is going to get really active.
And even though he's not in that election, he's going to make sure you think it's the end of the world if you don't vote.
So I would kind of suspect that Republican enthusiasm for voting might be a lot higher once we get there.
But also, I don't know that Republicans need enthusiasm to vote.
Democrats might.
They might need to get whipped up to vote.
But I feel like Republicans vote because it's a civic duty.
And, you know, the stuff you want.
So I don't know.
I don't know if enthusiasm really tells you what Republicans are going to do.
I just have an open question on that.
According to Mike Benz, I guess the National Endowment for Democracy, better known as NED, got fully funded by the House Republicans.
Trump had asked for that to be zeroed out and the entire National Endowment for Democracy to be eliminated.
Now, I can't explain this story as much as Mike Benz could.
So let me say, if you're not following Mike Benz, you probably are just flying blind trying to understand why everything is the way it is.
You really need to follow him.
It's completely, it'll just spin your brain around in your head.
But I think the bottom line is that this National Endowment for Democracy may have been something that the CIA uses to further its goals.
And maybe that's the reason they're keeping it.
I don't know.
So I can't give you the full story.
I'll refer you to Benz on that.
So Trump is now suggesting that the Democrats might have planted some names in the Epstein files.
He said those files were run by the worst scum on earth.
That's when Biden was in control.
The whole thing is a hoax.
They ran the files.
I was running against somebody that ran the files.
If they had something, something bad for Trump, they would have released.
I think that's true.
And he says now they can easily put something in the files that's phony.
Well, to me, it seems like he's inoculating us just in case there's something in there that doesn't look good for Trump.
And my guess is apparently he's mentioned a bunch of times, but never went to the island.
There's no direct evidence that he was involved in anything illegal or unethical with Epstein.
But there might be, there might be something in there that he doesn't know about.
So he's just inoculating us by saying, but you know, they could put fake stuff in there.
All right.
Apparently, the CIA person who put together the Russia report about the Steele dossier, or did she just put together a Russia report?
She led the team that created the draft Intel Community Assessment on Russian meddling in 2016.
And she's still all in, and she still embraces the Steele dossier.
And in her social media for the past, she's referred to Trump as a dictator and MAGA as Nazis.
So that's who was giving you your objective assessment of Russia.
Someone who thought Trump was Hitler.
And apparently she's now doing some interviews.
Susan Miller, recently retired CIA counterintelligence officer.
So she was tight with Brennan, I guess, putting that stuff together.
And apparently, Susan Miller, The CIA person, according to Paul Sperry, is best friends with Caroline Kennedy, and she also helped write the Mueller report.
Unbelievable.
So, again, I say, it's so obvious that this was a coup attempt.
Somebody needs to get arrested.
They really, really do.
Well, Trump says he's now shortening the time he's given to Vladimir Putin.
He's given him 50 days, some of those days had expired, but he's now reducing it to 10 to 12 days to reach a ceasefire with Ukraine because Trump says we just don't see any progress being made.
And then he's talking about how if there's no progress made in 10 or 12 days, that they'd put these gigantic secondary tariffs on them.
So the secondary tariff is a tariff on people who are doing business with Russia, because we've already tariffed Russia directly, I guess.
So there's nothing left to tariff.
So what if the 12 days go by, and then what if Trump does in fact put in these secondary tariffs?
That would be kind of devastating.
But what if they don't work?
What then?
What then?
Because do you think that Russia is going to cave because of the secondary tariffs?
Or is it more likely they'll just find ways to avoid being detected and they'll do as much trading as they always did?
Or maybe China will say, we're going to tariff you if you tariff us 500%.
So I don't feel like there's really a path to a solution.
But he might be monetizing it.
It might be that that's all it is.
He's just monetizing the war a second way, because he's already monetized it by not providing money to Ukraine, but only selling weapons to Europe to give to Ukraine.
So he's monetized it one way.
If he monetizes it with these secondary tariffs, he's monetized it a second way.
But there's no real chance that that's going to settle anything, right?
Meanwhile, in a related story, Russia is testing a remote-controlled tank.
And it's a tank that's hardened against drones, bombing, et cetera.
So remember my prediction that the Ukraine-Russia war, at least the front line, will turn into an all-robot war.
So now Russia will be able to have a tank brigade.
I don't know if I'm using that word right, but a bunch of tanks that can attack a position and there won't be a single person in the tanks.
And there'll just be fully functional tanks.
So yeah, it's going to be robot on robot.
You may be following the story in Gaza in which a lot of people are saying that there's a famine there, that the poor citizens who are still in that area are having some starvation.
There were reports of people dying of starvation.
But I remind you that all information coming out of the war zone is unreliable.
It doesn't matter who's saying it.
It doesn't matter if it's Israel or Israel's enemy.
You can't really believe anything that comes out of the war zone, especially on stuff like this.
However, when Trump was asked about it, he said there's no way that that's a fake because he's seeing the actual children on TV.
He goes, they're hungry.
He goes, you can't fake starvation.
And I think Trump is right about that.
So if he's looking at the images of the actual citizens and they look like they're starving, that's not something you'd be wrong about.
So my guess is that while Israel might be trying as hard as they can to avoid it, there's probably some starvation happening.
That's a lie, Scott.
We all know it's happening.
Yeah.
So anyway, so I think as soon as you say we all know that something's happening, then you're not a serious person.
Because you can't really know too much about what's happening over there, even if you think it's really obvious.
Probably we don't.
But there's more on this topic.
Apparently, and then Trump quite reasonably is talking about the need to feed the people.
So that's the right focus.
I like it when he does that.
Trump gave Keir Starmer of the UK what the Independent is calling a green light to recognize the Palestinian state.
You probably heard that France decided to recognize Palestinian state or promote a two-state solution, I guess.
So now Starmer wants to do that.
It's not a done deal.
But he checked with Trump and Trump said, you could do that.
Now, that's interesting to me because I don't remember Trump ever saying he favored or did not favor a two-state solution, which is weird that I don't know that, because that would be the most important thing to know, right?
Does anybody know?
Has Trump said anything recently about a two-state solution versus a one-state solution?
I don't know.
However, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what anybody else wants because Israel is the only one that's going to decide.
And I don't think that they're anywhere near wanting a two-state solution.
So we'll see how Many people line up against Israel's one-state solution, and it might be the United States.
It's entirely possible that Trump has the capital.
I hope you can't hear my cat with this cat toy over there.
Trump has the political capital to say, you know what, you really need to make a two-state solution.
Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor or that's a good idea.
What I say is I'm American, so they just need to work it out.
And I will just observe.
I will not condemn, and I will not recommend.
Trump does say he wants the Netanyahu to, quote, soften his tactics in Gaza.
He may have to do it a different way.
We don't know what that different way would look like.
But here's the big question.
I'm going to teach you something about debate today.
And you may have heard me say this before.
But if somebody tries to win a debate by forcing you to accept their definition of a word, that's not a debate.
That's not a reason.
That's somebody trying to weasel you into winning a debate by getting you to accept their own definition of a word.
For example, with abortion, if you say that's a living human person as soon as the body produces whatever the fetus is, if you say it's a person, then it sounds like murder if you do an abortion.
If you say it's a fetus, then it doesn't sound so much like murder.
So with a lot of our debates, we try to win the debate by insisting that somebody accept our definition of something.
For example, in the pandemic, if I say to you, the experts have created a kind of a shot that can help you in various ways.
But you say, no, it's an experimental shot.
If you can make me accept that it's experimental, then you've won the argument.
There's nothing else to say.
So here again, with Israel, the word genocide is becoming the debate.
So if you could get the people who disagree with you to accept the definition of genocide that you want to push forward, then you could say Israel is involved in genocide.
But if somebody else can get you a definition that doesn't say that, then they can win their argument just by definitions again.
So I went to Grok and asked it to define genocide, because I was pretty sure I didn't know exactly the definition.
So let me tell you what Grok says is genocide.
And then you can say, is that happening over in Gaza?
So it would include killing members of the group, but that's, you know, not by itself.
That wouldn't be enough by itself, because there's lots of wars where people are killing members of the other group, but those wars are not all genocide.
So that would be an indicator, but it wouldn't be enough by itself.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm, that would be in the same category of causing harm to people.
Inflicting conditions to bring about physical destruction.
Is that happening in Gaza?
Is Israel inflicting conditions to bring about physical destruction?
Yes.
Yes, they are.
But that doesn't mean it's genocide.
We're going to look at all the definition before we decide.
What about preventing births within the group that's being targeted?
Well, there's no evidence that Israel is intentionally preventing births, but I would guess there are fewer of them under the current situations.
I don't know.
It could be wrong.
It might go the other way.
But again, these are not, you must have checked all the boxes.
So it's not an every box situation.
And then forcibly transferring children to another group.
There may be some of that for orphans, but it doesn't seem like that's a major element that's going on.
And then here's the important part.
For something to be legally categorized as genocide, listen to this part.
This is the most important part.
You would have to prove intent.
So if Israel's intent is self-defense, and all of their documents say that, and all their public statements say that, and you can't find any counter to that, it just looks like this is their version of what would help their self-defense.
If that's true, it's not genocide.
And as far as I know, there has not been any statement or leak or whistleblower who would say, oh, yeah, the real intention is to kill as many of the residents of Gaza as we can and depopulate it.
I don't believe you would find that.
If you did, and it was coming from the top, well, that'd be a pretty good argument that it's genocide.
But I don't believe we've seen that.
And experts are split on the question of whether scale makes a difference.
So in other words, if it's a big enough killing, then some would say, some experts would say, the size of it alone tells you their intention.
Because nobody accidentally kills millions of people of the same group.
So if it's Big enough, you don't have to ask yourself, well, is there a document that says that you intended to do it?
Well, it's so big, killing millions of people.
Obviously, you intended it.
Sort of like the Holocaust.
You don't have to ask, well, could you give us some more thinking about that Holocaust situation?
What were they thinking?
You could talk about that all day long, but the scale of it is enough to say it was a genocide.
You don't need to know too much about their inner thoughts.
So it's subjective, and I'm not going to make a determination about whether that's genocide or not.
The closest you could get is that Israel says they want total victory.
And I'm wondering, is that what Germany and Japan experienced?
Would you say that the U.S. had a genocide in Japan at the end of World War II?
Or would you say there was a genocide in Germany after Germany surrendered?
Because it got pretty ugly.
There was a lot of starvation in Germany in particular, probably in Japan.
So I'll just say this.
To me, the Hamas versus Israel situation has a weird quality, which is that if Israel were not doing what it's doing and Hamas got its way, they would create a genocide of the Israelis.
So if you're trying to determine if one side is doing a genocide, I feel like it matters, like who your target group is.
If your target group is somebody who you could reasonably, very reasonably say, if they had the power, they would genocide us.
If Hamas had the power, would they genocide Israel?
It looks like it, right?
So if you have two entities that appear like they both think their only option is to genocide the other one, do you even talk about genocide?
It just feels like it's not even the right conversation.
So it's a very special case where you've got such extremism on both sides.
It's not like a war.
It's not like a war where somebody wants to capture some territory or something like that.
You know, like Ukraine.
Ukraine's a war.
But whatever's going on in the Middle East, you got some extremism there that's not like anything else.
So I will not give you my opinion of whether genocide is happening because that would be trying to win an argument with a definition.
And the definition has enough squishiness in it and the situation is unique enough that you're trying to stop somebody who you think would genocide you if you didn't stop them.
So I would just avoid that word altogether.
Trump reminds us on Truth Social that he's, quote, not seeking a summit with Xi of China.
Now, apparently there was some reporting that says he was seeking a summit, which would make him look weak, like he's begging Xi for a meeting.
And Trump says, no, he's not seeking a summit.
He would only do that if he's invited, which he has been.
But he wants you to know it's up to him if they meet.
It's not that he's begging Xi.
It's only a few days before Trump's automatic tariffs kick in, and that would only apply to the auto.
I got a little cat situation going on here.
Come here, Gary.
Come on.
Let go of that cable.
All right.
Stop.
Stop.
Don't fight.
Say hi.
All right.
You can go down.
All right.
So we don't know what will happen when that happens, but we're hearing lovely things about the European Union deal that Trump got into.
Would you believe that people don't agree about whether it was a good deal?
So the Europeans think that America got everything and that Trump just rolled Europe and got everything.
And some smart people say that.
But here's what the deal includes.
The EU is going to pay a 15% tariff on everything.
We will have no tariffs.
So that just looks like a miracle winning.
The EU agreed to invest $600 billion in the U.S. just because Trump wanted them to.
But apparently that one's not one that will be carefully monitored.
So I feel like that's the honor system that they would spend that, they would invest $600 billion in the U.S. So I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
And that the EU will purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American military equipment.
I feel like maybe that was going to happen anyway.
And the EU commits to buying a whole bunch of our LNG, our gas, even though it's not the cheapest source for energy.
Anyway, and in exchange for what are being called concessions, the EU would get nothing.
Because apparently America did not agree to give them anything.
It just agreed what we were going to take.
Well, Schumer says it's a fake deal because some elements of this are non-binding.
So I think the commitments to buy energy and weapons and the invest 600 billion may be sort of window dressing that Trump is smart enough to put on this deal because it sounds like more of a win.
But Europe may have been cleverly understanding that he needs to announce a win, but when it comes right down to it, maybe they won't do as much of this as they say.
We'll see.
It's not binding.
According to the Brussels signal, the tariff deal in Europe will really hurt the German car makers.
So we're adding a tariff that will jack up the cost of a German car in the U.S. And here is my take.
This might be just me, but you probably know that I think one of the best-selling cars in the world is the Tesla Model Y. Is that true?
I think it's maybe one of the top-selling cars.
But when I think of what competes with Tesla, I usually think German cars.
Do you?
If you said to yourself, I'm thinking of getting one of the more expensive Teslas, what would be your second choice for a car?
Probably a German car, right?
Mercedes, BMW.
What's the other one?
And so it makes me wonder if Tesla is going to be the big winner, if it makes it look like the competing cars are going to be more expensive.
So we'll see.
Anyway, Bill Maher continues to continues to turn MAGA, but it's only like one degree per week.
Now, he would say that's not happening at all, but in his recent show, what's it called, Club Random show, he says to his guests, look, the stock market is at record highs.
I don't see a country in depression at all.
I would have thought, and I got to own it, that these tariffs were going to effing sink this economy by this time, and they didn't.
So if you're keeping track, here would be all the things that Bill Maher has now acknowledged about Trump.
One, he's not a monster in person, because they had dinner together.
Now he says, I still disagree with all of his policies, a bunch of policies, but I have to say that in person, he's not Hiller.
So that's a start.
Then correct me if I'm wrong.
Bill Maher agrees with Trump on the trans issue in sports.
He believes that Trump did a good job on the border, if not a great job.
He praised Trump for the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities.
I think Maher was way on board with that.
He likes the fact that Trump is pushing American patriotism.
I think he likes that.
And he does believe that the Republicans, weirdly, are the free speech party now, and that all the wokeness and all that stuff was coming from his own team, and that the anti-Semitism might be coming from his own side.
So I may be mischaracterizing some of his opinion there, so don't blame him if he heard it from me.
But here's what jumped out at me.
Apparently, Bill Maher had a very firm opinion about what would happen with tariffs.
And he thought it would tank the economy and that by now we would see all that chaos it caused, which he acknowledges didn't happen.
And so my question is this.
Why did he have certainty that turned out to be wrong?
Why did he have certainty about tariffs?
What would cause you to have any kind of certainty about which direction that was going to go?
You could have optimism.
You could have pessimism.
But it almost sounded like he had something closer to certainty that it was a mistake.
Where would he get that certainty?
From watching TV and watching, you know, and reading the New York Times, right?
And whatever else.
You don't get that certainty on something you've had no exposure to and nobody's ever done.
And there are smart people on both sides.
You don't get certainty from that.
Yeah, I'll say again that the wisest opinion I heard on tariffs the entire time, the wisest opinion was Dana Perino who said, can't tell.
We'll just wait and see.
No way to know.
Just wait and see.
And so I adopted her opinion.
I said the same.
It's like, don't ask me.
We've never done this.
We don't know how Trump's going to play it.
We don't know if it's just a negotiation.
We don't know if he's going to be flexible.
We don't know how many times he's going to be unpredictable and change things.
We don't know.
It could work and it might not.
So to me, that was the only reasonable take that might work.
You just don't know.
And now we know that it did.
So you just watch.
What is left of all the things that Bill Maher once thought about Trump, he also used to believe that only the Republicans doubted the elections.
And then it was Megan Kelly who showed him a compilation clip of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders doubting that Trump really won.
So he knows that.
He also knows the Fine People hoax was a hoax.
What's left?
What does he have left?
That he wishes Trump didn't cut health care?
But even the cuts to healthcare were to preserve it, not to destroy it.
So I don't know.
I don't think it's likely that Bill Maher will ever become Republican or Trump supporter.
But it's funny watching like all of the things that support his prior point of view.
One by one, each of these pillars is being tapped out.
There's nothing left, Bill.
You might as well just come to the other side because that's where all the common sense is happening.
But meanwhile, James Carville says he's not remotely worried about the future of the Democratic Party because the Democrats have, quote, bucket loads of talent coming, bucket loads.
Pam Key at Breitbart News is writing about this.
It was on, I guess, Fox News.
Had an interview with him.
He was talking to somebody on Fox News on the story.
This is the name of the show.
And what do you think?
He said, I think the hand-wringing, well, I agree to the image of the party is at an all-time low.
He goes, there's a bucketload of talent coming online.
Now, can you explain to me why the Democrats are hiding all this talent?
So according to Carville, their party is in complete life support.
It's basically the lowest it's been in 35 years.
And according to Carville, waiting in the sidelines is a bucket load of highly talented people.
What is it that's causing them not to make themselves known right now?
Do they think that if they start too early, they'll peak too soon?
How in the world could you say that they have a bucket load of talent, but they're all hiding?
All the talented people are, well, maybe I'll just hide over here or ride it out while I'm hiding.
No, James Carville, they would not be hiding if they had bucket loads of talent.
They would not be hiding.
Well, according to the economists who are looking at the tariffs so far, do you know who is paying for the tariffs?
Is the end user paying for them in the form of higher prices?
That's what Democrats said would happen.
Is the importing American company paying for it with lower margins, profit margins?
Or is the foreign company paying for it by just paying for it?
Because we won't buy it unless they pay it.
So which of those is paying for it?
Well, the early indication is that the American importers are absorbing most of the costs.
Not all of it, but most of it.
Now, if that's the case, what would be another way to describe that?
The big American companies, also small ones, but the big ones would be the biggest bang for the buck, they're eating most of the tariff costs.
Doesn't it seem like Trump found a way to tax the oligarchs?
And meanwhile, while Bernie and AOC were running around the country saying, oh, the oligarchs, the oligarchs, they need to pay their fair share.
Meanwhile, Trump is implementing these tariffs, which have the unexpected effect of taxing the oligarchs.
He taxed the oligarchs.
And he passed some tax relief that should help all the lower-income people while he's taxing the oligarchs.
It's called the Golden Age people.
I guess the Fed is meeting to talk about interest rates, and now there are a few members of the Fed who are in favor of lowering them, but it looks like the Fed is not overall likely to lower rates.
So there's that.
Are you following the Sidney Sweeney drama?
So a company called American Eagle, they make casual clothes.
They hired Sidney Sweeney, who's a blonde sex pot kind of actress who's well known.
And so she doesn't go overboard, in my opinion, but she makes it sexy.
Sort of girl next door sexy, you know, not gross sexy.
And I think she does it really well.
And apparently there's some outrage over it.
And some progressives are calling it white supremacy propaganda because she said something about she has good genes, you know, meaning she's pretty because she has good jeans, but she's also selling blue jeans.
And apparently, if you mention your genes and you're a pretty white woman, that's some white supremacy right there.
And then CNN reported that this latest mass shooter who went into a building in Manhattan, that he was possibly a white male.
Unless you see his picture, and he is not possibly a white male.
Let me just put it that way.
But apparently the early reports are that he had some kind of mental health issue.
So we don't know exactly why he did what he did, but mental health issue for sure.
I wasn't going to talk about this, but there's an angle that I will.
So you know the story that in Cincinnati the other day, there was a music festival.
And then I think it was after the festival, there was a large crowd of black people who beat up several white people and really beat them badly, while 100 or so people watched and filmed.
And here's the part that caught my attention.
Apparently, only one of the 100 people called 911.
So there were 100 black Americans watching what looked like entertainment to them, the brutal beating of some white people.
And only one of the 100 people thought to do something about it.
Now, I don't know if any of the 100 people tried to physically stop the beating, because I didn't see that in any of the videos.
But someday I'm going to share my secret on how to avoid being brutally attacked.
I don't know if you've heard me talk about it before, but I have a secret.
If you want to avoid being brutally attacked by a crowd of people who will not call 911 and not try to stop it, I do know how to do that.
Someday I'll tell you about it.
What?
Binghamton University says, there's some study that says that most women in the field of STEM, they're still in school, I guess, feel like frauds.
So they, more than men, I guess.
Yeah, I think a lot of the men would feel like frauds as well.
But a lot of the women, and it's what percentage?
It was like 97.5% of women in STEM graduate programs report at least a moderate level of imposter experiences.
So they don't feel like they're qualified for the field they're in.
Now, I have a cure for that.
You ready?
So this is something that took me a long time to learn.
When I first entered the workforce, I of course believed that I was worthless because I didn't know anything, had no experience, didn't know how the company worked, and that I was a total imposter and that I had to just sort of pretend I knew what I was doing.
Then eventually, you know, you learn how some things work.
But then I would get promoted or change jobs just when I was learning how the thing worked.
And then I'd be in a new unfamiliar situation in which I was once again the least capable person in that environment.
But I'd work on it until I could build up some experience and capability.
And then I would change jobs again.
I changed jobs a lot every, I don't know, six to nine months when I was a banker.
And so I often, almost continuously, had the imposter syndrome.
But it never really bothered me, except for maybe the first few months.
Here's my reframe so that you can learn to avoid your own imposter syndrome.
It goes like this.
Everybody is an imposter.
Everybody is bluffing.
Everybody, all the time.
And they also feel that you can tell that they're bluffing.
And they're hoping that you don't know that they're bluffing.
The moment you realize it's universal, that everybody's bluffing, and they all feel like they don't know enough about their own field, that it won't bother you.
You're not the one person who's the imposter.
It's all imposters all the way down.
It's turtles all the way down.
So try that reframe.
And by the way, I guarantee it's true.
So you don't have to just say it and then not believe it.
It's true.
Everybody believes that they're an imposter to some degree.
So don't worry about it.
You can feel that you're an imposter, but don't feel like it matters.
That's a completely different question.
It doesn't matter.
It's the way it's always been.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to say for today.
And I hope you enjoyed it even a little bit, or even a lot.
I'm going to talk privately to the people on locals, my beloved subscribers.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining.
I will see you same time, same place tomorrow for more fun.
We'll solve all the problems in the world, and then we'll really launch that golden age.
