God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Roger Stone, Chuck Schumer, Ghislaine Maxwell TX Prison, President Trump, Epstein Files Hoax Suspicions, SCOTUS Race-Based Districts, Gerrymandering, JD Vance Humor, American Eagle Jeans, Job Numbers Revision, David Sacks, Non-Inflationary Tariffs, Josh Hawley, Congress Insider Trading, TX vs CA Gerrymandering, Russia Collusion Hoax, Leonard Benardo, General Flynn, Operation Mockingbird, Kamala Harris 107 Days, Amy Klobuchar, Democrat Weak Polling, 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.
And that means it's time for the least lazy podcaster that you know to do a Saturday show.
And let me tell you, you deserve it.
You deserve it.
That's why it's going to be extra good.
Thank you.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup, remugger, a glass of tanker, chels, stein, canteen, sugar, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope meeting of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh, thank you, Paul.
Everything's working today.
It's all working today.
Well, today is Saturday, and as tradition requires, although not every Saturday, Owen Gregorian will be hosting a spaces event for all of you who want to continue talking about whatever happens today or other things, I'm sure, would be fine.
So just go to X platform and look for Owen Gregorian or look for my X account and you'll see that I reposted the link to it.
And it'll be right after I'm done here, a few minutes after.
Well, Kim Jong-un, a spunky little leader from North Korea, has built a beach resort.
There's only one requirement.
You would have to be Russian to go there.
Apparently, Americans are not invited to Kim Jong-un's new beach resort.
And the one review I saw sounded like there weren't many people there.
So I don't know.
Can you somehow put in your mind the idea of going to the poorest country that you know and having a luxury five-star experience because you're just completely shut off from all the starving citizens?
It would be kind of weird, wouldn't it?
I'd do it.
You know, I wouldn't do it because it's too far away.
But if it were, let's say, a 10-minute drive to North Korea, I would do that.
Yeah.
Well, eight minutes.
Well, seven minutes.
I would drive seven minutes to experience that.
There's a story in Business Insider that the FBI tried and failed to identify who is behind the famous QAnon movement.
Now, does that sound real to you?
Do you believe that the FBI was unable to figure out who was behind the Q thing?
How are they trying?
Seriously?
The people who did Q were more clever than the FBI.
Does that sound real to you?
Here's what I think might be more likely.
It could be that Q was working with or part of a CIA operation, possibly to make Trump supporters look bad.
Now, why would I say that the CIA would do a hoax, a hoax, to make Trump look bad in 2016?
What would prompt me to think that they would do such a thing?
Oh, oh, yeah, because we now have proof that they did such a thing.
Not that specific thing.
We don't know that they were behind Q. But you could imagine that that would be a perfect op for them, because all it is is just some online activity.
And then if the FBI came looking around, you'd say, hey, I can't tell you anymore, but for national security reasons, we need you to stop looking into the Q situation.
So wouldn't the FBI stand down if the CIA told them to?
So I don't believe anything about that story.
Well, let me add to the list of people you don't ever want to make mad at you.
You know that Trump is on that list, right?
You never want Trump to be mad at you because you're going to get a nickname and it's going to be sticky.
But you also don't want to make Roger Stone mad at you.
So I don't know why he's mad at Chuck Schumer.
I don't know why he's mad at him.
I wouldn't bring this up except he put it on X, so it's public.
So Roger Stone wrote on X, Chuck Schumer is such a piece of shit that when he broke up with his longtime DC-based mistress, he demanded that she give him back a mattress that he had gifted her.
It is commonly known all the way back to his days in the New York Assembly that Chuck Schumer is a common whore whose vote can be purchased for very little.
So here's why I'm laughing.
How many of you have had the experience where you enter into a long-term relationship after having not been in one?
What is the first thing that you're, let's say this is for the guys.
I don't know if it works the other way.
But for The men.
Have you ever had your new long-term relationship say, you have to get rid of that mattress?
Have any of you experienced that?
I'm pretty sure I've experienced that.
That's all I'm going to say.
And you can understand why, because just the thought of it.
But I just have this image in my mind of Chuck Schumer's wife scrolling through X, and the algorithm just pops this up because her husband is mentioned.
And she's sitting there in the bed, you know, on that mattress that he got back from his mistress.
And she's like, oh, shit.
Now I'm just making that up.
I have no reason to believe he has ever been unfaithful to his wife or to his mattress.
So I'm just telling you what Roger Stone said.
The rest is the movie that you play in your head that's kind of funny.
Well, Ghelane Maxwell has been kind of quietly moved to a much friendlier prison, one that's more comfortable, they call it.
Now, are prisons meant to be comfortable?
Well, I guess she got one in Texas, so she's already moved to the more comfortable prison.
And apparently, Maxwell is reportedly going to seek a pardon from Trump, or already is trying.
And so here's what we can know for sure.
We know that the Trump administration was willing to negotiate with her because the moving to a more comfortable prison was certainly the result of a negotiation, as in, I'll give you what you want, but you got to get me out of this hellhole.
So there's that.
So Trump was recently asked if he would consider pardoning Maxwell.
I'm going to tell you his exact words, and then I want you to tell me if I've trained you well enough to know what the future holds.
So Trump is asked, would you consider pardoning Maxwell?
And Trump said, quote, I'm allowed to do it.
All right.
Now, if that's all you knew, is he planning to pardon her?
What do you think?
Yeah.
Now, it doesn't mean it's a final decision because Trump famously gathers information until it's time to make the final decision.
So it's not a final decision, but he's signaling pretty clearly that that's on the top three options, if you know what I mean.
So it doesn't mean you'll do it.
He may be advised against it, and I can see why.
But he's definitely considering it.
And then I think it was the same Newsmax reporter who asked him this.
He said, Would you consider pardoning Sean Diddy Combs?
All right.
Now I'm going to read you Trump's answer to would he pardon Sean Diddy Combs?
And then you have to tell me what the future holds.
All right.
He said, probably, you know, I was very friendly with him.
I get along with him great.
Now, probably refers to considering.
It doesn't mean doing it.
He said, I would probably consider it, which is different from saying he would do it.
So is he going to do it?
Or is he just probably going to consider it?
Well, I'll give you one more hint.
Then Trump went on to note that the jury found Diddy half innocent, and he doesn't really understand what the rest of the charges are about.
So Trump has already minimized what the charges were and said he was a friend.
He got along with him and he'd probably consider it.
Well, I don't know.
I feel like there's a really good chance there might be a pardon for both of them.
Definitely not final decisions, but he's open to it.
I like the fact that he's open to it.
We can argue later whether doing it makes sense.
That's a different conversation.
But the fact that he's open to considering it, I like that.
I like that, my president.
And then Trump says he's ready to release everything tied to Epstein.
This was also for Newsmax, but warns it could put people in danger, innocent people who were just described in the files but did not do anything wrong.
And then Trump reminds us, as he's done a number of times, that the same people who, what he calls, ran the Epstein files, in other words, who had control over them and access to them under the Biden administration, are the same people who pushed the Russia hoax.
Do you see what he did there?
He just compared the Epstein files situation that people are wondering why he's not releasing them to the Russia hoax to make the point that some of that might be negative for him, but fake.
So we're being primed that if there's something in there that's negative to Trump, that it might be planted.
It might be fake.
Now, Trump is so good at this.
Now, separate from the question of whether there's anything in there that you should worry about, separate from the question of whether this is an ethical way to approach this, I'm just going to talk about communication and persuasion.
This is kind of, it's kind of genius.
He's just laying down the thought that you can't trust anything that came from the other side, that it might be entirely made up.
And now that we know, we're not guessing, but at this point we know that the Russia collusion hoax was, you know, that the main people in the entire administration of Obama literally just making stuff up in a way that you would have imagined before any of it happened.
You would have imagined that could never happen.
There's no way that the whole government at that time was coordinating this fake hoax.
And there's no way that happened, but it did.
And now Trump has that as a weapon so that whenever there's something he wants you to not believe from the other side, he just says, oh, have you heard of the Russia hoax?
Now, I don't know if the Democrats believe any of that's a hoax because they're listening to completely different news.
But if he keeps his base on his side, that's better than nothing.
And you could imagine that if something negative for Trump came out in those files, or something that could be interpreted as negative, which is probably the bigger risk, that probably half of his base would say, well, that's fake, just like the Russian collusion hoax.
Well, apparently the Supreme Court is taking a case.
I don't know too much about it, but I saw a post by Eric Doherty on X. And I guess the case will consider ending race-based districts for voting.
Now, what I think that means is that when the government in charge of a state gerrymanders, in other words, they draw the lines of this district is for this election, this district is for this candidate, et cetera, that they can draw them in a sort of illogical, tortured way so that they can put a bunch of non-white people in the same place.
And that pretty much guarantees that they get more elections.
They win more.
So do you think that the Supreme Court will rule that it's illegal to do race-based gerrymandering?
I didn't know that they did that, actually, but makes sense.
Because given that you can pretty well, you can pretty well predict which ethnic and demographic groups are going to go for which candidate, it kind of makes sense that they would game that system.
So I don't know what would be the reasoning for making it illegal, because would that be racial discrimination?
Would it?
Or would it be racial favoritism?
It's sort of neither, is it?
Because it's not being done for the benefit of the people in the district.
It's being done for the benefit of the politicians.
So if there's no racial sort of benefit or cost, I don't know, they could probably find some reason to strike that down.
If that got struck down, some people say that would be the end of Democrats ever being in control of anything because they're already knocked down so badly, the reputation is in tatters.
But if this redistricting thing happens and they have to undo the districts that were created just to be maximized, you know, black voters, et cetera, that could open up a lot of possibilities for the Republicans.
So this could be the biggest story of the year, because it could determine who's in charge for decades, maybe.
Well, J.D. Vance shows that he has the right stuff to someday be president, which is that he has a command of the issues and has good policy preferences, et cetera.
But he's also funny.
And you can't underestimate that.
He is genuinely funny.
And he was talking about the Sidney Sweeney commercial for what's it called, American Eagle, and their genes, and how the Democrats decided that anybody who likes her talking about her genes, which was a play on word of her pants, but also the fact that she's attractive, so she has good genes.
And so the Democrats, the weirdest among them, have decided that you're a Nazi if you're agreeing that she has good genes.
And so J.D. Vance, he said, I actually thought that one of the lessons from the 2024 election, one of the lessons for Democrats is that they were going to be less crazy.
And he said, nope, they've decided that they're going to call people who think Sidney Sweeney is attractive.
They're going to call them Nazis.
Now, that's just perfect.
We've all been talking about this story, but until he put it in that framing, it wasn't as funny as it is now.
But now the way you think about it now, that's a reframe, by the way, and he did that perfectly.
Just thinking about the fact that if you decided that one of the most attractive people in the public domain, if you decide that she is in fact attractive, you're Nazi.
Have you noticed that the whole Nazi thing went from the main thing that people said about Trump to you hear it, you still hear it, but it's a Little bit more rare, and it's the weirder people who say it now.
And that the leadership, I would say it's obvious they had a meeting and they came to a decision that at least the top people in the Democrat Party, at least them, they would stop saying Nazi because it didn't work.
And they were going to start saying something like authoritarian and oligarch.
Now, wouldn't you agree that that must have been a consultant?
Somebody gave them that advice.
Stop saying Nazis and Nazis because it just hasn't worked.
We've been doing it for eight years.
It hasn't worked yet.
So instead, say oligarch or capitalist or something.
I don't know.
They got nothing.
Well, the economic data is confusing.
So let's see.
According to the Wall Street Journal, economic output and consumer spending slowed from the first half of the year.
That's not good.
And then employment was revised downwards tremendously.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
And price pressure remains stubborn, they say.
There's not a lot of inflation, but price pressure remains stubborn.
I guess that's what you say when you don't want to give them credit for keeping inflation low.
But the somewhat negative news about the economy came out right after the Federal Reserve met and decided to hold interest rates steady.
If they had known that the numbers that were just going to come in were not so great, it would have put pressure on them to lower interest rates to goose the economy.
So what do you think about that?
If you're watching the news, is it your belief that the economy is doing great?
Or is it your belief that the economy has already stalled?
Because the numbers are all over the place, but they're not really extreme.
And there are reasons why it would be sort of bumpy up and down because the tariff stuff and the uncertainty, et cetera.
So I don't know.
Honestly, I can't tell if the economy is doing well or not.
Let's talk about this jobs numbers.
So apparently the woman who is in charge of producing the jobs numbers reduced down what looked like really good numbers for Trump the last two months, must have been May and June, and just grossly reduced the estimate down to terrible numbers.
So it went from, oh, really strong employment to, oh, that looks like trouble.
Now, what is behind that?
And by the way, she was immediately fired.
Trump fired her.
Now, it's the same woman who did the same job for Biden.
And you remember Biden kept having these good numbers, and then they would be revised down.
Did you ever wonder, like, what is the mechanism that makes that happen?
Is somebody just sitting in a room and saying, all right, well, I'll just make up some numbers.
Not likely, right?
It's not likely somebody's just literally making up numbers.
There might be some estimates, but that would be based on some rational process.
I heard somebody made a comment on X that sounds right to me, which is that the jobs report is based on people self-reporting, or maybe you have to call in and ask.
But imagine all these little self-reporting places all over the country.
How many of them do you think would get their report in on time?
And the answer is probably a lot of them would be late, you know, past the deadline when they have to report it.
It wouldn't matter when the deadline was, just the way the thing, the way the world works is that people laid a lot.
So I think what happens, according to one person, is that they don't have all the information by the deadline.
So they just do some estimates such as, well, if this one did that, this one probably was similar to that.
So we'll just treat it like it is for now.
And then when they get the real numbers, the real numbers are way worse.
So it could be that the people producing the numbers are not exactly to blame because they're not making them up, but they might be to blame in the sense that they're managing a system that is so broken you can't even imagine it.
That's a pretty broken system.
So anyway, maybe that'll get fixed.
David Sachs was saying, I think probably on the all-in pod, he was saying, that people are realizing that Trump's willingness to raise tariffs on countries as a threat to renegotiate better trade deals is working.
If you add it all up, it's effectively $2 trillion of stimulus into the U.S., but without money printing.
So it's non-inflationary.
Well, is that true?
It's not inflationary.
I mean, compared to printing, money is not inflationary.
But if you have a hot economy, I suppose just the hotness itself could drive some inflation, but we haven't seen it yet.
If you had to guess, and I wasn't about to tell you, would you guess that Exxon and Chevron were having record profits because Trump is drill baby drill and they would have more options for making money and the economy is improving compared to prior years, et cetera?
Or would you imagine Exxon and Chevron have flat or falling profits?
The answer is their profits at Exxon and Chevron are at a four-year low, according to Jamie Smith at the Financial Times.
And it's because the oil prices are not that high.
So who would be bigger oligarchs than the heads of the oil companies?
Wouldn't they be like the top oligarchs?
And Trump has created a situation with Drill Baby Drill that creates more supply and therefore lowers prices and it lowered prices enough to lower their profits.
So I feel like this is an argument against the whole oligarch thing.
So Trump did whatever he needed to do that was good for the consumer because it lowered gas prices.
And what did he care about the oligarchs, the people who were the heads of Exxon and Chevron?
Didn't give a fuck.
Didn't care at all.
He just lowered our gas prices.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Well, here's a story that I haven't been following, so I might be missing something about it.
But Josh Hawley, who is a prominent Republican senator, he's pushing some legislation that would prevent people in Congress from trading stocks, individual stocks, I guess.
And that's because they would have insider information.
Right now, they're the only ones who can legally use insider information to make money in the stock market.
And the allegation is that Nancy Pelosi has made hundreds of millions in stock investment gains.
And maybe because of her special knowledge.
But interestingly, Trump hates the idea.
Well, look who's come to visit.
I know.
Now you don't care what I say.
You only care that my cat is here.
Because he's the star of the show.
Say I to Gary.
Gary, don't eat the cords.
No, don't eat the cords.
All right, we shall continue.
So Josh Hawley has this thing, this legislation he's pushing to prevent Congress people from trading stocks because they have too much insider information.
But Trump doesn't like it because apparently it extends to the executive branch.
So the president and the vice president would also not be allowed to trade stocks.
But I think it also extends to some crypto stuff.
And Trump's, you know, I think Trump's main, the biggest part of his personal wealth is now crypto.
And don't you imagine that it's hard to know if somebody really made a trade based on their insider knowledge or they just got lucky?
Because things are going to go up or down no matter what you do, right?
So sometimes it's going to look like, oh, you traded that just before this thing happened.
You probably knew that.
Gary?
No.
I hope I'm not allergic to cats.
So I don't know too much about this story, but I'm going to make the following opinion.
It's an uninformed opinion.
So if you have a better one, let me know.
My opinion is if this legislation takes more than one paragraph to put on paper, then I'm opposed to it.
Because if it's really complicated and it affects lots of things and they've got lots of clauses in there and carve-outs and stuff like that, it's probably just some form of corruption.
As a general statement, where there is complexity, there's just always corruption.
So if they could put this on one paragraph on one piece of paper, and it just says, people in Congress will not do insider trading or something like that.
Although I would prefer no legislation at all and just transparency.
So there should be full transparency when these guys trade.
That would be fair.
Well, now that Texas said they're going to do some gerrymandering to create more House representatives, and that would give Republicans a big leg up controlling the country, California is going to do it too.
So they could probably match whatever Texas does.
So here's my thing.
This is my thing.
Stop it.
Get away from that.
My thing is, don't you think that voting is a little bit of an illusion?
Because if you can determine who's representing you by gerrymandering, isn't the gerrymandering the system?
I mean, it's almost like, well, we have a system where whoever has the best fake news and does the best gerrymandering and has Mark Elias changing the voting rules and doing all these things that are good for our side.
It's those things that determine who's the president.
The voting is almost sort of always close.
And the part that matters is who ran a good hoax.
Hey, what's that?
Don't do that.
Anyway, I've been wondering why this big Russia collusion hoax is not getting, becoming a bigger story, because there's no doubt about it.
This is the worst thing that's ever happened.
I think Russia collusion hoax has to replace Watergate whenever we say, is it worse than Watergate?
We never have to say that again.
From now on, the new standard is, is it worse than the Russia collusion hoax?
That's the new standard.
So use that one.
Well, Jonathan Turley, attorney and author.
He said there are a lot of people worried in this city tonight.
That would be DC.
This is the great reveal that John Ratcliffe was promising, and there's more to come.
To which I say, at this point, you know, there's no legal process that's happened.
But would you say it's fair to say that we have now exposed the entire crooked network?
Because this most recent thing is that there was a member of the Soros organization, this Leonard Bernardo, who's the head of the Open Society Institute, that's Soros, Eurasia Center.
And we now have a document that so far I don't think he's denied.
So it's been out for two days, and I don't think he said, no, that's a fake.
So I was waiting to see if it was real because it looked a little bit too on the nose.
But I feel like it is now, because if it were fake, the guy whose name is on it would say, whoa, I didn't write that.
That's fake.
So it must be real.
He would have denied it by now.
And what he said was he was fully aware of the Hillary Clinton plan for creating this giant Russia hoax.
And so now we can see the entire network.
You can see from the Soros organization, you can see the CIA, you can see the FBI, you can see what was the executive branch under Obama.
And you can see that the entire network.
You can even see the fake news.
I call them the winged monkeys, the people who are just the assistants helping things happen.
All right, you're just sort of relaxing here, aren't you, Gary?
Whoa.
What are you looking at?
All right, you're done now, huh?
All right, get down here.
There you go.
All right.
So we'll see.
I'm going to say again, because the more I say it, the better it is.
For most of my adult life, I would have been dead set against the current administration trying to put in jail the prior administration.
But this is a special case.
This is a case where that prior administration tried really hard to demonize and jail as many Republicans and Trump in particular as they possibly could.
They are pure evil, and that is not politics as normal.
So if it turns out that they can be jailed, I'm 100% in for it.
Now, remember when you thought to yourself, oh no, but the country will be torn apart because they'll say he's an authoritarian and all that stuff.
Have you noticed somebody pointed this out?
I'll give them credit in a minute when we get to it.
Have you noticed that there was this big outcry about PBS and what's the other one?
PBS and NPR.
I guess they're owned by the same entity.
And they're going to go out of business because they lost their government funding.
And I don't understand that story because government funding was a small percentage of their total funding.
To which I say, were they lying about that?
Were they lying the whole time and government funding was most of their funding?
Why would they close?
But they've announced that they're just going out of business.
Now, have you noticed that there's not much outcry?
There's not a lot of people who are saying, well, looks like it's the end of the world.
The NPR and PBS are going away.
Not really.
The Democrats just don't seem to have anything like a pushback.
So this is the most unique time in our history where Trump could jail 10 prominent members of the prior administration.
Prior, that would include the Obama administration.
And it would be the one time you could do it without a civil war because I think you just have to be transparent about it.
Here are the charges.
Here are the documents.
You can see for yourself.
Obviously, if there was a trial of some sort, we would get lots of details about the evidence, et cetera.
So I believe you could, as long as you stayed within the law, which is presumed at all times, you could totally get away with it.
And there would not be a civil war.
Now, you might say, but then everybody's going to try to do it to the next administration, to which I say that's our current situation.
The current situation is that apparently both sides would be willing to jail the other.
Just so you can remember how evil the Democrats are, I saw a post by Hans Menke who reminds us of this.
General Flynn was forced, so this is back in whenever the Russia hoax stuff was bubbling up.
General Flynn was forced to choose between pleading guilty to a completely fabricated charge or seeing his son indicted too.
The Mueller thugs Are some of the most violent sadistic people imaginable, and they deserve every ounce of the comeuppance.
They made an American patriot, a general, plead guilty to something that he knew and they knew was made up.
And they did it at a threat of going after his son.
Is that the worst thing you've ever heard?
It's one of the worst things I've ever heard in my life.
Don't forget that.
Because later, when you say to yourself, you know, maybe we shouldn't put Hillary Clinton in jail, just remember what happened to General Flynn.
You don't have to remember any of the other things.
Just remember that one thing.
And then every time your resolve gets a little soft and you think, well, it was years ago.
Let's just get over it.
No, let's not get over it.
How about not?
How about bringing the arm of justice to this situation?
According to Just the News, Jack Smith, you know him, he was a special counsel prosecutor kind of guy.
And he was the one going after Trump for the ridiculous Mar-a-Lago boxes and I don't know, maybe something else.
But he is now going to be investigated by the Office of Special Counsel.
They're going to find out if he was politicizing the lawfare.
What do you think?
Do you think he was politicizing his job?
Sure looked like it.
I don't know, but it sure looked like it.
Tulsi Gabbard was asked, I read this in The Gateway Pundit, that asked if Operation Mockingbird 2.0 was like a real thing.
So that would be the CIA working with the media groups to influence their coverage.
Now, we know that used to be a thing, and then it became illegal.
But then I believe Obama made it legal again.
I may have that wrong.
But we don't have direct confirmation that the CIA is doing that.
We just have our common sense and our observation.
It looks like they're doing it.
But Tulsi was asked about that to confirm if intel agencies are still using the fake news to undermine Trump.
And I guess this was Benny Johnson.
Benny Johnson was asking her this.
And instead of answering directly, which maybe you can't do if you're in that job, Tulsi Gabbard confirmed that the current Trump administration is actively battling rogue intelligence operatives.
So rather than saying, you know, the CIA is still managing the press, she says there are rogue intelligence operatives.
It gets to the same place.
But she did not confirm Operation Mockingbird.
She did not confirm it, nor did she deny it.
All right.
Oh, Christopher Ruffo is the one who noticed first that people weren't complaining that much about PBS and NPR going out of business.
And he says the lesson there is that you should stop funding your enemies because there wasn't much blowback from putting them out of business.
People didn't care that much.
So yeah, why would you fund your enemies if there's no blowback?
Benadryl?
No, I'm not going to take Benadryl.
That would be out.
All right, what else?
So there's some thought.
I saw an article by Victor Nava.
I think he was writing about, was it the Two Ways podcast, Mark Alperin, and his partners there.
They were talking about how the rumor is, I'll call it a rumor, I guess, that Joe Biden's allies are going to go hard at Kamala Harris if she outs Biden for being mentally incapable during his presidency.
So she's got a book that's coming out.
How in the world can she write a book?
How can she write a book that doesn't mention his cognitive state?
And if she says, oh, he was fine, I don't know what they were talking about, it's going to look ridiculous.
And if she goes the other way and says, yes, I have to admit, you know, I was a loyal person, so I didn't out him, but he definitely was losing his step.
Well, apparently, that would unleash all the worst insider statements about Kamala Harris.
Can you even imagine if we saw an honest set of opinions from the people she worked with?
Can you imagine what that would be like?
That would be brutal.
Well, she was drunk and word-salving.
Western lensman on X noticed this.
There was a video of Amy Klobucher, Senator Klobucher.
She was asked why the Democrat polling numbers are so low.
So, remember, I've told you how pathetic Democrats are?
They can't seem to identify their own problem, much less fix it.
So, when asked why Democrat polling numbers are so low, their favorability, her answer was that Trump has caused a lot of chaos and we're living through tough times.
I'm not sure that's an answer.
That's what's wrong with the Democrats.
What's wrong with the Democrats is that Trump caused chaos.
I would think that the person who causes the chaos would be the one that had the low polling numbers.
But no, Klobucher, who is normally smart, had nothing smart to say about that.
Harry Enton, the data guy, polling data guy on CNN, who I just love his act.
He's just so good at his job.
He says that it's unusual that at this point, the Democrats don't have anybody who's an obvious frontrunner to be the next president.
And it's an unusual situation where there's nobody on the Democrat side who is polling at over 25%.
So I guess in all prior elections, you could tell who was going to get nominated because they were already polling better than everybody else.
At least with Democrats.
So at the moment, there are no Democrats who are popular.
None.
Now, if you say to yourself, well, that's a bad sign for Democrats because they just don't have anybody who's even polling above 25%.
You might be wrong about that.
Because the biggest problem the Democrats have is that every one of the Democrats we know is terrible and should not be president.
So their problem is they don't have the right people.
It's not that they just haven't started campaigning or something.
So if you've rejected basically all of your famous Democrats as being capable to be a president, it kind of opens the door that somebody who's just really good, sort of an Obama-level political athlete, as they like to say, getting sick of that phrase, but also like Trump.
So if they can find their Trump, they might have some fun.
So if you imagine that their unpopular candidates mean that they're not going to win the presidency, it might go the other way.
They might come up with a real fresh face who's not a governor.
I mean, I keep saying if Jamie Diamond ran for president, I don't think he will.
But if he did, I wouldn't want to debate him.
Would you?
He's good at this, and he's got a long record of not being like a super partisan.
He's pretty much on the common sense.
He's very much a common sense guy.
So he could be their Trump, but it would have to be somebody like him.
Well, apparently the TV show, The View, is getting mocked for the fact that they had 102 left-leaning guests in 2025 and no right-leaning guests whatsoever, according to me.
Does that surprise you?
That doesn't seem right.
There wasn't a single right-leaning guest at all.
I feel like they would have done it just because ratings would have been good if they got the right foil in there.
I don't know.
Iran, meanwhile, says there's plenty of scientists left, and they can rebuild their buildings to make nuclear products, uranium and such.
It looks like Gary is not getting enough attention.
Gary, why are you hugging my arm?
Being so cute.
All right.
So they haven't said they've decided to enrich uranium again, but they said, but when and how we restart our enrichment depends on the circumstances.
Well, I guess that would be true of literally everything.
It depends on the circumstances.
According to interesting engineering, Chris Young is writing that there's now a shipping container-sized nuclear reactor for remote areas or like remote U.S. military bases and stuff.
And it's a 1.5 megawatt demonstration system.
So it's not production yet, but they're close.
So we're very close to having a reasonably safe, transportable nuclear power plant.
That's kind of cool.
It's called Pele, and it's a gas-cooled, transportable micro reactor.
All right, that's all I got for today.
Make sure that you check out Owen Gregorian's spaceless event that will fire up in a few minutes.
And you can continue this conversation without cats.
And I'm going to say a few words privately to the locals, subscribers, my beloved, beloved local subscribers.
