God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, American Eagle Stock, Sidney Sweeney, Elon's Tesla Pay Deal, Sean Duffy, Moon Nuclear Reactor, Bureau Labor Statistics Firing, Erika McEntarfer, Charlamagne Tha God, Kamala Harris, Commie Mamdani, Mamdani Affordability Policies, Elizabeth Warren, Job Numbers Accuracy, Mike Benz, Routh Crooks Speculation, Conservative Debanking, California Post Newspaper, Grand Jury Probe Russia Collusion, 2020 Election Investigation, TX Gerrymandering, Victor Davis Hanson, Israel Gaza Plans, NK Remote Worker Spies, 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.
Come on in for the Tuesday morning that you deserve.
Well, it looks like the stock market's up a little bit.
Nothing to be too excited about, but a little bit.
Let me get your comments working and then we'll see what's what.
Uh-oh.
What was that?
Oh, it's a cat.
A cat has visited my office and will be torturing me any moment now.
Oh, I'm going to bounce the boat.
No, don't knock all my papers off my desk.
Oh, well, it's going to be one of those mornings, isn't it?
I got the cat attack.
It's always Gary.
Gary is the troublemaker.
Gary, I gave you food.
I gave you, I golfed with you this morning before the show.
My indoor putting green, which you miss if you're not a subscriber.
All right.
I'm going to do my show, cat or not.
Did I scare you?
All right.
Well, hang in there.
Good morning and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and Gary the Cat.
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 of mugger, a glass of tankard, Schelzerstein, a 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 dope of me at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called a simultaneous sip, and it happens.
All right now, go.
Gary, come over here.
Ah, so good.
Actually, it wasn't very good, but it's better if I tell you it was.
All right, well, let me check the news to see if there's any science that maybe they could have just skipped by asking me.
Oh, here's some.
Courtesy of Swan C University, Kathy Thomas is writing, that it's not just how many sexual partners you've had, because you know how people always say, what's your body count?
And they mean, you know, how many people have you had sex with.
And allegedly, some people don't want to have a life partner who have had lots of sexual partners.
Now, how many of you are in that category?
You would not marry somebody who had lots of sexual partners.
But this new information tells you it's not just how many partners your potential romantic mate has.
It's also when it happened.
But that makes sense.
Because if somebody said to you, well, you know, honestly, I had 30, 30 partners, but they were all in my 20s.
And since then, really, it's been, you know, one.
I'd say, hmm, 30 is a lot.
But really, it only happened in your 20s.
And it's been 10 years.
Yeah, okay.
That's not so bad.
See?
It's not so bad if it was a long time ago.
But alternately, you could say, what's your body count?
And somebody would say, five.
And you'd be all five.
Okay.
In modern day, that's not too bad.
I mean, you know, fewer is better, but five is not too bad.
And then you say, five this morning.
And then it suddenly seems bad again.
See, it's all about the timing.
Just had to ask me.
Well, JP Morgan is predicting that Apple is likely to launch a foldable iPhone in September of 2026.
Do you believe that JP Morgan actually knows what Apple plans to do in September of a year from now?
I have my doubts that JP Morgan knows that at all.
But maybe I would love a foldable phone, as long as it's not more unwieldy than my normal phone when I put it in my pocket.
Well, there's a legal AI startup, legal meaning that they deal with the law, not that they just haven't broken any.
And it's called Harvey.
It's already worth, oh, it has $100 million in annual recurring revenue already.
It's only a few years old.
And I guess it does for lawyers what a lawyer would have to do normally.
So it helps your lawyers be more efficient.
So you need less of them, I guess.
So that's happening.
So it does make sense that the legal profession, which if we're being honest, the reason that the law is as complicated as it is, is so that lawyers can take your money.
Because I'm pretty sure if the law said you must simplify everything you say in a contract, that you wouldn't need nearly as many lawyers.
But AI can do all the complicated stuff.
So lawyers won't be able to say, well, you'll never be able to do this on your own, so I have to do it.
You're going to be, well, I could just show this to ChatGPT and it probably tells me what to negotiate, what to accept.
So I do think the legal domain, maybe half of it will be entirely just decimated by AI.
Maybe half.
I think there's going to be a half that AI can do, a little bit more human-oriented.
But maybe half of the legal profession will go away.
Well, apparently, American Eagle Stock, that's the company that Sydney Sweeney did her commercial for.
You all know about that.
And Trump said some positive things about the company, and their stock was up 20%.
Some said 23%.
I don't know if it's still up today, but the stock is up.
You know what the weirdest thing about the Sydney Sweeney having Good genes commercial is.
We all just sort of accepted that she's a skinny woman with large breasts.
Do you know how many skinny women who have large breasts got there because of good genes, as opposed to good doctor?
Now, there is no indication that Sydney Sweeney has had a boob job.
There's no indication that she doesn't say she has.
Nobody else has either.
And indeed, she said that she had big boobs when she was in high school.
It was kind of a problem.
To which I say, there was something I learned in my 20s, and I'm going to stick with it.
And it goes like this: there's no such thing as a skinny girl with big tits.
Not organically.
There are plenty of them who got surgery, which, by the way, I'm not judging.
I have no bad things to say about it.
If it works for you and you want it, it looks good.
And you don't have any side effects, great.
But am I supposed to believe that she's the world's only skinny chick with gigantic boobs and it just happened because she has good genes?
No.
I'm sorry.
I can't go that far.
Well, that could be the end of my show because I've got a cat laying on my notes who seems very, very happy being there.
All right, but I can pull my notes out and she'll never even notice.
Anyway, but like I say, she might be the only one who just has natural different genes.
Maybe.
Well, Tesla has decided that they've got some kind of a pay deal with Elon.
You know, they were going to give him many billions of dollars and some Delaware judge decided that he didn't earn it, so he didn't get it.
But now Tesla has decided to give him 96 million shares of Tesla, which would be about $29 billion worth of value based on Karu's talk price.
But $29 billion might seem like a lot.
Is that a funny statement?
$29 billion, it might seem like a lot, but it's less than the $50 billion that he was actually contractually entitled to.
So we'll see if anything happens there.
Meanwhile, in other news, Gary.
In other news, NASA Chief Sean Duffy has announced plans that they're going to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the U.S. is.
So we're going to be racing China, mostly China, I guess, to be the first country to have a nuclear reactor on the moon, because whoever gets that going first is going to be able to do a base.
And whoever does the base is going to have some military control and functional and economic control of the moon.
So let's get those nukes up there, huh?
Shall we?
And then I saw a compilation clip yesterday of how many of you remember this.
Do you remember the 2016 election cycle?
And then Trump gets elected.
And then every time he turned on the TV, the bad Democrats were saying, and I quote, and I quote, the walls are closing in on Trump.
Do you remember that?
So I was watching a compilation clip of it from back in those days.
It was just one weasel after another.
The walls are closing in on Trump.
What it usually meant is the Russia collusion hoax.
And given that we know that they knew, at least the insiders knew it wasn't real, how many of the other people knew it wasn't real?
I feel as if everybody who used that phrase on TV, the walls are closing in on Trump, because you and Brandon used it.
It feels to me that that revealed their entire network.
It feels to me that if you just did a replay of all the people who use that phrase, the walls are closing in, you would know all the people who had illegally been part of the plot.
Because it's just too big a coincidence.
And now we notice that all the bad people have moved to Trump as an authoritarian.
And I'll bet it's the same phenomenon, that there's a bunch of insiders who have colluded to say, all right, we're all going to say that it's this or it's that.
We're all going to say authoritarian.
Now, can you correct me on this if I'm wrong?
There's nothing like this on the right, right?
Because nobody has ever come to me and said, all right, now we're all going to say this.
I've never heard that.
And while it is true that people on the right will end up saying things that they heard on Fox News and things, it's not nearly as bad as this, where they just sort of mockingbird say the repeat the same thing.
He's an authoritarian.
And the fact that they're calling him an authoritarian for firing the head of the Bureau of Statistics because she was completely wrong on her statistics.
Isn't that usually why people get fired?
All right, we're going to hire you to be the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And your main job will be to tell us how many new jobs were created.
All right, got it.
If you're off by 10,000% and the entire news cycle has passed before you correct it, we're going to fire you because that's not really good in the statistics.
Wouldn't that be fair?
But we're pretending that firing somebody for being consistently completely wrong about the only thing that they're there to do, which is present statistics, that's not a problem.
Now, the background might be, I presume, that our statistics have always been that bad.
But for whatever reason, we just started accepting it as normal.
And Trump sees one example and he just says, you're fired.
That's the way you should run that.
If they do it one time, come with you with numbers which are completely ridiculous.
And here's the important point.
They knew the numbers were ridiculous when they presented them and they didn't warn anybody.
You know, if they had said, all right, we have preliminary numbers, but honestly, you shouldn't use them because in two months these will be revised and they could be revised just really radically.
So you shouldn't make any decisions based on these numbers.
If they had said that, I would have said, all right, you know, don't fire that person.
They told you everything they knew, did the best they could.
But if you're not, if you're not presenting the numbers as likely to be revised by 10,000% or whatever it was, yeah, you got to get fired.
The very next story here is, according to the Post Millennial, Thomas Stevenson is writing that jobs for native-born Americans have increased by nearly 2 million.
Sounds pretty good, right?
That jobs for native-born Americans are up by 2 million.
Do you know where they got that statistic?
Would you be surprised to learn it comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
It comes from the same source as the woman who just got fired for presenting employment numbers that are complete bullshit.
And then the very next story is: well, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we got a lot of American jobs.
I'm going to say there's nothing we can believe from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So that'll be my take.
Now, I don't know who has the cutest podcast going, but it might be me.
I mean, it might be me.
I do have a cat asleep in my arms here.
All right, what else we got going on?
So the effort by RFK Jr. to ban food stamp use for soda and for candy.
I think they're just banning it for soda.
Did you know that we spend $405 million a day on SNAP?
I guess that's food stamps.
Is SNAP the same thing as food stamps?
It's in the same story.
$405 million a day.
That's how far we are from people being able to feed themselves.
Not very close.
$400 million a day?
Holy cow.
Anyway, but anyway, that looks like that change will happen.
So there's a podcast between Charlemagne the God and Stephen A. Smith.
And Stephen A. Smith is calling out Kamala Harris for saying she didn't want to be part of the broken system when, in fact, she was a career politician.
So she was, you know, she had plenty of chances to fix that broken system if that was going to happen.
So I guess Smith said, you're a career politician.
You've been there practically all your life.
He wasn't talking to her.
He was talking about her.
My God, you've been part of it.
And now you're saying it's broken.
That means you couldn't do much so much to fix it when you were in it.
The system was broken long before Donald Trump got into office, Charlemagne said.
Well, how many think that's a good point that she was in the system and failed to fix it?
The system that's broken is just that anytime you have a complicated system and lots of people involved and lots of money, it's always corrupt.
That's it.
What exactly was she supposed to fix?
Was Kamala Harris supposed to signal-handedly fix the part that the world is full of corrupt people who will take any opportunity to steal shit?
What was she supposed to do?
That's not really an insightful comment.
No, there's not really any chance that Kamala Harris could have fixed what was broken about the system.
It's way more broken than one person could have tweaked a few things and getting it going again.
And then separately, Charlemagne was taking a phone call from a caller who was saying some good things about Trump.
And the caller said, I feel like this is one of the first presidents that's actually doing what they said they was going to do.
And by the way, I feel like we should just accept that the words was and were should just be used interchangeably instead of being all pedantic about it.
Like this sentence.
I feel like this is one of the first presidents who's actually doing what they said they was going to do.
Now, you know exactly what they mean, right?
So why is it wrong to say was and right to say were when you know exactly what he means.
I feel like we need to loosen up on that.
Anyway, so the caller says that Trump was doing everything he said he was going to do.
And Charlemagne corrected him and said, well, no, not necessarily.
Because Trump said on day one, he was going to bring the price of groceries down.
And he didn't do that.
And the caller, the caller says, everybody know in your right mind, there's no way somebody can do something instantly.
And I think to myself, did somebody really have to explain that to Charlemagne?
That when Trump said, I'll end the war in one day and I'll bring down egg prices in one day.
Do we really have to explain it?
That that didn't literally mean one day.
And here this caller, I love the way the caller says it.
Everybody knows in their right mind, there's no way somebody's going to do something instantly.
Right.
Exactly.
Everybody in their right mind knew that he just meant it was a priority.
Did he treat it like a priority?
Well, what are you going to do about it?
I mean, he did all the things you can do something about it.
He went after the eggs.
He did lower the price of gas.
But inflation isn't exactly the kind of thing that you can deal with instantly.
So, you know, I'm not even sure exactly what the government can do in general, except not make terrible Mistakes.
All right.
I've been watching some videos of Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren backing Mondani, Mom Dami, Mom Dami, Zoran Momdani, who's running for mayor of New York City.
And I'm liking, I heard Jesse Waters use that.
I don't know if he came up with it, but Kami Mondami.
Kami Mondami is a pretty good nickname because it just, I just want to say it, Kami Mondami.
So that's very effective.
Good job, Jesse.
But Elizabeth Warren is all in on his socialist agenda.
And she is wise enough to know, as are most of the Democrats, that he finally, he kind of solved the puzzle.
And the puzzle was, is there anything that Democrats can say that will be persuasive to voters?
And the answer is yes.
The affordability approach that Mondami is using absolutely is the right approach because it's easy to understand, etc.
The problem is that how do you actually do the affordability?
Well, he's got a bunch of ideas that we know always fail.
Or we think we know that.
We think we're that smart.
So he had an idea for a government government grocery stores.
Well, that's been tried and didn't work anywhere.
And then I guess something about free transportation and some other free stuff.
And you can't get that stuff unless you're raising taxes on people, et cetera.
So it's hard to get there.
But here's what Elizabeth Warren has added to his framing: that those potential solutions that Zoran is mentioning are experiments.
In other words, they're not committing to, oh yeah, no matter what, we're going to have government grocery stores, but rather committing to an experiment in which they see if there's any way you can make a government grocery store be additive without being a huge disaster.
To which I say, that really, unfortunately, that's a pretty effective approach.
Because, you know, most people would say, ha, it's been tried and it didn't work.
Well, if she calls it experimental, she just has to say, yeah, we're going to try doing it a different way.
And if it doesn't work, we'll try something else or we'll abandon it.
And then I go, ah, oh, that makes sense.
Because I don't know for sure that there's no way you could ever do anything that was additive for some number of poor people who were using their SNAP benefits to buy soda.
Maybe, maybe.
I'm open to the experiment.
So she has very cleverly shifted it from, I have these specific ideas of how to get you some affordability.
She's shifted it to, we can play with this.
We can experiment with this.
And it's pretty clever if he buys it.
If he doesn't buy into the experiment part of the frame, or nobody else does, then it won't go anywhere.
But I think she's smart to put it in that frame.
According to ADP, the payroll service company, a private company hiring has bounced back and they've hired 104,000 people since July.
I saw unusual whales and they count on X reporting that.
To which I say, does ADP really know that?
Why does the government not know about jobs when jobs are mostly payroll is mostly automated?
If payroll is automated pretty much everywhere, are you telling me that the government can't figure out how many paychecks are out there and know that there are more of them or less of them?
Does the government really not know how many people paid, let's say, disability tax this past month?
We really don't know that.
The money is taken out of people's accounts and goes into another account.
And we don't know, we can't measure the volume of that every month to know if it's more or more or fewer people are on payroll.
So I don't know.
It seems to me this is a very fixable problem.
How many of you have had the experience that when one hoax is revealed, it changes how you feel about the other alleged hoaxes?
Has anybody had that yet?
Here's one that here's one that's affecting me.
I think maybe Mike Benz is affecting my brain on this as well.
If we did not know, and we do know, that the Russia collusion hoax was orchestrated by the CIA, the CIA, and the FBI, and the highest levels of our elected officials.
If we didn't know that that all really happened in the real world, would you be willing to believe that the two assassination attempts against the president may have had a U.S. government connection?
I probably would have rejected that automatically.
If there had never been a President Kennedy assassination, in which, in hindsight, it seems, I think, obvious that our CIA was intimately involved in that.
If you had never heard of that, it would be pretty hard to imagine that it could ever happen again, or for the first time, in your opinion, if you didn't know that it happened once.
And then we find out that in our lifetime, the worst political act we've ever seen, which is the Russia collusion hoax, the degree of coordination behind that and the RICO-like number of crimes that are probably kicked up is unlike anything I've ever seen.
And then I hear Mike Ben say that Ruth, R-O-U-T-H, the guy who hid by the Trump golf course and got caught before he fired, that he apparently had some State Department connections.
All right.
Well, you know, maybe that's a coincidence, right?
You just had some State Department connections.
I mean, you have some State Department connections, right?
Don't you?
Don't all of you have?
I don't.
No, you don't.
You don't have any State Department connections.
But apparently he did.
And then the shooter at the Butler event, Crooks was his name, he had these encrypted apps, which seems a little weird for a loner.
He was weirdly successful in his operational endeavors, weirdly, because it turned out that the Department of Homeland Security, which was a sitting in for the Secret Service, so Secret Service was spread thin that week because they had different jobs they had to handle at the same time.
So the Department of Homeland Security, at least one sub-side of them, stood in to do extra security.
And then everything went wrong.
Did you know, Mike Benz reminds us, that apparently Crooks would often go to a gun range that was the same one that the Department of Homeland Security typically used, or at least one department within it.
Now, these are just connections, right?
There's no direct smoking gun that says, oh, the State Department sent this guy, or that the Department of Homeland Security was well aware of this guy.
I don't have that.
We're not at that level of any kind of proof of anything.
But my question was, if we had never seen that Kennedy had in fact been murdered by our own government and CIA, it looks like.
And if we didn't know for sure that the Russia collusion hoax was organized by the highest levels of our own government and they're still hiding it, if we didn't know that, I wouldn't even blink if somebody said, oh, these people have connections.
They've got connections to the State Department.
I would have said, oh, it's a big world.
People know people.
It doesn't mean anything.
But now I just assume there's something to it.
I'm so far into the conspiracy theory world, just of the conspiracies that we know a lot about.
We know which parts are true, that I find it hard to believe that both of those shooters were operating independently.
How many of you think that both of them, you know, there might be a difference between them, but how many of you think that both of them were doing it absolutely independently?
It had nothing to do with any U.S. government influence.
Nobody tried to hypnotize them or pay them off or anything else.
I don't know.
It's a little bit harder to believe that they were operating independently, given what we know about everything else lately.
Well, this story might be a little bit of fake news, but I'm not sure yet.
So keep an eye on this one.
But apparently the Trump administration was going to say it was going to cut federal emergency funding to cities and states that allowed boycotts of Israel or pursued boycotts of Israel.
Now, apparently that created an uproar on the base.
So it wasn't just Democrats complaining about Trump.
It was his own base saying, wait, wait, wait.
Are you telling me that a city is going to lose emergency funds because they backed a boycott of another country?
That's not exactly America First.
And so it looks like the Trump administration backed off of that.
So that will not be a requirement.
But in order to get that funding, you have to not be involved in DEI or immigration violations, according to the AF Post.
All right.
In other news where Trump is punishing people, a lot of the news is Trump punishing people.
Have you noticed that?
It started slow, but now there's like four stories of Trump just punishing somebody with a government purse.
So apparently the White House is putting together an executive order to punish banks for discriminating against conservatives.
Now, I don't know if that means only in the past or if currently that's happening.
And also the White House is preparing to crack down the banks that have debanked Bitcoin and crypto companies, Wall Street Journal is reporting.
So if you're keeping track, have you figured out which oligarchs Trump is in favor of?
He is apparently not too keen on the oligarchs who are bankers.
He's going after the bankers.
He's not too keen on the oligarchs that are big pharma because he's going after the big pharma, right?
He's not too keen on the oligarchs who are oil companies, because even though he's drill baby drill and trying to make it easy to drill, the net effect is it drives down oil prices.
So I ask you again, which oligarchs is he supposedly in favor of?
So it's not banks, it's not pharma, it's not oil.
So which oligarchs?
Maybe some crypto people or something?
I don't know.
He doesn't seem very oligarch-friendly to me.
Did you know that India had cleverly figured out, or at least people in India figured out, they could buy Russian oil cheaply and then they could resell it for a big profit.
So that was good for Russia because they were selling more oil, but bad for the United States relationship with India because it meant India was supporting Russia, basically.
And so Trump says he will substantially raise tariffs on India over their Russian oil purchases.
So he's punishing banks for discriminating against conservatives.
He's punishing cities for DEI.
He's punishing colleges for DEI, and now he's going to punish India for dealing with...
He's just doing a lot of punishing.
Well, here's a weird story.
So you know that Murdoch owns not just the Wall Street Journal, but also owns the New York Post, one of the few conservative outlets.
And now the New York Post is going to expand to California.
So there's going to be a California Post.
Now, what would be a less obvious thing to do than to start a new newspaper?
How do you make money starting a new newspaper in 2025?
Well, it could be that it's not so much a newspaper revenue play as it is controlling the controlling the narrative.
Most of the news in both newspapers presumably will be the same, but maybe Californians will not read something that says New York Post on it.
So maybe it just needs to say California.
And then they could add some California elements to it.
But I suspect that Murdoch's real play is influence.
I don't really think he would see it as a huge moneymaker to support a newspaper, another one.
Well, in big, big news, possibly big, big, really big, Pam Bondi has ordered a grand jury probe into the Obama officials over the Russia hoax.
So we don't know who's been referred to the grand jury.
But as MSNBC's Nicole Wallace says, it's all over debunked allegations.
So MSNBC is pretending like the Russia, the Russia collusion hoax never really happened, I guess.
And CNN is calling the Russia collusion hoax the Russian investigation.
Well, that's kind of playing a safe, isn't it?
Yeah, I suppose it was an investigation, except that we know now it was a fake investigation, or at least much of it was fake, and it was intended just to cripple Trump.
So CNN calls it a Russian investigation, not a hoax.
It was just an investigation.
Didn't go well.
So given that we know that grand juries, once they're formed, they almost always indict because they don't have a, it's not a real competitive system where all the evidence is shown and everybody argues everything.
So you usually, you usually don't even do the grand jury unless you know you're going to get an indictment.
You usually do.
So we are at a point where some very high-level people are very likely to be indicted in how long is it going to take?
Maybe a few months.
So things are going to get really interesting.
And as other people have pointed out, sometimes the process is the penalty.
So you would take these people out of their normal lives and have them open up their piggy banks to pay for ungodly, expensive lawyers, and their reputations will be dragged down and their businesses will suffer if they have side businesses, etc.
So just being dragged into the legal process is quite a penalty before anybody even figures out if you're guilty of anything.
So there are going to be some big names getting dragged hard, it looks like.
In other news, Trump might soon announce a Fed chair who would replace Powell.
Now, it wouldn't replace Powell until Powell's term is over in May.
So that would have a the effect would be, as others have said, like a shadow Fed leader, somebody who could go in public and say, well, if I were already, if I were already in the job, I think I'd be leaning toward lowering those interest rates.
And it's going to put pressure on Powell.
So I do expect that that'll happen.
All right.
According to the Erasmus account on X, the 2020 nationwide election fraud syndicate will start to come into the sunlight in the next few weeks.
Well, I don't know what they know that I don't know.
So there must be some activity happening that is not announced yet.
But if you didn't know, the Rasmussen account has been very closely following all claims of election irregularity from 2020 and are now teasing us that there's something that's coming on that.
Could it be that the Trump administration will launch a major investigation into the 2020 election?
And could it be that there's some real things that they'll find there?
I don't know.
I don't know.
We'll find out.
Well, you probably know the story that the state of Texas tried to get some gerrymandering approved that would allow them to have up to five extra representatives in Congress if approved.
But the Democrats who would have to be part of the vote, even though they would be outvoted, have left town.
So there's not a quorum for the vote.
So you have to have a certain number of people present to make the vote valid.
So they left and they went to Illinois, I think.
And Governor Abbott is threatening that they'll be replaced with a special election and they might face bribery charges because I guess somebody offered to pay somebody for something, in addition to losing their jobs.
So the pressure is on.
But J.B. Pritzker says he's going to be protecting these people.
He'll be protecting them.
So good luck there.
I feel like the Texas Republicans have to win that in the end, right?
Isn't this one of those stories where it's sort of like Corey Booker doing the filibuster?
While it's happening, you might have to pay attention to it, but it can't last forever.
These people are going to have to come back.
They're going to want their jobs.
So I suspect Republicans will win in the end.
There was a caller who called into C-SPAN recently and said that Democrats need to show more of a spine and more interest in working people instead of saying they're just saying they're for working people.
Now, that's more of that mistake, right?
Where they think that showing a spine is what they need to do.
No, they don't need to show a spine.
They need to show a policy that people liked.
They wouldn't need any spine at all if they had good policies, would they?
So every time the Democrats believe that what they're lacking is fight and resolve and spine is another day that they're not getting any closer to winning.
And then just to show you how clueless Democrats are, I think the whole Democrat part of the world is about some part of the Democrats scamming the other parts of the Democrats.
Does it seem like that to you?
If you were to separate, well, if you were to look at just the Democrats, the ones in power, there would be two kinds of people.
There would be all these consultants and NGOs who are trying to rip off the other Democrats.
And then there would be the Democrats who are getting ripped off.
And that's about it.
It's just thieves and people who are victims.
Anyway, the newest Democrat scheme, which looks like nothing but a money-making scheme for some Democrats, is to spend tens of millions of dollars to fund hundreds of content creators so that their social media game will be better than it was.
So the Democrats believe that they can artificially create what Republicans have done organically.
That's wrong, right?
Isn't that obviously not going to work?
Because it's not like you could set out to create Victor Davis Hansen or Mike Benz or how do you set out to create Matt Walsh or obviously Joe Rogan.
How do you do that?
How do you set out to create Theo Vaughan like artificially?
These are not things anybody can do.
The thing which I think Democrats are failing to recognize is that for reasons that I don't even understand completely, it may be the common sense theme of Republicans, maybe.
But it seems to me that the smartest, most capable people all just sort of gravitated to one side.
And, you know, Elon Musk would be the obvious one.
And then the all-in-pod guys, David Sachs, even J.D. Vance, Peter Thiel.
We're talking about people who aren't just smart.
They're next level smart.
You know, I would say somebody like James Carville, as much as I like making fun of his inability to get his message across, he would be very smart for a Democrat.
But he's not Victor Davis Hansen or Mike Benz or any of the ones I mentioned.
He's not that smart.
They don't really have somebody who's anything but academic smart.
And it seems like the Republicans, for whatever reason, I don't even know what the reason is, seem to have attracted all the people who are not just regular smart, but I don't even understand how you can be a human being.
Do you ever listen to Victor Davis Hansen?
And he's talking about any topic and putting context on it.
And the whole time you're listening to it, you're thinking, how does he even know all that?
How do you know all that?
You listen to Mike Benz and he can talk for three hours.
And the whole time you're going, how do you know that?
How do you know that?
Come on.
How do you know that?
And he does know that.
I mean, he really does know it.
So who on their side is doing something like that?
The closest they got is, what was it, Ezra?
Ezra Klein writing a book about all the things that they're doing wrong.
I mean, that's a very capable piece of work, but he's not really in the same domain with what the Republicans put together organically.
Well, they didn't even put it together.
It just happened organically.
And if I may, who on the Democrat side has my understanding of persuasion?
Right?
Now, I don't believe there's anyone.
I don't believe there's anyone on the Democrat side who can do what I can do, which is tell you what works and what doesn't work.
And so you can do more of what works.
Somehow the most capable people just ended up in one place.
And the Democrats just can't see it because that would allow them to, if they saw it, they'd have to admit that there's a gigantic brain power difference driving one side versus the other.
I see you making suggestions, but I'm not going to make, I'm not going to agree with all those names.
Yeah, okay.
There was another one, Megan Kelly.
Who's the Democrat Megan Kelly?
Right?
Who's the Democrat Molly Hemingway?
I just realized that I was being super sexist when I mentioned the people.
They were all male.
But you can throw in Molly Hemingway.
You can throw in Megan Kelly.
Unusually capable people.
They're not just normal.
These are very unusually Miranda Devine.
Unusually capable.
Very capable.
All right.
Apparently the Kremlin.
Oh, one other thing.
So apparently the Israeli government, Nanyahu, said that they're going to occupy the Gaza Strip.
I think that's official.
The news is reporting it.
Occupy it means they have no plans of ever returning it back to the Gazans for to form some government.
They're just going to own it.
It will just be part of Israel.
Now, name all the people who predicted that before today.
Just one.
Just me.
Right?
Can you name one person who at the very beginning of the Gaza war said this isn't going to be anything but complete victory?
Because that's what they said.
Total victory was literally their slogan, total victory.
And they said early on, they said that we're going to change reality on the ground and we're never going to have this problem again.
Now, to me, they said as clearly as they possibly could, we're going to devastate this place and just completely own it in the future.
And Hamas will never have any role here again.
Now, you remember I predicted this right from the beginning, right?
And now it's a fact.
And so I'll go back to my prior conversation and say, who is it on the Democrat side who can make good predictions?
I don't even know.
But if you looked on the Republican side, I don't get them all right, of course.
I'm not going to tell you I got everything right that I've ever predicted.
But we have a whole bunch of smart people who can predict things quite reliably by just being a little bit more aware of what's going on, I guess.
I don't know.
My cat's head just disappeared.
All right.
He seems very happy.
All right.
So here's my comment on Israel, because people imagine different things about my opinion, so I have to make sure that you understand.
Here's the wrong way to argue about Israel.
And I think this would apply to comic Dave Smith and some other people.
If you're arguing morality, why?
There's nothing over there that has anything to do with morality or what's ethical, because everybody has their own opinion of what's moral and ethical.
So it's not really a standard that can ever work to make anything better.
So why would you even talk about it?
Well, we want to pretend that we're the good ones and we have better morality than other people.
So that's the only reason to talk about it.
If you're talking about Israel's morality, you're really just talking about yourself.
All you're doing is positioning yourself as well.
If I were in charge, I would be a far more moral and ethical person.
And let me tell you, a lot fewer children would be getting killed.
But really, that's just about you.
If you need to talk about yourself, go wild.
But it has nothing to do with Israel.
Israel is like every other country.
They pursue what is in their best interest.
Is it in their best interest to completely devastate Gaza, relocate people to other countries, and then own it in the long run?
Probably.
I mean, I can't make a prediction about that because there's so many variables over there.
But yeah, probably.
It probably isn't in their best interest.
If you check back in 20 years, would they be glad they took over Gaza?
Probably.
Probably.
So as long as Israel thinks it's in their best interest, that's the end of the story.
Now, we might say, but it's not in our best interest.
And that would be a fair conversation.
And we would talk about whether we should participate in something or be part of funding it.
Those are good conversations.
But if you talk about whether what they're doing is good or evil, if you're comparing the number of children they killed.
And the one that bothered me the most is I saw somebody arguing for proportionality.
Proportionality, meaning that Israel should only kill some number of people that would be the equivalent of what October 7th was, however you wanted to calculate that.
To which I say, where did proportionality come into anything?
When you're talking about one country pursuing its best interests, and I guess Gaza is pursuing its highest interests, neither of them are interested in proportionality.
They're only interested in winning.
That's all that matters.
So when people say, Scott, why do you keep supporting Israel?
I say, when did I do that?
I mean, certainly everybody understands that countries can defend themselves, but that's what everybody thinks.
That's not me.
What I think is that if you're in the conversation about who's better or proportional or more moral, you're just in the wrong conversation.
And it's really about yourself.
It just isn't about Israel.
Israel is going to do its thing no matter what my opinion is.
Do everybody agree?
Now, I know you think that I'm highly influential, but none of you think that I'm influencing Israel policy, right?
Does anybody think that?
Have I even tried?
I've never even tried because it's just something I observe.
It's not something, it's not my country.
So if there's a question of whether we should be funding it or not, I'll get into that.
But no, every country gets to do whatever they think is in their best interest, and it will always be thus.
There will be a cost to it.
I don't know if I've said this directly, but the price of permanently taking over Gaza and relocating everybody and doing what they're doing, the price of it, I think, is that they lose the Holocaust as a protective narrative.
Now, we don't know that.
It's too soon to say, but that looks like the price.
It looks like the price of owning Gaza and continuing not to have a two-country solution, which I think Israel prefers, or at least Netanyahu Yahoo prefers.
The price is that he's going to use the Holocaust narrative.
That's like Israel's greatest asset, is that there's that narrative that we all understand and we've all bought into never again because that would be a pretty good thing to never again happen.
But I think that they're losing that narrative because there'll be enough people who say, and it doesn't matter if it's true.
So don't argue with me.
I'm saying what other people will say.
So I'm not arguing it's true.
I'm just saying that other people will say, well, you know, forget about your Holocaust narrative because you did this.
And I think that that argument will carry some weight.
So it's expensive.
But it looks like it's happening.
Well, North Korean spies apparently have been posing as remote workers for a number of businesses.
I guess there are thousands of them, according to CrowdStrike, the cyber security company.
TechCrunch is writing about this.
And they've seen hundreds of cases where North Koreans posing as remote IT workers Have infiltrated companies to generate money and probably just steal secrets too, but at least generate money.
And my question is this: how did so many North Korean workers get jobs in a DEI atmosphere?
I would think that all the spies would be thwarted.
Say, all right, and what's your nationality?
And of course, they lie and they say, I'm South Korean.
And they'd say, hmm, South Korean.
Well, we've got a lot of black candidates that we're looking at first.
So I'm quite impressed that the North Koreans for getting through DEI.
I don't know how they do it, but it makes me wonder how I can get a North Korean spy to work for me.
Because I don't have any national secrets, but wouldn't it be great to have your own North Korean remote worker?
Especially if you knew they were a spy, but they didn't know that you knew.
And as long as you had your cyber situation nailed down so they couldn't get into anything naughty, and just have them go to work every day and do your work and actually do the work, because that's how they keep their cover.
And you just make the North Koreans do all your work.
And you underpay them.
To me, that would be hilarious.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all I had to talk about today.
I'm going to talk to the locals people, my beloved locals people, privately because they want to talk to me and my cat.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining.
I appreciate it.
And I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
