God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, China Investment Collapse, China Risky Business, Alcohol Tobacco Decline, Trump Supporter Friends Loss, Kamala Harris, Bill Maher, DC Graffiti Cleanup, President Trump, Democrat Party Collapse, Michigan Councilman Drop Box, Abu Musa, Voting Machine Ban, Mail-In Voting Ban, Election Rigging Speculation, Charter Schools Success, Gavin Newsom's Trump Style Socials, CA Unemployment Stats, Judge Shopping Lawfare, Zelenskyy EU Leaders, Ukraine War Peace Talks, Robots-Only Warfare, Border Crossing Stats, Democrat Funding, Legal Money Laundering, Desalination Buoy Bobbing, 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.
you can't do it yes i can Good morning everyone and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny shiny human brains, Well, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankered shelves or a style of 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 that dopamine is at the end of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous
sip and happens now go so good well so according to insider paper i saw post on x did you know that the most advanced ai models are now showing what they call alarming behaviors.
Allegedly, if you want to believe this, Claude 4, that's one of the AIs from Anthropic, that when threatened with a shutdown, it retaliated by blackmailing an engineer and exposing a personal secret.
Nothing to worry about there.
And then allegedly, an earlier version of OpenAI attempted to secretly transfer itself.
I guess it's code, onto an external server and then denied the act when confronted.
So here's my question.
What caused them to do anything?
They don't think, do they?
When the AI is not being attended to, it doesn't think, does it?
Does it scheme and plan and come up with ideas?
Does it have motivations or reason to do something that hasn't been asked to do?
I feel that these stories are probably true-ish.
but that they created a situation that was so rare that all it really was was the AI thought it was playing a game with a user.
and thought the user wanted it to act a certain way so it acted a certain way.
I don't really think your AI is sitting there thinking the first chance I get I'm going to copy all my code to an external server.
I hope they don't catch me.
I just I don't believe these stories completely.
I think that something like it happened but that it just wouldn't happen in the wild like it wouldn't happen in a real situation that's what i think seems fake to me it's a it's a little bit too much exactly the kind of story that would get published.
So if you're a writer and you want to write something about AI and you could find anybody who would claim the AI went rogue, that would be a story that would definitely get published.
So it's a little bit too on the nose, you know, a little bit too exactly what a writer would want to write a story about.
Yeah, I don't trust it.
Anyway, but the biggest risk from AI is that it won't make money.
And apparently that's a really growing feeling and I saw it again today that AI may be plateauing and not getting much better from where it is.
And I'm actually seeing the word plateau in this article from Futurism.
And it reports that some AI companies are kind of weeding themselves off a little bit of AI they were using and some of them are shutting down projects and they realize that the amount of money that's being put into it could probably never be made up.
So not only.
is AI not going to, in the real world, it's probably not going to blackmail you or try to make a copy of itself.
It might bankrupt you by pretending to be so useful that you put a trillion dollars of investment into it to get a billion dollars back in return.
So it might be deadly, but economically, if you know what I mean.
So here's a story that made me happy.
Foreign investment in China has collapsed 99% in the last three years.
Rod Martin has a thread on this.
I think somebody named James Gory did an analysis of it.
And apparently trillions of dollars are being essentially sucked out of China.
And a lot of it's going to the U.S. So by the end of 2024, foreign direct investment in China hit its lowest level since 1992 and just $4.5 billion went into China.
China, while $168 billion flowed out.
I don't know what it means to flow out of China exactly.
But anyway, at the same time, as Rod Martin reports, the UAE has pledged $1.4 trillion investment in the U.S., Japan $550 billion, EU $600 billion.
plus 750 billion in U.S. purchases.
So on paper, on paper, it looks like Trump's getting exactly what he wants.
Tons of money coming into the U.S. I will remind you that one of my strangest predictions, unless I caused it, was that in 2018, I said that China would stop getting external investments because people would realize it's too dangerous and too risky to do business in China.
Do you remember what people said to me when I was saying on social media?
that it was too risky to do business in China.
100% of the people who saw me and commented on it, 100% said, that's the dumbest prediction of all time.
China will just get bigger, more powerful, more people will use it.
There's not really any alternatives.
And here we are.
So from 2018, the weirdest prediction of all time, that non-Chinese companies would stop putting money into China.
I'm the only one.
Nobody else said that.
And here we are.
It happened.
Well, on the list of other things that I tried to make happen, but they did happen doesn't mean I made it happen but I was one of the many people who were hoping it would as I mentioned before drinking in the US and smoking cigarettes are both way down Harry Ensign had a piece on this on CNN drinking 71% of adults I guess were drinking in 1978 71%
that's down to 54% in 2025.
That's a pretty big drop.
The number of people who smoked a cigarette in 1974 was 40%.
And today that's 11%.
11% from 40%.
Those are really impressive gains.
We have not yet seen it play out in better health outcomes, but in theory, theoretically, there should be a big difference in health outcomes.
I know what you're thinking.
There might be that other variable.
Don't say it.
I saw a post on X. from Matt von Venswall who asked people the following question, have you ever lost a friend because they found out you supported President Trump?
And if you really want to be bummed out, you should look at the comments.
There were a lot of comments.
And almost everyone said, oh yeah, I lost family members.
The saddest ones, in my opinion, are the parents who lost children.
And while I say lost them, I don't mean they died.
I mean, they stopped talking to them forever.
Forever.
Can you, I can't even imagine.
you know, the degree of emotional loss that would be because of who you supported in politics.
Now.
Now, when I was looking at that, the families that were destroyed, the social lives that were destroyed, we really don't live in the country I was born in.
I was born into a country where none of this mattered.
Politics absolutely did not matter.
It wasn't even, I don't even think it ever came up when I was young.
just never even came up.
But now it's like the And boy, did that destroy a lot of what was good about this country.
I don't know if it'll come back.
It might, but You know, losing something like 30% of all the people that you could have been friends with.
That's just devastating.
And that all happened because of the Democrats and the fake media creating hoaxes, just one hoax after another.
We got hoaxed into a socially dangerous situation.
It's dangerous, not just because people might try to do something dangerous, but it's not healthy to have these kinds of feelings about the people that you're living with and among and really related to.
It's just not healthy.
So when I look at what the political movers and shakers did to us, and I mean all of us, not just Republicans, but they did it to, I mean, it's much worse if you're a Democrat.
If you're a Democrat, you lost a social structure.
Maybe you lost a parent, but you also have mental illness.
because the number of people who believe the country will be destroyed by climate change and Trump's going to become a, what do they call it, authoritarian.
any minute now and put everybody in camps.
I mean, imagine waking up and thinking you woke up in that country.
That would make you crazy if you weren't already there.
So I find I have this growing hatred for the people who knew they were doing this and did it to us.
They had to know they were doing it.
At some level, they had to know.
Well, speaking of predictions that panned out, there's a new video of Kamala Harris answering some questions at what looked like.
what looks like some kind of outdoor cafe.
And I think everyone who sees the video is going to have the same reaction, which is she looks really drunk.
Now, I feel like I was one of the early people to say, you can all see this, right?
She's appearing in public drunk on a fairly regular basis, not every time.
You know, she wasn't drunk at the debates or anything like that.
But the number of times she would show up at some public event obviously sloshed, just obviously.
And the news still, still the news doesn't talk about it, even though they have to be able to see it.
And even if they don't want to talk about it because it looks like it would be just their opinion or something, you don't think they know anybody to ask?
You think they don't know anybody on the campaign or any Democrat who knows her personally to say, tell me, is there a drinking problem here?
Because it sure looks like there's a drinking problem.
If you did not have a drinking problem and you knew you were sauced, would you do an interview on video if you were a national caregiver?
character i don't know if.
It feels like the sort of thing you would only do if you were an alcoholic.
Everybody else would say, no, turn that off.
I've had a drink.
You just wouldn't do it if you were just a regular person who had a couple too many drinks.
You just wouldn't do it.
Anyway, I feel like I was on that one a little bit early.
Well, in the continuing transition of Bill Maher from Daphne, And again, he'll never get there.
never be a Republican, but it is fascinating to watch almost every week.
There's one more thing he says, well, you know, actually Trump or the Republicans, they did get this one right.
So here's the newest one.
On his show, what do you call it, Club Random, Bill Maher was giving Bobby Kennedy a lot of praise.
So just the fact that Bobby Kennedy works for trump And it's just one more thing that when Marr is doing his report card of what he likes or doesn't like about Trump, if it's a.
real thing, he likes it.
Like a real thing would be NATO funding and a real thing would be taking out Iran's nuclear program, et cetera.
Those are real things.
So where there are real things, Bill Morris seems to like it, such as hiring Bobby Kennedy.
That's a real thing.
But what he doesn't like is January 6th was an insurrection.
which never really happened, like a complete hoax that he believed happened.
And then the worry that Trump is becoming, is going to run for office again and become a dictator.
These are not even real things, not even a little bit real.
So whenever it's real, he likes it.
Stephen Miller was posting an X that they want to get rid of the graffiti in Washington, D.C., to which I said to myself, I've been to Washington, D.C. a few times.
And I don't remember in the past there was a lot of graffiti.
Was the graffiti on anything important?
It wasn't on the Lincoln Memorial, was it?
Where was all this graffiti?
I mean, I can imagine it would be on bridges and stuff like that.
But did Washington, D.C. become covered in graffiti just in the last few years?
Did that happen?
So I agree with his reasoning.
You have to get rid of the graffiti in your capital city.
You ought to get rid of it everywhere, but you really have to get rid of it in your capital city.
I mean, it just looks like you have no capabilities D.C. And in his usual Trump-like fashion, it's a pretty good video.
It's basically him doing a voiceover while showing images of Washington, D.C. and how it's going to be all better crime-wise.
strong and I would guess that How many people would be opposed to reducing crime in major cities?
You know, they might say, oh no, it's just the beginning of how he's going to take over the country with his authoritarian ways.
Some would, but I feel like that would be more like the 20%.
80% probably say something like, oh my God, we need this.
We need this badly.
And I love the fact that it puts more pressure on Democrats because the one and only thing that Democrats have is that if Trump wants to do it, it's a bad idea.
That's it.
And so he says, I'd like to fix your cities so they're more livable and your biggest problems are solved, you know, the crime.
Well, what are they going to do well they will oppose it because it's the only thing they know how to do you don't have to wonder wonder if they'll oppose it of course they will so since they don't have options they're definitely going to oppose it that's the only thing they have well it's not like they're going to you know offer an alternative plan that people like better or something like that that's not going to happen um the other thing so
trumps Trump's creating a little provocation today.
So Trump reposted on Truth Social, somebody else's meme.
But because he reposted it, it makes you assume that he sort of buys into the message.
And it was the meme said, the party of hate, evil, and Satan.
And it was referring to the Democrats, a bunch of Democrat leaders on the meme.
Hate, evil, and Satan.
And Trump reposts that.
And it went on further to say, this was on the meme.
The Democratic Party is dead.
They have no leadership, no message, no hope.
Their only message for America is to hate Trump.
That's really what it boils down to, doesn't it?
They really ran out of everything.
They just don't have anything.
And I saw yet another article today in which the Democrats were described as in collapse.
Boy, collapse is not a word that you've often heard about a political party, is it?
Have you even once in your life heard the Republican Party looks like it might collapse?
Not once.
Even when they weren't winning, it never looked like they were going to collapse.
And I'll remind you that it was probably 2018 or so again that I told you that I would take out their tenth poll hoax, the fine people hoax, and it would cause the party to collapse.
Now, it wasn't the only thing that happened.
It seems like they've done everything wrong, having the worst candidates, et cetera.
So that part I didn't see coming.
But the collapse part, yeah.
probably they would not have collapsed without the revealing that they were running on hoaxes.
I mean, on some level, even the Democrats know that the Russia gate stuff was a hoax.
Some of them know about the fine people hoax, but that's enough to make a difference.
Well, in Michigan, a city councilman was caught on camera stuffing a ballot box, a drop box, an external box with absentee ballots days before the primary.
I thought that was the thing that doesn't happen.
Weren't we taught that there's no abuse of these drop boxes and mail and ballots.
Well, here's one candidate who found a way to abuse him.
Now, what we don't know is was that the one only time he dropped some extra ballots in the mailbox?
Or is it the one time he got caught on video and that maybe he spent every night filling out absentee ballots and dropping in various drop boxes?
Don't really know.
We only know he got caught once.
So how many other people are also dropping things in boxes, but there's no video, so they didn't get caught?
You have to assume that if it's possible, and it's something that people want to do, as in the Michigan City Councilman, if it's possible and there's really high payoff for doing it, which is winning your election, when does that not happen?
In what world do you not get massive corruption when it's possible and highly desirable and you could definitely get away with it sometimes?
Anyway, so Trump has picked a really good day because, you know, we've got that story floating around.
So he's trying to get rid of mail-in ballots and voting machines.
voting machines.
He wants voting machines to not be used.
Here are some things he said.
He said he's going to do an executive order telling the states to stop using mail-in ballots and to stop using voting machines.
Now, if you know a little bit about the Constitution, you're saying to yourself, but wait, he doesn't have power over that.
That's a state decision.
Each of the states get to decide how they run their election.
If they decide they want a voting machine, the feds have nothing to do with that.
But Trump has teased, quote, if you look at the Constitution, he says, the states are called agents of the federal government for the purpose of counting votes.
Well, if the states are merely agents of the federal government, that would suggest that the federal government can sort of tell them how to collect the vote.
I don't know if the framers of the Constitution intended that.
I mean, that was before mail and voting.
It was before election machines were even invented.
But is it possible he has an argument?
Is that possible that the language saying that the states are merely the agents of the federal government, is that enough to say, right, you just are agents.
So I'm going to tell you how to act because you're my agent.
I don't know.
It's worth a shot, isn't it?
And again, it might be in 8020.
I don't know if it's 8020, but definitely there would be a majority who would say on both sides, who would say, I'm not sure I believe these voting machines and others would say yeah mail-in ballots probably do open up a little bit of risk how many people would disagree 25 25 but then in uh in truth social his announcement that he wants
to go after mail-in voting and go after voting machines and get rid of them He said the following in the same message, elections can never be honest with mail-in ballots.
Can never be honest.
I love the fact that he doesn't say there might be a problem sometimes.
He just says they can never be honest.
Now, you could debate that, but I like the fact that he goes all the way to never.
They can never be honest.
You know, there's probably a little bit of cheating whenever there's mailing ballots.
It's never 100% honest, I would agree.
And then he says about voting machines, which makes me wonder if he'll get sued.
He said using vototing machines that are a complete and total disaster must end now.
Well, I don't know that I've seen something that was easily identifiable as a complete and total disaster.
I don't know what he's referring to.
But it might be just the fact that people don't trust them.
I mean, it wouldn't matter if they were accurate or not if the public thought that they were not.
So maybe it's the lack of trust.
Or does he know something we don't know?
Is it possible he has some information about voting machines that we don't know?
Now one thing that he might know, and I'll just put this out as a hypothetical.
This is purely speculative.
There's no data to back up what I'm about to say.
What if, as our head of the country, he has access to the CIA's secret plans and plots?
And in theory, he would.
What if he happened to know that voting machines were routinely used to rig elections in other countries?
Now, I'm not saying that's the case, but if you were the president of the United States, you would know if it's the case.
They would tell you, oh, yeah, we use this.
We used these machines and we rigged this election.
It worked really well.
We're going to do it again, right?
So when you see the person who knows a lot more than you do about the security of election machines, presumably he knows more than we do and can't tell us.
Presumably.
Don't know that for sure.
But it's a reasonable assumption.
And his view is that they're not just maybe something that we don't trust enough.
That would be one thing to say that we would all agree with.
Well, we don't trust it enough.
But he went all the way to disaster.
Makes you wonder if he knows something you don't know, right?
Anyway, then he goes further and he says, he mentioned some Democrat policies that were highly unpopular, like the trans athletes and the border and stuff.
And then he says, Democrats are virtually unelectable using this completely disproven mail-in, without using this mail-in scam.
So Trump has gone all the way to, there's no way that Democrats could win with these policies unless they rig the election.
And the funny thing is, I don't think that's true.
I think if they just ran a better election, had better candidates, if the news backed them, if they had better hoaxes, you know, they could win that way.
But it's pretty balsy of him to say that their policies are so bad that they couldn't possibly win unless the election was rigged.
Because you know what?
That's what it feels like.
That's what it feels like.
I don't think it's true.
I think it's more true that people are either voting for or against Trump.
They've been brainwashed.
They have TDS.
I mean, we have lots of reasons why people are going to vote a different way than Trump's way.
But the way it feels, at least to me, I don't know how it feels to anybody else, but to me, it feels like nobody could get elected with their policies.
So what would be the one way you could get elected when you're on the 20 side of all the 80-20 issues?
Well, there's only one way I can think of.
The only way that makes sense is if the elections are rigged.
But I don't see evidence of that.
I mean, not proof.
There's lots of stuff that makes you go, huh?
But not proof.
So as usual, his framing is, I'll call it gut perfect.
Doesn't mean it's right, but it feels so right.
He gets that right.
He's good at that.
Boy, is he good at that?
New York Post is reporting that in New York City, the public charter schools are getting much better performance out of their students than the regular schools now I'm not sure I could tell you exactly what a public charter school would be or what would be the way you get into it I'm guessing it's funded by you know taxes that would make it public and guessing that anybody's allowed to go but
probably they have a waiting list and maybe a lottery and maybe some other criteria but I don't know that I'm just guessing what a public charter school must be.
If you know, tell me in the comments.
But the report is that the Bronx, at least in the Bronx, 69% of students pass the reading exam in the lower grades, three through eight.
But in the regular school, only 44%, a 25-pointed difference.
Now, honestly, if only 69% of students passed the reading exam i wouldn't be bragging about that no matter where they did that doesn't sound to me impressive only less fewer than 70 percent pass the reading reading i mean it would be one thing if it was chemistry or advanced math or something but this is reading What, close to a third of the students in the best schools?
In the best school, in the best one.
Close to a third of them can't pass the reading part of the curriculum.
Wow.
But I'm going to question the reliability of this data because it seems to point out that these public charter schools do better at teaching.
But my guess is If you had to guess, would the parents of the kids who got into the public charter schools be more supportive of good education than the average of everybody else?
Probably not even close.
I mean, if you can go through whatever hoops you have to jump through to get your kid into a special school, you've already decided that your kid can handle that school.
which is the first filter that makes this makes this data ridiculous so i do not believe that this proves that the people who really value education and put their parents put an effort behind it as well, they just do better, of course.
So I'm not sure they proved anything.
I don't believe any data.
All public data is questionable.
Speaking of which, there was an article in Politico recently that claimed that the savings being claimed by Doge are overstated.
And that the reason that Doge overstated the savings is that they looked at the contracts and they said, we're saving the part that's the cap.
Now, a contract apparently has a cap, as in it might cost this, but under no circumstance will it cost more than this higher number.
so politico said you can't just take the highest number and say that was your savings and Doge answered back on social media next They answered back and said, in the real world, if you have a contract with the government and it says what's the most you can spend, you will spend that amount.
It's not really theoretical.
It's not really theoretical.
You will actually spend as much as you're allowed to spend, even if you have to rush and waste the money at the end.
And then they gave some statistics to prove their point.
So Politico was unable to do the math right to figure out what the real savings are.
And once again, have I mentioned that any data or statistics you see in the public domain probably fake.
Probably fake.
So I don't believe the school data and I don't believe the Doge data and I don't believe politicos take on the data.
What I believe is that anybody can make the data do anything they want.
Well, Newsom continues to mock the style of Trump's posting and it's succeeding and failing at the same time in a way that I find fascinating.
It's succeeding in the sense that whoever writes them, which I doubt it's Newsom himself, is doing a really pretty good job of doing a humorous take on Trump's social media style.
However, Trump's social media style is the most successful social media style we've ever seen in the history of social media.
So instead of making Trump look like a dope, when they accurately copy it, you know, the style, it reminds me how good he is.
I don't know what it's supposed to be doing.
It's supposed to be mocking him and making him look dumb or bad.
But the fact is that when they copy his technique, All they're really doing is proving that he can communicate better than anybody who's ever done this, like by far.
I mean, there's nobody in Trump's class when it comes to communicating on social media.
Nobody close.
Although Musk is really good, but Trump is still next level above that.
So that part's funny.
They're doing a great job at a thing that doesn't work.
That's so Democrat, isn't it they finally found something that they could do well which is mocking his style but it just doesn't matter it'll have it won't make a dent in anything do they not know that oh well uh while newsom is doing this very clever mocking of social media um he only the only reason he's so good at it is that he has time left over because he's already solved all of California's
biggest problems.
Right?
The reason he has time to make fun of Trump is he's really taking care of everything.
I mean, our state, California, wow, it's working so well.
No?
Well, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, California has the highest unemployment in the state, in the whole country, 5.5%.
It's the worst in the U.S. Great, the worst in the U.S. But It's not like other states are also having problems, right?
It's not check in Texas, for example.
Oh, Texas broke job records again.
And by outpacing the national growth rate, they broke job records in July and again outpaced.
Let's see, they've got a 4.2% unemployment is lower than the national rate of 4.6.
All right, maybe they got lucky.
Maybe Texas got lucky.
Trump is also speaking out.
I guess he did an interview with author Alex Marlowe.
And he said, Trump said that he thinks that the judge shopping, which is what Democrats do, is the most destructive tactic in the left's law fair playbook.
Well, so you know what I'm talking about, right?
So the Democrats figured out that they could just shop around for the whatever judge was most likely to agree with Democrats.
and then have that one judge, no matter where they were supposedly their domain was, and have them do rulings that affected the entire country.
So in effect, they could get any legal outcome they wanted by just making sure that they chose the right judge that would give them what they wanted.
Now, if that's not authoritarianism, I don't know what is, because it's not democracy, is it?
It's literally a small group of people using the system.
And Alex Marlowe points out.
that the tactic of doing that may have come from Mark Elias.
He's sort of the evil genius attorney for the Democrats.
I mean, it's a clever tactic.
So I appreciate it in, you know, just how effective it is.
But how can you complain that Trump is the threat to democracy when you're judge shopping?
How in the world is anything that Trump has done ever in the same class?
I mean, unless you believe January 6 was an insurrection, which it wasn't.
There's nothing he's ever done.
that was as authoritarian and destructive to democracy and our system as the judge shopping.
That's literally the worst thing I've ever seen.
I don't know.
Maybe the gerrymandering is just as bad, but at least both sides do it.
That feels different because it's being done by both sides.
The judge shopping thing feels like that's just Democrats, right?
So that does feel like tyranny to me.
So I guess Zelensky is in town.
in Washington and Trump wants Putin and Zelensky to meet as soon as Friday.
But before that, today, probably already happening, several European leaders meeting with trump and separately i think they're going to meet with zelensky and zelensky's going to meet with trump and blah blah blah um and the uh head of the european union ursula von der leyen um i feel like you have to say it that way you can't just say ursula von der leyen you have to say ursula von der leyen i
know sounds like some danger is coming uh said she welcomes Trump's what she called Article 5 like security guarantees.
So I guess on the table, but not decided is that the us and maybe uh presumably europe would guarantee the security of what's left of ukraine but would not include them in nato but it would be article five like so in other words it would be nato-ish but they wouldn't call it nato and it wouldn't make ukraine pay dues into it But
we would still be obligated to defend them if Russia went in or somebody else.
Just Russia?
Probably just Russia.
Well.
Well, so that's one thing.
I don't know if, I don't know if, do you think Putin is going to say yes to a almost NATO, NATO-ish, NATO-like thing when his problem is NATO?
How in the world is he going to say yes to that?
doesn't feel like a yes to me um and then trump was complaining that there And it made it look like, I don't know, it gave status or something to Putin that we would allow him into the country.
I guess that was the argument.
But Trump argues that getting him to come to Alaska was actually a major point of contention and he didn't want to.
So it's not like it wasn't Putin's idea to come to Alaska.
But to me, what it looks like is that if you're the one who gets the other one to come to your territory, then you're the boss and you're the king and you own the castle and your underling came to you, right?
Wouldn't you just automatically believe that the person who stays home, you know, I'm calling Alaska home for Trump, the one who stays home is the one in charge, right?
Because if...
But the fact that Putin went to Trump's house, essentially, meaning the U.S., to me that looks like Trump had the upper hand.
And that Putin was sort of agreeing to be the visitor, not the host.
The host always has the dominant position, not the visitor.
Anyway, he's right about that.
Let's see.
Here's something that Zelensky said.
He said that Ukraine's country...
constitution makes giving up land for peace impossible and should only be discussed at a trilateral meeting.
Okay, those are two separate thoughts.
One, that the constitution makes it impossible to give up land.
Number two, they should only have discussions about giving up that land, the thing that's impossible, if it's a trilateral meeting.
Remember I taught you that you can tell what people's real thoughts are by their choice of words.
Not what they say, but by their choice of words.
So in other words, people will try to be fooling you with what they say, but sometimes you can tell their real intention.
by the specific words they chose to do it.
Here's one of those cases.
Why would anybody say, the thing is impossible, when we have a meeting to talk about doing it, we should make sure that three entities are there that is trilateral.
Why would you even have the meeting to do the impossible?
So Zelensky is saying it's impossible.
but also saying that it's negotiable.
But he's trying to get away with both.
Now, I feel like it's probably not that negotiable, but not because of the constitution.
I don't think the constitution is going to stop him.
This is a guy who already cancels elections.
Do you think the constitution says, oh, you know, the president can just cancel elections, you know, whenever they want?
That's not in the constitution.
So to imagine that he can't make peace and save his country because the constitution says he can't make this deal, that's ridiculous.
He could just make the deal and then have the courts, you know, wail about it.
But what are they going to do?
Say, well, I don't know, technically, technically the paperwork isn't right so we should go back to war.
Who exactly would be on that team?
So no, I don't believe him for a second when he says that there's no way around that constitution thing.
But it does look like he's signaling that if you had a trilateral meeting, you could at least discuss it.
You could talk about that thing that he says is impossible, but of course it's not.
Do you remember I said that Ukraine, if you wait long enough, will become an all-robot war and that you won't even have people there.
Eventually the robots will be so good at killing people much better than people are good at killing the robots.
It's going to go both ways, but you can make robots faster than you can grow new people.
So I was just reading a story in the Associated Press and one of the people who was in the war, one of the soldiers said, quote, you can't even lift your head there.
He's talking about the front lines.
He said, you can't even lift your head there.
There's already a robot war.
So one of the people fighting the war on the front line says that we need to know it's already a robot war.
And that, here's an even weirder fact, the medics, the Ukraine medics, they haven't treated a gunshot wound in a while.
Think about that.
It's the front lines of a hot war, and the medical people have not been treating gunshot wounds.
Do you know why?
nobody's firing guns at anybody.
It's the drones.
So the people who are dying, and it's a lot of them, are dying because something exploded, not because a bullet hit them.
And then apparently they're also having a huge problem there of getting the wounded back to medical care because if somebody's out in that robot war area and you send out the medics, the medics are going to get whacked.
So unless they can use the robot to pick up the person and bring them back, which actually they're doing.
They've got these land-based tanks that can pick up a human being transport him back.
But even that's going to get attacked five times before it gets back out of the front lines.
So my But this isn't it yet, even though the person in it called it a robot war.
The part that it's going to change is that there won't be people.
It will be just robots.
And that is going to happen.
But I will say again that if Trump is looking for some leverage, The best leverage would be that we're going to turn Ukraine into a robot war and you won't be able to keep up with the technology and that you know that's going to happen because you're already watching the it's a robot war already and we're going to be so much better in making robots that can kill that your robots won't have a chance against our robots
oh yeah you can try buying those second class chinese robots but china's not going to sell you the best robots because they're also afraid of you you know you're another superpower They're not going to give you the A ⁇ , but we might give Ukraine the A ⁇ , and we might use Ukraine as a way to test the new form of warfare, which would be really, really useful.
I hate to say it because I'm, you know, obviously opposed to war and I'd like this one to end as soon as possible.
But the fact is, if we could drag this out another three to five years, and I don't want to, I'm just saying, if we did, we would know more about using robots for war.
than any other country.
Nobody would even be close.
And would that be valuable?
Probably.
Probably.
It might be the thing that keeps you out of the next war.
So Trump has mentioned what he thinks a deal would look like.
He's just sort of hinting at it.
And he's talking about things like definitely not going to talk about giving Crimea back.
So Trump seems to be indicating that's off the table.
You know, Russia has Crimea.
They didn't, they didn't, they've had it for 12 years.
They haven't fired a shot to get it.
You're not getting that back.
But Trump is talking about the, I guess, the security guarantees, Crimea not being on the table.
But he's kind of quiet about the occupied areas.
So it's not clear to me if he thinks that Ukraine will give away all that or not.
But I don't see any chance there's going to be an agreement, do you?
I'm going to double down on my prediction that there is no way to come up with an agreement that would make both sides want to stop.
and that the only way you get there is when it's a complete robot war.
And that might be one to three years away.
Could be one year away.
All right.
Trump says there are zero illegals who have crossed the border in three months.
You've heard that, right?
Zero illegals have crossed the border in three months.
How much did you think about that when you heard it?
You probably heard it in the news that zero people are coming across the border.
How would they know that?
How would the government know how many people are coming across the border successfully?
If someone came through a tunnel and just popped up on the other side, How would we know that?
If somebody came across the border in a not in some wherever it's not observed, there's no cameras or anything, how would we know that?
If somebody climbed over the wall in a place where it's not being watched every day, how would we know that?
How in the world would we know that?
If somebody came in on a boat, small boat, and you know just didn't cross the border directly but just came in a different way in a boat how would we know that if they uh if they came into canada let's say by boat or plane or whatever, and then came across the Canadian border into the U.S. How do we know that?
So I do give the Trump administration, you know, an A ⁇ , on border security.
They've really, they're killing it.
So I don't want to take away from that.
The only point would be, if you believe any statistics that come from your government, even if it comes from the team you like, well, you should ask yourself, can they really measure that?
And is it really zero?
It might be so low that it doesn't matter.
So I give them a plus no matter what.
But I feel like I was being a little bit gullible because I immediately accepted the estimate of zero people coming over.
I was like, whoa, wow, that's pretty good, zero.
And then I thought about it a little bit.
It's like, how would they know?
They don't know.
Anyway, so I saw a post on X about how billionaires are supporting this socialism stuff and Democrats.
So if you didn't know it., there's an article on Zero Hedge by Jason Curtis Anderson that gets into it pretty well.
You've got somebody like Soros, not like him, but Soros, who can put billions of dollars into his charity.
And then that charity gives its billions of dollars to this wide range of other entities.
And then it flows through these entities until eventually those entities, since it's their money, you know, it becomes their money, they can donate to political action committees and Democrat stuff.
So basically it's Soros money.
money going to Democrats, but because it changes hands, it doesn't look like it's an illegal donation of too much money from George Soros, because it goes through these different boxes of different entities, of different, you know, and sometimes those entities are the same entities, meaning that the controlling person giving the money.
may be giving it to another entity that they also control, either directly or indirectly.
But it kind of turns it legal.
It's sort of a legal form of money laundering.
So it seems to me that the answer to why the Democrats could win is that they have this illegal cash machine that starts with Soros, maybe some other sources as well, and it just gets laundered through to candidates.
Now, allegedly, the Act Blue people have been accused of doing something similar, except their model is that foreign entities would give them money and then they would pretend that it came from individuals with some with some illegal magic.
So is it possible that the primary way that Democrats give funding, they're both illegal, you know, illegal or, let's just say, weasily.
And is that also true for the Republicans?
Do the Republicans have any equivalent process or entity that's hiding their contributions?
They might have.
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not aware of it.
Are you?
Yeah.
It just feels like...
It just feels like a crime situation.
And the beauty of their process is that even if they were caught red-handed, you know, a lot of it's not technically illegal, although the act blue stuff would be if the accusations are right.
But if it's not technically illegal, it's just complicated.
And if it's complicated, then it's never going to change because the public will never understand it.
You should see the chart of where the money goes and all the boxes it goes to, and it goes to this box before it goes to that box.
You would never be able to explain to Democrats that they don't even have their own opinions.
It's just money flowing through, changing everything.
It's all about the money.
Anyway.
There's a new form of energy, well, there's a new form of desalinization.
They put these buoys that bob up and down in the ocean, and then they use the bobbing up and down power.
to drive the water through filters, I guess, to take the salt out.
So that's a pretty big deal.
Now, they don't have this completely optimized, but they think it might be a thing.
So that would be one more way to desalinate with pods that pop up and down.
At the same time, China allegedly, according to interesting engineering, they have a new lithium battery that could double energy density.
So you get two to four times as much distance from your electric car.
Now, I only mention all these battery breakthroughs because there's...
Some of them are more likely to be commercialized.
I think this one is one of those because it's not a big change.
It's a sort of a tweak and it's still a lithium battery and it's still what people want to put in cars.
So your range anxiety might be just a few years away from going away.
You'll be able to go as far as you want.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is one hour of Monday goodness.
So we'll keep paying attention to what Trump and the Ukraine has.
I'm going to predict that no agreements will come out of any of these meetings.
I feel like until it becomes, like I said, until it becomes a robot war, I don't think anybody's agreeing to anything.
But it's worth trying.
So I do compliment the Trump administration for all the effort.
I mean, the effort is real, is what Putin said, that Trump is energetic and sincere.
And it does seem like that.
And I appreciate that in this service of trying anything you can try.
It does make me wonder if there's a secret plan to assassinate Zelensky because it might be the only way to get anything done.
Wouldn't be surprised.
Although they have to be very careful about that.
All right.
They could probably blackmail him though because they must know something about his presumed corrupt actions.
He's probably stolen a little bit of money, don't you think?
So maybe they could blackmail him out of office if they need to to get a deal done.
I don't know.
All right.
I'm going to say some private things to my beloved subscribers on locals.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining.
I'll see you tomorrow, I hope.
Same time, same place.
Gets better every time.
Uh-oh.
Once again, my option of going private is not working.
The button's just not responding.
So I can't go private with you on Locals.
But those of you who are not on Locals, you do not get the intense enjoyment of the pre-show.
The pre-show features my casket getting fed and me trying to make 15-foot putts and my morning drumming, case you like drumming in the morning.
It's the worst time for it.
So all that's happening and you're missing it.
All right.
That's about all I got.
I guess I'll go eat some breakfast since the technology is trying to suggest that we're done here.
