God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Divorce Statistics, Alexa AI Ads, Embryo IQ Testing, AI Workforce, President Trump, Chuck Schumer, Voter Roll Cleanup, Gerrymandering, Federal Merit-Based Hiring, President Carter Meritless Hiring, DEI Illegality, DOE Climate Change, Judith Curry, Manipulated Scientific Conclusions, Bill Maher Cognitive Dissonance, CA School Board Fraud, Kamala Harris Leadership, AG Leticia James, Jasmine Crockett, President Bukele, Hamas Advisors, Russian Refinery Droned, Anti-Tesla Lawsuit, Beef Prices, mRNA Cancer Vaccines, 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.
This is me playing drums that I did for my pre-show.
This is how bad I am.
Come on.
I'm not going to do that.
Instead, how is everybody?
Come on in.
Come on in.
Grab a chair.
It's Sunday where all the lazy podcasters are sleeping in.
But you and I, we're better than that.
We're so much better than that.
All right.
Let's see if I can find this feed.
What's going on here?
And then I'll have all your comments.
I can see them without this, but that makes them faster.
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 no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
To do that, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tankard shelves of steina, canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
It's kind of amazing to me.
As far as I know, locals is the only platform where the chatters can put pictures.
That must not be true, but it's the only one I know of.
All right, after the show today, if you're an ex-subscriber of Owen Gregorian, he's going to have a little spaces event when I'm done.
But that's only for people who are subscribing to Owen.
And if you're not, why not?
You should be.
So go over there.
Owen Gregorian, you can just search for him on X, you'll find him.
Well, there's a new study from the Society for the study of addiction.
It says that unwanted pregnancies surge with alcohol, but not with cannabis.
You know who else knew that?
Well, here's yet another example where you could have saved some money by just asking me.
Scott, does alcohol make you do reckless things that you regret later?
Oh, yeah.
Yep, that's what alcohol does.
Scott, does marijuana make you more cautious or more of a risk taker?
Well, honestly, probably makes you more cautious.
No, you didn't need to study this one.
I could have pretty much taken care of this.
Scott, what do you think?
Well, sit down.
I'll tell you.
But, according to the Western Journal and Michael Austin, who's writing, did you know this?
That the American marriage stability is very high, actually, historically, and stable.
So, for reasons that we hope are good reasons, there's a lot less divorce happening in the United States.
But is that good news?
What would cause a stark decrease in divorces?
Well, one thing that would cause that is bad economics, Because the person who might want to leave says we can't really afford to have two lives.
So I have a feeling, this is based on my own lack of research.
I have a feeling that what we're seeing is a lot of people who have marriages, but maybe they've decided it's just for financial reasons and for the kids and maybe career-wise.
But they're seeing other people because they're not really a couple anymore.
I have, how many of you know somebody who lives as a couple, but long ago they made a friendly agreement that they would see other people and they're just not really a romantic couple?
Do any of you know anybody like that?
So I wonder how that counts.
Does that count as a divorce?
Or does that count as still married?
I guess it would be still married, right?
So I'm not positive these numbers are good news, but hey, apparently just 15%, 1-5% of marriages that started between 2010 and 2012 ended in divorce within the first 10 years.
Because most of you would have said, I'll bet it's more like half of those people.
It was only 15%.
Again, might not be good news.
It might be just bad Economics.
Well, you might know that Amazon is going to upgrade their little device whose name I shall not use for fear of activating it, A-L-E-X-A, but they're going to add AI to it.
It's taking a while, so they haven't rolled that out yet.
But they're considering, there's a report that says they're considering putting advertisements on it.
Now, I've heard of bad ideas in my time, but can you imagine a worse idea than asking your ALEXA what the weather is or something like that and having to listen to an advertisement before it told you the answer?
I would use that once.
Just once.
I would never ever use it again if it gave me an advertisement before it gave me an answer.
Now, what might be true is they want to sell subscriptions, and so they want to torture you a little bit with the advertisements that would go away if you got a subscription.
So, my guess is that while it's true that they might be considering it, I doubt it's the only way you could consume it.
So, we'll see.
There's a startup that does in vitro fertilization stuff that can predict an embryo's IQ.
So, before you choose which of your embryos to bring to fruition, I guess, you can test them all, whichever eggs you got going there, and you can figure out which one would be the smartest one.
How many of you think that should be illegal?
Well, it's illegal in a lot of countries, it turns out, but it's not illegal in the U.S. In the U.S., you can test the you can test for IQ before you decide to have the embryo brought to full adulthood, I guess.
But it can also test for 17 various diseases.
So, is that all good or is that all bad?
Well, you know, maybe it would lower health care costs.
Maybe there'd be some kind of hidden downside to this that is not obvious.
But I can tell you that you will be called a racist if you're in favor of it.
And don't get me started about Sweeney.
All right.
The company name is Hero Site.
They're like heretics.
That's funny.
According to Futurism.
Victor Tangerman is writing that CEOs are starting to publicly brag about reducing their workforce with AI.
Do you all remember my prediction about how CEOs would act when they're doing downsizing?
In the old days, if you downsize your staff, it would be seen by the market as, oh, I guess things are not going so well.
They had to downsize.
Now, the opposite case would be if you've been around for a long time and somebody buys your company and they're getting rid of the fat, sort of the Elon Musk buys X kind of method.
So sometimes it's taken as a positive when you decrease staff.
But in the era of AI, I don't believe any CEO will ever admit that they're just decreasing staff to save money and they're not doing anything to replace them because they weren't that important anyway.
I feel like they'll all say, yeah, we're going to cut 10% because of, oh, AI, AI.
Yeah.
Yeah, we're going to use AI and cut by 10%.
But they never give you examples.
Now, if they said we got rid of our call centers and now we're using AI to take calls, I would say, oh, Well, that's probably exactly what happened.
But the only company I know that did that ended up changing their mind because the AI was hallucinating too much.
So they had to quickly undo what they did and go back to humans.
And if you tell me that they've reduced their programming staff, their coders, because coders are more efficient with AI, I kind of doubt it.
In the real world, I kind of doubt it.
So, anyway, to me, it sounds like just something that the CEOs will say, not something that's happening yet.
At one point, it will, but I don't think it's happening yet.
Well, President Trump is telling Schumer to go to hell.
So I was trying to ignore this story in the news because it's too boring and it has to do with the process.
But the basic idea is that the Senate wanted to take their summer recess vacation.
Probably all of them had plans, you know, and their family had plans and expects them to be there.
But there was some need to approve a whole bunch of nominees that the Democrats were holding up.
So there was some kind of an agreement to stay and very quickly vote on a whole bunch of nominees.
But then Schumer Said, we're not going to play it long unless you give us a billion dollars of funding for we don't even know what it was just a billion dollars.
And of course, he felt like he had the upper hand because he was going to keep the Republicans from doing what they needed to do for their family and their other obligations.
So Trump said, go to hell.
And he just shut down the whole process.
Now, do you agree with Trump that when you get blackmailed like that, the correct response to being blackmailed is nope.
And if it costs us something, well, it costs us something.
But nope, we're not going to be blackmailed by some crappy Chuck Schumer guy.
All right.
So that story is boring, but it's happening.
One of the things that so far has impressed me about the Trump administration is, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems they've shown a willingness to really get into a whole bunch of issues that are maybe not sexy, but really, really important to get fixed.
One of them is cleaning up the voter rolls in all the states, because there's a Lot of suspicion among mostly Republicans that the voter rolls have a bunch of dead people on them, and somehow that's helping Democrats win.
I don't believe that that's a proven fact, but if half the country is worried that that's the case, you need to fix that.
And I'm sure there's some problem.
I don't know what the problem is, but you know, certainly there's some problems there.
So the Department of Justice, according to Justin News, John Solomon, is going to do this in all the states.
So here's my question: What happens if cleaning up the voter rolls makes a difference in all the races?
And then on top of that, what happens if there's some redistricting that happens, gerrymandering, and that makes a difference?
You know, I didn't love it when the Democrats found clever process ways to win.
And I suppose you could say this is just a way to make it even or take away their advantage or something.
But I don't love the fact that our system is so obviously not about who voted for what.
It's almost entirely whose process was used.
So if you don't redistrict, you get one answer.
If you do, you get the other.
Voting, somewhat irrelevant, weirdly.
According to the post-millennial, the federal government now, thanks to the Justice Department removing a barrier, can conduct merit-based hiring.
Now, doesn't that sound like a joke?
Let me say it again.
And just imagine that I had to tell you this, and it's 2025: that the federal government of the United States has now the ability to do merit-based hiring.
Now, I think what this referred to is the ability to give people a test and say, here's the test.
If you pass this test, we could hire you.
In the Carter administration, I guess that kind of thing was removed because it was racist.
Can you believe that for years our government has been run without a merit test?
We're just hiring people because of what they look like.
It kind of looks like that, doesn't it?
If you had to ask yourself what went wrong, how did we get to this place?
Well, maybe it has to do with decades and decades of not being able to check people's Merit before hiring them.
But we got the race right, I guess.
So army Dylan's all over that.
But that's another example of Republicans fixing stuff under the hood.
You know, not really sexy stuff, but stuff that really did need to get done.
And then Ron DeSantis, Governor DeSantis, is bragging that Florida, his state, is the first state to eliminate DEI from their public university system.
How would you like to be working in the DEI industry when the current government of the United States and several of the governors of big states have declared that the thing you're doing should be illegal?
It's so bad.
It needs to be against the law.
And it is.
It is against the law.
But just imagine you're working in some blue state and some organization that hasn't yet been targeted by Trump.
And it's your job to do something which has been determined to be illegal in the United States.
And there are probably a million people whose business card have on it the equivalent of I'm a money launderer Or I'm a drug dealer, I'm a DEI professional.
Kind of all the same.
These are job titles for criminals.
And there are probably a million of them in the United States.
I may have told you that the Department of Energy recently put on a report on climate change.
And because it's the Trump administration and not the prior administration, do you believe that they said climate change is an existential risk and we should spend trillions of dollars to fix it?
No, they did not say that.
They said that it often is being looked at wrong.
Climate change may or may not be a real thing, but the way we're addressing it was crazy because we couldn't really change it just in the United States.
You know, China and India, for example, are bigger contributors.
But so here's what I would say about this.
I saw that Judith Curry is a co-author of that paper.
How many of you recognize her name?
Judith Curry.
So she's one of the climate experts who I would say would be a contrarian to the general consensus that climate change is going to kill us all.
And she's quite famous and very capable.
But I have to be honest, the conclusion of the paper was sort of determined by who they picked to write it.
Would you agree?
If you pick Judith Curry to be the co-author, you're not wondering how it's going to turn out because she's famous for being a non-alarmist about climate.
So you kind of know which way it's going to go.
I don't know who her co-author was, but I'm positive it was not a climate alarmist.
So here's the trick.
If you were a dumb citizen who did not watch the Coffee with Scott Adams podcast, you might say to yourself, huh, these qualified scientists have a different view, and they've made their case.
We can compare it to the other cases and just see who's got it right.
And that's how science works.
You know, it's always being updated.
So maybe we need to update it now.
Well, okay, that would be the most generous way to look at it.
Here's the other way to look at it: whoever decided who the co-authors would be Also, decided the science because they knew damn well that the co-authors were going to be the non-alarmists.
So, of course, that's what they got.
Now, I happen to think that Judith Curry is one of the more credible, you know, useful people in the entire industry.
So, this isn't about her.
And I'm completely on the same page with her, but I'm not an expert.
I just think her argument is stronger than the argument that she's going against.
Well, so now do you see a pattern emerging?
Our leaders are not so much selected by the voters as they are selected by whoever it is that redistricted and played with the rules of the election.
And then our science, in this case, is being determined by somebody who picked the co-authors.
So, you know, we just have this weird belief that voters are voting for things and science is running in this unbiased way.
Nothing like that's happening, not even a little bit.
Everything is rigged one way or the other.
Now, in this case, I like the way it was rigged.
So, normally I'm not supposed to bitch about it, right?
If things are rigged in your direction, where you get what you want, The tradition is you're supposed to just shut up and go, but don't use words.
Don't be like me.
So, poor Bill Maher.
You know, there are once again lots of Bill Maher's TV show clips going around today and yesterday.
And poor, poor bastard.
He's watched all the coverage.
of the Russia collusion hoax being determined to be completely a hoax and he's not convinced.
He still thinks it's real.
That there was Russia collusion and that it was proven and it's obvious.
That's Bill Maher.
His job is to talk about the news.
That's his job.
And then he ran a clip to make his case.
Now, keep in mind, this is obviously his strongest argument because he only showed one thing.
It doesn't mean there is only one part of his argument, but he would obviously not show the weak part of his argument if he's only going to show one thing.
So he shows a clip of Trump as president, and he was at maybe Helsinki, and he was at the podium, and nearby Putin, who was local at the podium, and there was a group of reporters asking them questions.
And I'll paraphrase, But one of them asked Putin, Did you want Trump to win the election?
And did you do anything to make that happen?
And Putin said, at least the interpreter said he said, yes.
So that's Bill Maher's proof that not only did Russia help Trump, but he's just admitted it in a speech in public with cameras rolling.
And he knew he was doing it.
Bill, let me explain what you're saying.
This is cognitive dissonance.
If you were not deeply in some kind of weird TTS bubble, do you think you would see that the same way?
Do you think you would have imagined that Putin would say, oh, yeah, I totally influence your elections.
And he'd say it standing next to the president, Trump, and he would say it while the cameras are rolling.
And when he needed the United States to sort of like him so they could get what he wanted, it didn't work out.
But do you really think?
Here's what I think happened.
It was a two-part question.
Did you want Trump to win?
And then, secondly, did you help him win?
Putin says yes to the first part.
Now, is it true that Putin wanted Trump to win?
Who knows?
But what is the correct answer?
The correct answer, if you're Putin, is, oh, yeah, totally, I want him to win because you're going to be working with that guy.
So, of course, he's going to blow smoke up his pant leg.
So, oh, yeah, we totally wanted Trump to win.
We're so glad.
And Bill Maher thinks that none of the prosecutors or none of the people looking into it use that clip as any part of the evidentiary path.
There's nobody in the Department of Justice or the FBI used that clip to make their case that Trump was part of the Russian collusion hoax.
Bill Maher had to go find his own clip and make his own case for Russia collusion and act like nobody else had noticed.
That is really that borders on just terrible mental illness.
Now, it is mental illness, it's TDS.
And I don't say that in a looking down my nose kind of way, because obviously, human beings are easily hypnotized by this kind of thing.
And he's no exception.
No matter how smart and well-informed you are, it doesn't protect you at all, not even a little bit, from cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is completely unrelated to IQ and knowledge.
That's a good example because he's smart and he's knowledgeable.
But it didn't seem even a little bit weird to him to go find his own evidence after all the looking into it from the FBI and the DOJ.
He just thought, well, they probably missed this video.
And then it gets worse.
He kind of changes the topic to, well, the Russia collusion hoax certainly wasn't as bad as January 6th insurrection.
He still thinks January 6th was an insurrection where the Republicans forgot to bring guns.
Now, to say that that opinion is stupid is generous.
It's really just mental illness because there's nobody in the world who really believes Republicans try to overthrow a country and leave their guns home.
Nobody thinks that.
Moreover, as I've said many times, have you ever seen any news program, left or right?
So this includes you, Fox News, interviewing people who were arrested on January 6th and saying to them, why were you there protesting?
Did you believe that Trump had lost fair and square, but you wanted to overthrow the country with an insurrection and put him in anyway?
Or did you think that it was obvious that the election had just been rigged right in front of you because of the weird pattern of the voting, which everybody had seen by then, I think, and that you were there to make sure an insurrection hadn't just happened.
So it was the opposite of an insurrection.
It was trying to make sure that one hadn't happened right in front of them.
And so they were willing to march in the Capitol to slow things down to find out.
Now, the January 6th hoax, and I call it a hoax, well, it was a hoax.
Where there's 100% chance that's just a hoax.
It's sort of like the Charlottesville event.
There's nothing you could tell me that would make me think that happened organically.
Nothing.
That was so obviously an anti-Trump op that worked really well, by the way.
It was genius.
They still use it.
They still act like it hasn't been debunked.
Dolly says it's obvious that Mar is a serious alcoholic.
Well, I don't know about that, but I've listened to him on Club Random, his podcasty thing.
And I believe he does say he likes to drink a lot.
So that may be true.
I don't know that he would disagree with you, actually.
Harry Enton, who's becoming my favorite CNN character, their data and polling expert.
He says that Trump's approval has increased, at least with Republicans, since the Epstein drama.
The poor Democrats, they're waiting for something, anything, To finally make Trump less popular, at least with his own team.
And they're like, oh, this Epstein thing.
This is really going to smash him down.
And people aren't going to vote for him.
And they're not going to show up in the midterms and stuff like that.
Well, it turns out since the Epstein thing came out, Trump's approval on the CNN poll went from 86%, and that's just Republicans, to 88%.
So it improved.
And a quinaback poll went from 87 to 90.
So it went up.
Now, I assume that the slightly, just slightly and temporary reduction in his approval was probably from the tariffs.
But now that the tariffs appear to be at least maybe successful, if the only factor is Epstein, I don't see people.
And of course, people are still waiting to see if there's more coming out.
So it's not like we think nothing more is coming out.
So maybe people are just waiting and see.
All right.
My state, California, is starting to have a disturbing pattern.
Now, I didn't see this on a news site, but I saw it on a social media site.
It said that Sacramento, California School Board, the entire board just resigned after they audited and found that $180 million of taxpayer fraud.
This is the Sacramento, California School Board.
$180 million of taxpayer fraud.
Apparently, they had fake classrooms they were given money to and fake entities and fake projects.
$180 million.
Now, have I ever mentioned, of course I have, that wherever there's complexity and a lot of people working and a lot of money, and time has gone by and it's always corrupt every time.
So you could have asked me when the Sacramento, California School Board was first formed, whenever they got access to deciding where money went, you could have called me up and say, Scott, do you think that there'll be massive fraud that comes out of this?
And I'll ask a few questions.
I go, okay, is it going to be a complex organization with lots of moving parts?
Yes.
Will they be assigning money to lots of different places and nobody's going to be checking?
Yes.
And will they be able to give that money to their cronies and people who donate to their whatever they do and whatever?
Yes.
And the answer would be, yes, there was 100% chance I was going to go corrupt.
So California, do you see the pattern?
If you give a lot of money to any complicated entity in California, they will form subcommittees and subcommittees and give it to NGOs and fake entities and their cousins, and it'll all just disappear.
And then later, somebody will audit it and say, ah, I don't know, we can't find it.
So here's one of my favorite categories for the podcast is when Democrats are insulting other Democrats, which we're seeing a lot lately.
So, Harry Enton, going back to him on CNN, was not buying Kamala Harris's explanation that she didn't want to be part of a broken system and she was going to apply her leadership outside of government.
Her leadership?
What exactly is she ever led?
She led the Democratic Party to complete destruction.
I would hate to be led that way.
Anyway, Harry Enton says he doesn't believe any of that, basically.
So he's mocking her for obviously lying.
Really, that's the real reason is her poll numbers are terrible.
There was a good chance she wouldn't win anything.
And so it's all bullshit.
And then I see a headline on X, the post-millennial was writing about this, that Tish James, so she's the Attorney General in New York State.
She's suing Trump to allow child sex changes in New York, because I guess they got banned by executive order.
Now, are you having the same impression I am when you see this headline?
Tish James sues Trump to allow child sex changes in New York.
Doesn't it feel like that couldn't possibly be 2025?
Doesn't that feel like something from the old and stupid past?
It just doesn't even seem like it's real.
Like, really?
Are we still talking about that?
And she's decided that of all the things she could spend her time on, she wants to spend her time on being a prominent Democrat anti-Trumper who wants child sex changes by surgery.
Unbelievable.
Someone needs to talk to her and say, we Democrats would like to win another election someday beyond New York City.
Even Senator John Fetterman says that Trump's trade war is going well.
And he looked at, he referred to Bill Maher as his oracle for his party.
They really need a better oracle.
And he says, even Bill Maher says the tariff war stuff looks like it's going to work out.
So Federman has got something good to say about Trump.
And CNN's Michael Smirkanish was training his viewers that they lose credibility when they say everything that Trump does is a disaster.
Because he pointed out, come on, is it not a good thing that the poorest border crossings have slowed to a trickle?
Is it not a good thing that our NATO allies have agreed to move from 2% to 5% of GDP?
And So here's the thing, is CNN, and CNN is complaining because voters, Democrats, don't have anything good to say about Trump.
Now, how could it be that all those Democrats have nothing good to say about Trump?
What would cause a situation like that?
Oh, I know they watch CNN.
So Smirkanish, who I like, by the way, he's a very common sense-based guy.
So he's an honest broker.
But what was left out of that story, and there's obvious reason why, is that the cause of Democrats thinking that 100% of what Trump does is a disaster is that they watch CNN.
They don't sit in a room by themselves and come up with that.
But to be fair, this was on CNN.
So Smurkanish, by amplifying the idea that Trump has done a few things right, is changing that.
So good for him.
But as I often say, our political opinions are not independently arrived at.
They are assigned to us by our favorite media.
All right.
Jasmine Crockett.
Oh, this is funny.
You all know who Jasmine Crockett is, right?
She's the loudmouth idiot Democrat who's just got tons of attention.
And she just found out that if Texas gets away with the redistricting, which I think is in question, right?
There's some question about whether the redistricting will get approved.
But if it does, they're going to draw her out of her own district.
So they're basically going to redraw the map so that she wouldn't have a chance of getting re-elected or that she just doesn't even exist.
They wouldn't need her next time.
So this would be an example of the squeaky wheel getting greased because she was the squeakiest wheel.
So Texas decided to grease her.
And they're going to grease her good.
They're greasing her hard.
So I don't know if this is really happening.
But to me, it would be hilarious if she spent all of her time trying to get the highest profile she possibly could.
And then Texas.
I have this.
Hold on.
I have this image in my head.
God damn it, really?
I don't have a single pen.
All right.
I have to use something.
I'll pretend it's a pen.
I have this image of somebody in Texas saying, so, Jasmine, what's your address?
Apparently they did call her to confirm her address, which is even funnier.
I guess they called everybody to confirm their address, the representatives.
But they called her to confirm her address.
And now I just have this image in my head of somebody in Texas saying, huh, all right, there's your house.
All right.
Well, and you're gone.
So she spends all this energy to become this high-profile person in the Democratic Party.
And she did a great job of getting attention.
And then there's somebody in Texas who just draws a circle around her house with a pencil and makes her go away.
Now, remember, I was saying earlier that if the rigged system goes your way, you don't feel like it's rigged.
You just think it's funny.
Well, like I'm literally laughing at it, but it's because it got rigged in my favor.
I wanted that to happen.
Now, I don't know that it will happen.
You know, it's not a done deal by any stretch.
But I should pause and say, I'm not really in favor of a bunch of redistricting gerrymandering.
Both sides do it, but is that ideal?
Not really.
But this time it might work in my favor, maybe.
Well, as you know, the president of El Salvador, Naib Bukele, worked with his government to get rid of term limits so that he could be serving six-year terms.
I think that's up from four.
And he could be re-elected indefinitely, if that's what the people want.
Now, people complained and called him a dictator for getting rid of the term limits.
But he has an argument on his side, which isn't bad.
So here's his argument that he posted.
He said, 90% of developed countries allow the indefinite re-election of their head of government.
Did you know that?
Did you know that 90% of developed countries allow their leader to just keep running and running as long as they get re-elected?
And no one bats an eye, he says.
But when a small poor country like El Salvador tries to do the same, suddenly it's the end of democracy.
Of course, they'll rush to point out that a quote, a parliamentary system isn't the same as a presidential one.
So most of those other countries he's talking about are a different system.
So if the party gets elected, then they pick their leader, so they can keep picking the same one if they want.
A parliamentary system isn't the same as a presidential one, they'll say, as if that technicality justifies the double standard.
Is it a technicality?
I suppose he's right.
But let's be honest, that's just a pretext.
What do people really mean?
Well, because if El Salvador declared itself a parliamentary monarchy with the exact same rules as the UK, Spain, or Denmark, they still wouldn't support it.
In fact, they would go ballistic if that happened.
Why?
Because the problem isn't the system.
It's the fact that a poor country dares to act like a sovereign one.
Sovereign is not the opposite of poor, so I don't know.
You're not supposed to do what they do.
You're supposed to do what you're told, and you're expected to stay in your lane.
I feel like he's completely wrong with that argument.
Do you believe that there's anybody who's criticizing Him, who is thinking, oh, that's not something a small poor country can do.
Literally, not one person probably had that thought.
And he's, you know, he's arguing it like we all know it.
You know, he uses phrases like it's the fact.
So that's how you know somebody's lying.
Democrats do this all the time.
He goes, Because the problem isn't the system, it's the fact that a poor country dares to act like a sovereign one.
They would go ballistic.
Basically, all these, it's just crazy shit.
So I have to admit, he's got a reasonable argument that most of the big countries allow indefinite elections.
However, however, his argument for why it should be okay and why they're against him is obviously a lie.
Yeah, it's just a lie.
And I haven't seen him lie in a way that was everybody could tell was a lie.
So this is sort of disappointing.
You know, he's such a capable leader and a friend of the United States.
So I want to like him, but what's up with this?
I mean, this is just crazy shit.
So we'll see.
According to Newsmax, Hamas's position at the moment is it won't disarm unless there can be an independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem.
Who is advising Hamas?
If it's AI, they really need to get a better AI because they're starting to remind me of that knight in Monty Python.
Is it Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
In which the knight is in a sword fight with the other character and he gets his arm cut off and then the other arm and then both legs.
And he wants to keep fighting once he has no arms and no legs.
And Hamas is like that now.
Like, ah, we got him now because Great Britain and France and who else said that they are supporting a Palestinian state.
So now Hamas is like, ha, we got him now.
But what do you think Israel is saying?
I think Israel is saying, oh, well, since our plan is to do everything we want with Gaza, because you guys will never give up, I guess we have a free pass to just keep doing what we're doing.
And they do.
So, Hamas, you really need better advisors because I'll tell you the one thing that is not going to happen in any world, not even a chance, is them getting an independent Palestinian state as a reward for taking all the hostages and killing all those people.
There is not the slightest chance, not the slightest, tiniest little chance that Israel is going to reward them for taking hostages.
That's just not going to happen.
But anyway, there's spunky, just like that Monty Python night.
Apparently, India, at one point, Trump thought that maybe India was going to start buying less Russian oil, but a source in India is saying that's not true.
They're going to be buying all kinds of Russian oil.
So just hold this in your mind for a second, all right?
Because there's a story that comes after this where this is important.
So hold in your mind that India gets most of their oil from Russia, which funds Russia and their war, etc.
And Trump very much doesn't want them to be buying that oil from Russia.
So hold that in your head, and we're going to move to the next story.
A drone attack by Ukraine that was 500 miles past the front lines of battle into Russia.
They sent a drone attack 500 miles into Russia that blew up a Russian oil refinery.
So I'm starting to wonder.
I wonder if all those improved weapons that Trump says he's going to sell to Ukraine, do you think that will include weapons that could, if they wanted to, blow up a bunch of Russian oil assets such that India just wouldn't be able to buy enough oil from Russia because Russia wouldn't be able to produce it?
Is that coming?
Because it feels like that would probably cross some line.
But I also thought that when their pipeline got blown up.
If it's possible to blow up their pipeline, what else can you blow up and get away with it?
So maybe India has some surprises coming and Russia too.
We'll see.
Tesla got slapped with, according to Just the News, a $243 million in damages lawsuit, because I guess early on their car hit a couple and killed them.
It was in self-driving mode, but it was in supervised self-driving mode.
And the driver already admitted he was using his phone and wasn't paying attention.
So that's before anybody was supposed to not pay attention.
And they still lost.
So the guy driving the car had already admitted he was 100% liable because he knew.
He knew the car was supposed to be supervised and the technology was new, but he didn't do it.
And then two people died.
And still, Tesla loses and is liable for $243 million.
Amazing.
Did you know that the price of beef?
I don't eat beef, so I didn't know this, is way up.
Did you all know that?
That the price of beef is way up.
I guess there are fewer cows, or at least beef cows, and it's not going to correct itself for at least a year or so, depending on weather and cows and stuff like that.
All right.
Well, enjoy your beef If you can afford it, and Russia has a plan to start a human trial for an mRNA-based cancer vaccine that would be not really a vaccine, it would be to treat people for their specific kind of cancer.
So they would modify each vaccine for each person.
And they're looking for volunteers and they're going to run this thing in 2025.
So, you know what I say?
Hurry up, hurry up.
Maybe it works.
You never know.
I believe that the U.S. was looking at the exact same thing, an mRNA platform vaccine that wasn't really a vaccine, just was modified to treat a specific person.
Well, the New Jersey Institute of Technology used AI to find five new powerful battery materials that could replace lithium.
Now, I don't know if this is real because we're at that period in history where people know they can get attention by saying AI made the difference.
Oh, we needed the AI.
We never could have done this without the AI.
But allegedly, they use the AI to look through a gazillion alternatives for materials, and it came up with some that are very promising.
So we may be close to the point where you just don't need the rare earth minerals so much.
AI will just figure out how to do it without them.
Maybe.
You never know.
All right, that's all I had to talk about today, ladies and gentlemen.
I'll remind you that if you're a subscriber to Owen Gregorian on X, he's got a spaces in a few minutes, but just for his subscribers.
So if you don't subscribe to him, you should on X. And you'll love these spaces.
All right.
AI clone experiments stand in for him as a podcast.
Really?
Is that true?
I'm just reading this.
The Rubin report has an AI clone experiment standing in for him on his podcast for August.
He always takes August off.
Huh.
I'm pretty sure that's not going to work.
So, you know, I looked into cloning myself, but the hallucination factor is through the roof.
I suppose if a human edited it to get rid of the hallucinations, maybe.
So I'll watch.
All right.
I'm going to talk privately to the beloved subscribers of locals.
