God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Tulsi Gabbard, UFO Whistleblower, Google AI Genie 3, Trump Admin Simplification Policies, Red State Redistricting, Stanford Employees, TX Democrats Flee Funding, Safety-Motivated Migration, Manipulated Crime Data, JD Vance, Marko Rubio, Obama Admin Grand Jury, John Brennan, Adam Schiff, AI Trusts Fake News, Fraudulent Science Papers, Debbie Dingell, Epstein Files, Elizabeth Warren Behavior, Big Pharma Tariffs, Doge Big Balls Assaulted, Edward Coristine, Federalizing DC, Ukraine Drone Corruption, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Let me check on your comments, make sure they're working.
And then we're going to have some fun.
Happy Wednesday.
We've got lots of room in here.
Come on in.
Doesn't it feel like you're actually going to a real place?
And if you close your eyes and just listen to me talking to you, you'll be pretty sure you're the only person I'm talking to.
It'd be like getting a phone call from your boring friend who just wants to talk about the news all the time.
Okay, that's me.
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 this experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tankard, chelsterstein, a 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 dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous zip.
And it happens.
Hello?
One word.
Exquisite.
Well, I wonder if there are any studies that could have been skipped just by asking Scott.
Oh, here's one.
The AP is talking about a poll that they did.
So the AP did a poll, and they discovered, I know this will be a shocker for you, that young adults are less likely to follow politics or say voting is important.
Huh.
How in the world would we ever know that young people are less likely to follow politics?
Would it be if you had ever met even one young person in your life?
How many young people do you know who are following politics?
I don't know any.
I literally don't know any in my real life.
So yeah, I'm sure you got some, you know, a few people who are doing it, but no, just ask me.
Next time you want to know, hey, who's paying attention to politics?
Is it young people or is it older people?
I'll tell you.
Well, I just saw before I went live here that Howard Stern will not be renewed by Sirius.
So Howard Stern just got canceled.
And I shouldn't feel happy about it.
I mean, he's probably worth, I don't know, $500 million or something.
So he'll do okay.
It's probably time.
But does it seem to you that everything that's anti-Trump is having a bad year?
Does it seem like that to you?
It feels like that.
I feel like Trump has outlasted all of the media entities that were after him.
And Howard Stern was no friend of his.
I also understand that the Republicans in Congress are subpoenaing the Clintons to talk about Epstein's Island or Epstein or something.
And I don't know what they think will come out of that.
But obviously they're just trying to control the summer headlines.
Let me tell you, this administration has done the best job I've ever seen of managing the headlines across the summer so that Trump is always giving us, and the Republicans, they're just continuously giving us something to talk about that isn't really very important, but it's something to talk about during the summer.
All right.
Apparently, according to futurism in Victor Tangerman, he's writing that job seekers now, when they think they're going to an interview with a real-life company, find that the interviewer is an AI.
So there are people who think they're going for an actual human-to-human job interview, and they're either put in front of a computer or they do it from home, I guess, without having to go in.
But people are having a tough time getting past the AI.
To which I asked the following question.
How bad would you have to be at interviewing for an AI to stop you?
How many of you could not lie your way past an artificial intelligence at this stage of their artificial intelligence?
I mean, really?
You couldn't figure out how to lie your way past an AI until you could get to a real person?
Come on.
How hard would it be?
Because the AI is not programmed to distrust you.
So it's going to believe anything you tell it.
And if you just simply act like the most awesome person in the world, do you think the AI would know the difference?
Do you think the AI could even tell if you were being sarcastic?
As soon as you get the AI, just say, oh, it's good to see you.
I can't wait until I go back to feeding the poor.
And I've got a patent I'm working on that will give free energy to the world.
And I'd sure like to talk to a real life human.
All right.
Well, I'll give you lessons on how to thwart the AI interview.
Well, the New York Times has a story that says that there have been 400,000 cases of reported sexual assault and sexual misconduct in Uber rides from 2017 to 2022.
Now, that's not funny because these are serious accusations.
But 400,000?
Now, I guess that would include every kind of sexual comment and language and stuff like that.
But holy cow.
It's hard.
I can't even imagine being female and getting into An Uber at this point.
Because the odds are not good.
I sometimes forget what it's like to be male and how I'm not really afraid of anything in public.
Do any of you have that experience?
Even if you go someplace where maybe it's not the safest place, you just have this sort of cone of safety around you because you're male.
You know, nobody's going to want to sexually attack me.
If they thought they want to rob me, they'd better have a good weapon.
So it must be terrible.
I mean, I'm being serious, by the way.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that if I just wanted to take a ride in a cab-like unit, that I'd be putting my honor and my life at risk.
I never feel that way.
I've just never had that experience.
To me, just everything's about the same level of risk.
I don't even notice.
Wow.
So will the driverless cabs have an advantage over Uber?
Oh, yes, they will.
So Uber, I'm not entirely sure how they survive in the long, long run.
In the short run, sure.
But don't they have to be replaced by driverless cars because the drivers are the big risk?
Feels like inevitable.
Well, Tulsi Gabbard was on a podcast, Pod Force One.
And she was being asked about aliens, you know, because she's a DNI man.
So she would be the one to know.
In theory, by now, Tulsi Gabbard would know more, or at least have the authority to know more, about the potential that there are aliens that have visited or might visit the Earth than anyone else alive.
So wouldn't you like to know what she says about it?
She still has a lot of questions about the New Jersey drone incidents and believes that there's more to that story than what the government has told us, meaning that the government doesn't really know what was going on.
And that the sightings were a lot more than New Jersey.
So there was something massive that was going on, and the government doesn't know what it was.
So that's a little bit scary.
Doesn't mean it's aliens, just as it means we're underinformed.
And she was, by the way, she was talking to Miranda Devine.
And she said she has a lot of questions unanswered about the New Jersey drones.
And then in terms of the larger question of aliens, she said she's quote, there's nothing that she's prepared to talk about.
And that her team will be transparent when the time is right.
And that they continue to look for the truth so that they can share it with the American people.
So doesn't that sort of suggest that whatever it is that she knows, which would be, in theory, more than anybody knows, she would know more than anybody.
And she's not willing to say there's no such thing as aliens.
Isn't that interesting?
Because if what she knew is that there were no credible alien anythings, wouldn't she tell us that?
Yes, we've been looking into it for years.
That's the first thing I looked into when I got the, you know, all the top secret clearances.
And I can assure you that there's nothing credible that looks like an alien.
She was not willing to say that.
She's still got questions.
I don't know what to make of that.
Now, personally, I do not believe there are any aliens who have visited or will visit.
So I'm not a believer.
But just to make it fun, there is a new UFO whistleblower, just a random-looking guy on social media, who believes that in his day job, he was made aware by, I guess, an email that went to him that wasn't supposed to.
This is such a bad story.
Don't believe anything I'm about to say.
It was on social media, so I'm not making it up, but I would say the credibility is quite low.
So allegedly, somebody who worked for the Pentagon got an email that was meant for somebody with a similar name, but it wasn't meant for him.
And he alleges that he learned that the Pentagon expects contact with a sentient alien force on October 29th.
Now, is it my imagination, or was there not an actual movie that involved aliens visiting the Earth?
It was E.T., right?
Didn't E.T. come to Earth coincidentally on Halloween so they could walk around and nobody would know it was an alien.
So these sentient beings are supposed to show up around October 29th.
Will they reveal themselves on October 31st on Halloween?
I wonder.
Well, I know what my costume is going to be.
I will be one of those aliens.
All right.
So we're not even going to notice.
We might have aliens walking among us all Halloween day.
And we'll just say, nice costume.
Where'd you get that?
Well, here's a story that I don't know if I can truly express.
Some things you have to see, and you're just listening to me, so you don't get to see it.
But Google, their AI, Genie, it's now Genie 3.
I saw a demo of the worlds it can create for you with one prompt.
So you might write one sentence that says, it's the beach, and a perfect beach will appear.
But it won't be just a static picture of a beach.
It'll be a video of a beach.
Well, it'll seem like a simulated reality.
And you could look around in all directions, and it would create itself in real time as you were turning to look.
So nothing would be there until you wanted to look in that direction.
It would create it.
So it would be a complete simulated world.
And then you can add stuff to it with just another prompt.
So you could say, and there's a unicorn.
And then a unicorn would gallop by.
It would look exactly like it's a real unicorn, because I've seen a lot of real unicorns, and you can tell the difference from the fake ones.
But you might be saying to me, Scott, every day there's another report of a, wow, you can make a little movie scene, but this is the first one that can remember changes and make itself on the go.
So it showed a demonstration where somebody told it to put some paint on a wall, and then you could go wander around in other places.
And when you come back, that paint will still be on the wall right where you put it.
So aren't we very close to being able to create a simulated environment with a simulated creature that says it's sentient and says it's conscious and acts like it has purpose and reason and curiosity and all the things that humans have.
How far away are we from knowing that we are a simulation ourselves because we created one where the person in the simulation swears they're real and has no way to know they're not.
And the answer is one year.
We are one year away from knowing for sure that we are a simulation because we will be able to create one.
And once we've created one, do you think we'll create another one?
Of course, because it'd be easy to create another one once you've done it once.
And once we had more simulated worlds than we had real ones, and all the characters within the simulated worlds believe they're real and act like they believe it and they seem to have consciousness as far as we can tell.
Because remember, I can't tell that you're conscious.
I just have an impression.
I think I'm conscious because of my internal sensation of it, but I don't know that you are.
I mean, I don't know it.
So if we created these artificial worlds where there were characters that, let's say, were not conscious, but it seemed like it to us, it would be just like people.
So the whole world will be very different in one year, partly because we'll understand our true nature much better.
Trump administration continues to do smart things when it comes to simplifying regulations.
So I guess the Trump administration is going to look at drone approval process.
So if you were an entrepreneur and you want to start a drone company and you wanted to do something that wasn't strictly approved already, it would be really hard to get approval, even if you were asking for something quite harmless.
So apparently there's a tangle of regulatory things that can be simplified and would help the U.S. become dominant in drones.
Because if there's one thing I know, we got to be dominant in drones.
I think one of the things that Trump is doing a great job in is teaching us that everything's a competition and that drones are not just a cool new technology.
They are something we better be better than everybody else at.
AI isn't just a new user interface.
It's something that the U.S. is going to have to be the best at, or we're going to pay for that.
Same with our economy, same with our military, et cetera.
We don't really have an option of falling behind.
We're letting other countries be our manufacturing base or stuff like that.
So I do love the fact that Trump makes you think everything is a winner-take-all battle, because it kind of is.
And it feels like that makes you do the right stuff.
All right.
So according to Newsmax, Missouri is thinking about doing a little redistricting, redrawing the map so that they have more Republicans in that case.
But did you know the, according to the Wall Street Apes account, I saw on X, that the real reason that the Democrats don't like Texas doing the gerrymandering,
aside from the obvious it creates more positions for Republicans in Congress, the reason they don't like it is that even though California could match it and they could do their own redistricting and cancel out what Texas did, that if all the states did that, here's what you would discover.
You would discover that the only Democrat states that haven't completely done it so far are New York and California.
But apparently there are more states that are Republican leaning that haven't fully maximized their redistricting and gerrymandering, that if both sides went completely wild and just gerrymandered everything they could as soon as they could, Republicans would come out way ahead.
How many of you knew that?
Now, I only know it because I read the Wall Street Apes account, so I'm going to take their word for it because it showed details, et cetera.
But isn't that the most important part of the story?
The most important part of the story is that the Democrats can't call the Republicans bluff because the bluff is, hey, if you do that, we'll do this.
And then, you know, it'll be this war of redistricting.
The Republicans would love a war of redistricting because they have more ammunition and they would come on ahead.
So the weird thing is that not only are the Democrats just guaranteed to lose when it comes to the Texas politicians who left town so that there wouldn't be a quorum, so that there wouldn't be a finalized vote, so that they wouldn't redistrict and add some Republicans.
They don't really have a chance of winning that, right?
There's no path to victory.
All they're doing is sort of demonstrating in a way that gets some attention, but Ultimately, they're going to lose.
So I did a little micro lesson for my subscribers earlier this morning, but I'll give you a summary of it.
If you'd like to learn how to be a Democrat consultant and give them good advice, here's how you do it.
The Democrats' problem, as we all know, is that they have terrible policies or none at all and terrible candidates or none at all.
So what do you do if you have bad policies and bad candidates?
Well, as your Democrat consultant, let me tell you: number one, you need to curse a lot more.
You need to do a lot more cursing.
But you also have to pretend that you're fighting, which is largely something you do with words and by making your eyes really wide, like this.
Oh, we're going to fight.
We're really going to fight.
Fight.
Yeah.
Yeah, we can't let them push us around anymore.
We're going to take a knife to a knife fight.
Fight.
So it doesn't do anything, but you got to make your eyes really wide and say a lot of fighting words, and that will help.
So you get your swearing and your fighting words.
And then it would be good to put on some skits, you know, like leaving the city and doing some videos of you on the tarmac and stuff like that.
Nothing that will make the world any different.
It's more like a little movie skit, you know, something that you used to do for your parents when you were eight, that sort of thing.
So do a skit.
So you get your cursing, your saucer eyed complaining with words that sound like fight.
Yeah, okay.
And then you should also do some cringy social media videos.
If you do all of those things, the cursing, the cringy videos, the skits, if you get it all right, especially the saucer eyes, then you have a pretty good chance that you can get your Democrat approval level up to 23%.
And of course, you'll have no power in the government whatsoever.
But the important thing is that I, as your consultant, was well compensated.
So that's your micro lesson of the day: how to be a Democrat consultant.
You're welcome.
Well, Stanford University is going to lay off 360 employees.
And they cite it's because of Trump's policies.
News Max is reporting that.
Now, my first question was: 360 employees, and here I'm only being partly serious when I say, I asked myself, how many employees do you need to run all of Stanford?
Because if you had asked me how many employees does Stanford have, you know, just the total number of employees, I would have said, I don't know.
They must have about 400 employees.
But they're laying off 360.
So I went to Grok and I said, how many employees are there at Stanford?
And the answer is 25,000.
They have 25,000 employees.
And then I said, well, wait a minute.
How many students do they have?
So now this is according to Grok, so who knows.
But apparently they only have 18,000 students.
Now, that sounds worse than it really is.
So they have 18,000 students and 25,000 staff.
But that's because Stanford is not like a regular college.
They are so important that they also have a whole bunch of, what do they have, research institutions with extensive operations and they've got a medical school and all that.
So there's a whole bunch of, there's a big part of the operation that's not, you know, classrooms and teachers.
But did you know that?
So 360 people laid off under 25,000.
It's less than 2%.
But if you can blame it on Trump, it becomes a headline story.
So they did.
Let's see.
Can you guess who was behind funding the Texas politicians to get out of town so there wouldn't be a quorum, so there wouldn't be a vote on redistricting.
Well, if you guessed, huh, that sounds like something that a Soros organization might have done, you would be right, according to some.
And then there's also a report that Betto O'Rourke has some political action committee that also may have paid for it.
So Betto and George Soros, a couple of winners right there.
Some say Pritzker.
Yeah, I think Pritzker was part of that too.
So here's some news that I guess is good news.
There's an AP Nork poll, NORC, I don't know what that stands for, that was just released.
They found a significant drop in U.S. adults who perceive there to be racial discrimination against Black Americans.
So a big drop in people who perceive it.
And so today, 45% of those polls say there's a great deal of discrimination or quite a bit against Black Americans.
But this is down.
45% sounds like a big number, right?
If you're talking about discrimination against one group of people.
But it's down from 61% when they started the poll in 2021.
So that was only a year after George Floyd.
So do you think that's accurate?
Do you think, so 45% say a great deal of discrimination against Black Americans?
How many of you would agree with there's a great deal of discrimination against Black Americans?
I'll give you the correct answer.
The correct answer is it depends where you are.
It just depends.
There are definitely places in this big old country where there would be more discrimination against you if you're not whatever the people who already live there are.
That definitely exists.
But there are also pockets, big ones, like every Fortune 500 company and the entire government, in Which being a member of a minority group would give you a leg up, and the discrimination would be the opposite there.
So it cannot be said that America, on average, is biased one way or the other, because it just depends where you are.
You can find bias in any direction you want, depending on what pocket of America you find yourself in.
So here's my advice.
If you find yourself in a place that's bad for you for any reason whatsoever, and there's a place that that would not be the case, you should think about moving to the place where it wouldn't be the case.
So if you're black American and you're in a place where there is, quote, a great deal of discrimination against you, I don't know exactly where that would be, but I accept that such places exist.
But it's got to be pretty easy to find a place where that's not the case.
It can't be that difficult.
Most places would not have that as an issue.
Well, allegedly, according to the FBI, violent crime is falling.
The rate is falling.
Dropped, let's say, compared to 2024 compared to 2023, murder and non-negligent manslaughter dropped 15%.
Do you believe any crime data?
I feel like I'm so jaded and cynical at this point that if you tell me, hey, I've got some new data on crime, I say, well, is it as accurate as our jobs data?
Is it as accurate as our climate models?
Is it as accurate as all the smart economists predicting what would happen this summer because of tariffs?
I don't know.
I don't know what to believe.
But I'll tell you one thing I don't believe is crime statistics from one year to the next.
There's just too much going on.
And I think I saw some posts from Mike Cernovich yesterday in which he was talking about the known ways to game the crime numbers.
The basic idea is that if you charge people with less than the maximum crime, it might look like crime is falling, but it would be just a reflection that people aren't being charged what they used to be charged.
So you could do it that way.
And there was some other way that he mentioned that you could game it.
Oh, just not taking the calls.
Just process fewer complaints that it would look like the crime went down when actually you're just being inefficient.
Something like that.
So I don't believe any of those numbers.
But it'd be good if it would be good if they're heading in the right direction.
Well, Trump was asked whether J.D. Vance is the heir apparent to MAGA or not.
And he gave what started out to be a very direct answer, and then he trumpetized it at the end in his classic way.
He said, quote, I think most likely, meaning that J.D. Vance would be the heir to MAGA, he goes, I think most likely, in all fairness, he's the vice president.
And I think Marco is also somebody that would get together with JD in some form.
See, that's the perfect part.
He would get together with JD in some form.
Now, are they suggesting that Marco would be the vice presidential candidate or stay on at Secretary of State?
That seems less likely.
And would Rubio be willing to be second behind JD Vance, who's younger and less experienced?
Well, I don't know, maybe.
So Trump has this way of injecting something that looks like, let's see, something that looks like he answered the question.
So it doesn't look like he's avoiding the question, but he inserts a little mystery into it as to what role Marco would have, Marco Rubio.
But I love the fact that there are two people that you could feel could make things work without Trump.
He leaves a little mystery.
That's Trump's magic.
According to, let's see, it was a recent poll, Rasmussen poll.
And one American News is reporting on this.
Most voters now, a majority, believe that the Obama administration likely committed crimes in Russia Gate.
So Russia Gate being running the hoax and covering it up and knowing that the steel dossier was fake and essentially running just this major operation on the public and on Trump.
So 54% believe that former members of Barack Obama's national security team probably committed crimes.
Now, as you know, we don't know the names of the people, but some amount of people have been turned over to the grand jury process by the Department of Justice.
So there will be likely, because grand juries usually indict.
So it's likely that there will be indictments for Barack Obama's ex-security team, you know, the Brennans and Clappers and whatnot.
Now, do you think the country could handle Barack Obama being convicted of a crime and jailed?
Do you think they could handle that?
The answer is yes and no.
The beauty is, if they have the option, they should not go after Barack Obama first.
They should not go after him first.
You want to break the country in.
So you might go after, let's say, a John Brennan, where, let's say, the evidence is stronger.
I don't know that that's true, but based on the reports, it sounds like it is.
So the Brennan story, if they convicted him, it would be in the headlines and it would get everybody used to the fact that some bad stuff happened in the Obama administration.
Now, let's say that Brennan got convicted and it educated the public on the whole situation.
Then let's say they went after, I don't know, another one, but it wasn't Obama.
By the time they decided to go after Obama, assuming they had the goods, and I don't know that they do, the country would be used to it.
They would understand that if the people worked for him, if there's an indication that Obama was in on it, people would just say, oh, damn it, we don't like this, but it's not where I'm going to, I'm not going to fight my final fight over this.
So I feel like we're actually in a world in which Obama could be convicted and jailed.
And here's the main reason why.
Because the lawfare against Trump opened the door for jailing ex-presidents.
You just had to have the goods.
The Democrats didn't get it done.
But it allowed us to imagine the unimaginable, that an ex-president could be jailed.
So because of that, and because it wasn't Trump who broke the seal, he's not the one who started the idea that you jail him.
In fact, he did the opposite.
He didn't go after Hillary Clinton.
She was never president.
But same situation.
He had decided not to go after her when he probably could have.
Well, I think that may have changed.
So yeah, I do believe that as much as people would holler, we are at a point where if the evidence showed, and if it came after Brennan, and maybe after others, who knows, the country would very grudgingly and with a lot of friction would accept it.
And that's a very rare situation.
I don't think we've ever been in this situation where that's even something you could voice without sounding like you're crazy.
But now it doesn't sound crazy, does it?
It sounds very doable.
So sure enough, the grand jury is forming.
It almost doesn't seem real.
At the same time, we hear that Adam Schiff is under criminal investigation for his alleged mortgage fraud violations.
Now, the charge is that he had two homes, one near Washington and one in California where he's a senator from, and that at various times he's claimed both of them as his primary residence, which would be illegal.
So that's happening.
And so I think it was Bill Pulte who kind of pushed forward these allegations, and now they seem to have been reached into the criminal realm.
So there's some chance that by the end of the Trump term, let's see, what would today's score be?
It would be Howard Stern loses his job, CBS pays him money, Colbert goes out of business, Adam Schiff might be prosecuted, all the Obama people are being indicted.
Trump is winning pretty hard.
And that's not even counting the colleges and universities that are paying him, et cetera.
Well, Matt Taibbi had a comment about AI.
And he goes, I'm not sure what he's talking about, but it won't matter for my point.
He goes, this is why AI is dangerous.
Ultimately, it has no ability to assess and detect incorrect media reports.
It overcounts the, quote, authority of certain media brands and undercounts primary sources.
And then Elon Musk commented on that, which is why I mentioned it.
He goes, Elon says, the actual problem is that AI still thinks the news is real.
LMAO, laughing my ass off.
Yeah, that would be the way to summarize that.
The AI still believes that the news is real.
I don't know if the news has ever been real.
It doesn't feel like it, but I don't know.
Well, even though the news is not real, at least science is real.
Am I right?
Now, aren't you happy about that?
He was sure the elected politicians who are supposed to be guarding your money and your safety.
Yeah, they're all corrupt, and that's all a mess.
But at least the field of science is virginal and perfect, and it's propelling us forward.
Oh, wait, maybe not.
Did you know that there's a giant, gigantic, fraudulent business in selling people papers that they can put their own name on so that it can look like they've published a lot of scientific papers?
And did you know that at the moment, there are more fake papers that weren't even written by the author.
The author just puts their name on it and they buy a service.
There are more fake papers than there are real ones.
And that if you were to look at just the real ones, half of them would not be reproducible.
All right, let me say it again.
Those are two separate problems, but look how big they are when you add them together.
Number one, the majority of new papers are from the frauds.
It's somebody who just said, well, I'm a bad scientist, but if I had published a lot of things, I could get that prestigious job at the university.
So I'll just buy some papers.
Now, AI creates them, and sometimes even the data is just entirely made up.
So more than half of the new papers are completely fraudulent.
But of the ones that are not intentionally fraudulent, half of those will never be reproduced because there was a problem with the methodology or the data was flawed or something.
So, you know, you can't come up with an exact number, but something like one in four, one in four published papers is not complete bullshit.
So it's something like three to one ratio of bullshit to real science.
And how are you going to tell what's real?
Yeah, I was saying the other day that nearly everything I learned about nutrition from the time I was a kid, almost everything was fake.
Almost everything.
I mean, I went through the period of a little bit of alcohol is probably good for your heart.
And then there was the upside down food pyramid, and I could go on.
But I don't think the stuff about carbohydrates probably wasn't real.
The problem with fat wasn't real.
We live in a fake world, people.
So Debbie Dingleberry has been in the news, and she says that the Epstein files, she would be a Democrat, anti-Trumper kind of person.
Debbie Dingleberry is her name.
And she said about the Epstein files, it's very clear that Trump wants it to go away.
It's very clear that it's not going to go away.
Now, I don't know if I'm unusual because I spend too much time looking at the news, but I'm so tired of the Epstein stuff that as long as there's still something happening, as in the government says, oh, yeah, we're still vetting some files and there's more to come.
As long as there's something coming, I'm just so bored with it that it just doesn't seem like an impactful story that will affect politics.
I just don't see it affecting the midterms.
Like, why would you punish some unrelated Republican in the midterms just because you didn't like what Trump said is not even in the midterm election?
So I'm going to go with, I think the Epstein file stuff will have absolutely no impact on the politics of the future.
It's boring.
It's over.
I feel like we know what we need to know, except for the names of the potentially guilty parties, and I don't think we'll ever know them.
So, I don't know.
Debbie Dingleberry, I feel like Trump's supporters are losing interest.
I mean, think of the things that Trump is doing every day that you like.
And then just imagine trying to kneecap him because there's that one thing.
And I know how important it is.
I get it.
But it is one thing.
And would you kneecap him for that?
I don't know.
I think we're just going to get used to the fact that we don't know everything that can be known.
We'll just get used to it.
And then we'll move on.
That's what I think.
Which is not a preference, by the way.
My preference would be just like yours.
I'm curious.
I'd like to know everything that can be known.
I just don't think we will.
And I think we'll get used to it, not knowing.
Well, did you see President Trump's response to Elizabeth Warren and her endorsement of Kami Mumdami, Zoran Mondami?
And I watched it, and I have to say, I was asking myself, is she on drugs?
Because her eyes were gigantic and she was jumping around and she looked like she was, looked like there was something going on there.
And even Trump commented on it, like, like, I don't know why she was on or something like that.
But she did look like that wasn't natural.
Now, I, of course, mock a lot of Democrats for their terrible approach.
But if I watch somebody like, let's say, Randy Weingarten, the head of the teachers' union, big teachers union, and she, you know, she's very demonstrative, but she doesn't look like she's on drugs.
She looks like she learned to be demonstrative because it got the crowds going.
But when I looked at Elizabeth Warren, my first impression was that it looked like drugs.
Good ones.
You know, something that was an upper.
Or she's, what's that word, bipolar?
You know, maybe she was having a bipolar episode or something.
But whatever that was, that didn't look normal to me.
So it seems to me that we've got at least three examples of people who, when they're demonstrative, you wonder if they're on drugs.
Newsome is one.
Doesn't Newsom make you wonder, hmm, I don't know.
It looks like you might be on drugs right there.
And of course, Kamala Harris would often look like she was drunk in public, right?
Which is not common.
It's not like I say that about every Democrat.
I don't say every Democrat looks like they're, you know, does Swalwell ever look like he's drunk or on drugs?
Not really.
Does Adam Schiff?
No.
Maybe he'd be better if he were.
But Newsom Harris and now Elizabeth Warren, I do have my questions.
And I wonder, is there any Republican that just to be fair, you know, because it'd be hard to believe it only works on one party.
But do you think there are any Republicans that when they speak in public, you ever say to yourself, huh, that looks like you might be a little bit on some drugs.
I can't think of one.
Can you?
I don't know.
So maybe that's just a Democrat thing.
And again, I don't have any evidence that any of them are on drugs.
They just act like they are.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says he wants to see what he can do to stop California from redistricting because he calls it evil to take away the power of the people with the redistricting.
But Arnold has no say over anything, so that looks performative too.
So Trump has threatened big pharma up to a 250% tariff.
So what he's trying to do is he's got this tariff structure that will increase every year until the big pharma moves their manufacturing to the U.S. So the station is here.
But in one year and a half years maximum, he says it's going to go to 150%.
Now, obviously, big pharma would hate this stuff.
This is being reported in The Hill.
But I asked this amusing question once again.
Who are the oligarchs?
Wouldn't you think the oligarchs would include the owners of the big pharma?
I mean, they're like the biggest oligarch of all.
But apparently, Trump is going hard against the oligarchs and trying to help the middle class or lower, you know, lower income people get more affordable stuff.
So is this the oligarch that they're worried about?
Or is it the oil companies who wish that the price of oil were higher and maybe the supply wasn't so high?
Are those oligarchs all pro-Trump?
I don't know who the oligarchs are, but Trump's not making them all happy.
I mean, Trump went against the banks recently.
What about those oligarchs?
All right.
Amazingly, have I ever told you that there are some people who, for reasons that cannot be explained, find themselves at the center of history all the time?
Have you ever noticed that?
I'm one of those people who I can just wake up one day and find myself in the center of some big controversy.
Sometimes I bring it on myself, but other times I just wake up into it.
And it's always been like that for me.
And other people will avoid any controversy or drama their whole life.
And why is that?
Well, I bring that up because remember the Doge employee Big Bowles?
Apparently, he was violently beaten in Washington, D.C. He was, I think he was with a woman in a car and there was a carjacker and maybe he tried to resist.
So he was beaten by a group of teens and he was bloodied and got a concussion.
And Trump was talking about how things are so bad in Washington, D.C., he might have to federalize it.
In other words, take control from the local government.
So once again, if it had not been Big Bowls, would Trump feel that federalizing DC was necessary?
Probably not, because Big Bowls just would have been another stat.
It wouldn't have even come to our notice.
But because it was Big Bowls, Trump has a different feeling about it, and now he's taking it to a next level.
And wouldn't you love to see what would happen if DC got federalized?
What would happen if DC got federalized and the feds cleaned up crime like in six months, or at least got it off the streets?
Wouldn't other cities say, did you just clean up crime in six months?
Can you do that to our city?
It might create a model where the feds come in and just get rid of all the corrupt people.
And maybe at some point they return control.
But you might have cities begging for it.
No, federalize us next, please.
Do what you did to DC.
But here again, Big Balls may have changed the course of history just by being who he is.
And by the way, if he got in a fight with several carjackers, he has big balls.
I feel like I would have given them the car.
I don't know.
I don't know the details, though.
Would you like to hear the least shocking story in the news?
Say yes.
Yes, you would?
Okay, good.
The least shocking story, according to the Brussels Signal, is that Ukraine has discovered that there are six officials who are corrupt and they had some corrupt scheme where they're skimming money off of drone procurement.
Okay.
Ukraine is the most corrupt country in the world in the middle of a war with gigantic amounts of money slopping around, especially for the production and procurement of drones.
And now we learn, surprise, surprise, that exactly where that giant amount of money is slopping around for the drones, in the most corrupt country in the entire world, that the people in charge of that were corrupt.
I mean, who saw that coming?
I'm going to fall out of my chair with surprise.
Yep, there are some corrupt people in Ukraine, people.
People.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
I'm sure there'll be lots more exciting stories happening in the news today.
Trump's keeping it interesting.
Apparently, he's not taking a vacation this summer, so that's something.
And I'm going to talk privately to the beloved members of locals.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining.
And I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
