And then, well, then we've got an interactive experience like none other.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, at least since the younger dry us but you'll have to look it up if that didn't make sense to you but if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains well all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stine a canteen jug or
flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope meat of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Wow.
Oh, Paul, your timing is amazing.
You always catch me looking at the comments just right.
All right, after the show today, Owen Gregorian will be hosting, as is now traditional, a spaces event.
Go find Owen Gregorian and Spaces.
It's on the X platform.
That's the voice-only service.
So you can chat and ask questions and get answers and all that.
All right.
Well, I guess the stock market hit record highs yesterday after the Fed chair hinted that maybe interest rates could be a little bit lower in September.
So I don't know if Trump's brow beating of him and insulting and threatening him made any difference at all.
Probably not.
If it made any difference, probably it was a difference if he delayed it longer than he could have.
But maybe good news is coming.
However, there is some suggestion that Trump might fire that governor of the Fed.
That would be the position below the Fed chair.
And the reason would be Bill Pulte and his people found that she allegedly may have lied on some mortgage applications and said she had more than one price.
So it's a pretty common crime if it turns out she's guilty.
I don't know if she is.
But that was a lot of pressure to put on the Fed for what could turn out to be no benefit whatsoever.
I guess the Fed will be independent.
Well, according to Howard Ludnick, Commerce Secretary, I now own a little bit of stock in Intel.
I wasn't expecting that.
But apparently the United States, and therefore as a resident, that would include me, apparently the United States took a 10% stake in Intel.
Now, we had talked about that might be happening, but they actually got that done.
That's a done deal.
They've signed that agreement, I guess.
And while some people will say, well, there's another example of fascism.
where the government owns the companies to which I say 10% that's not owning anything except maybe profits.
And the government is uniquely situated to make or break a company, you know, to make it successful.
So my guess is this is going to be a tremendously good deal and that Trump has once again found a way to monetize things.
He finds bad news and then he monetizes it.
It's basically the same thing he did in his business life.
He would find a building that was suboptimal and then buy it and monetize it by improving it.
And he finds every opportunity to do that.
So Intel may have been like the property that was suboptimal and maybe I assume, now this is an important assumption, it might be wrong, but I'm assuming that there's a pretty specific thing that the government will do for Intel somehow that would make them more likely to succeed.
Otherwise, why would they give them 10%?
But there will be more to learn about that.
All right, here's a story that will sound like it's a joke, but it's not.
a big software company called Microsoft.
I think you've heard of it.
Microsoft.
Well, Elon Musk is going to start a competing company.
Instead of calling it Microsoft, it'll be called Macro Hard.
Macro hard.
Now, apparently, And the real thing is that he's recruiting., I guess, software people to build a competitor to Microsoft's office that would be an AI-based approach.
Now, tie together the other stories.
What would happen if you could do the main things that you want to do?
without buying Microsoft software or without using apps.
Because let's say your phone and your laptop were running AI, and that's it.
It was just running AI.
So if you wanted it to act like a spreadsheet, you'd just say, hey, AI, act like a spreadsheet.
And boom, you'd have a spreadsheet.
It would just create it on the fly.
It wouldn't exist anywhere until you asked for it.
And, you know, maybe you'd say, well, maybe it would have a template that it used or something.
Same with a, you know, the word processor.
You'd just say, hey, I'm going to write a letter.
Boop.
and it would create that interface as if it never existed before now imagine that you've you've got that um and then imagine that your companies also include a network of satellites that can make it unnecessary to use a phone company.
Because pretty much everywhere on Earth, you'll have this high-speed bandwidth access to a satellite.
That would be Elon Musk.
So if he can build the best AI, and then he can use the AI to replace all apps and operating systems in our devices.
So that would include your phones.
All of that would go away.
And if Elon is successful, he would own all of that.
Do you even understand how big a play that is?
He's making a play to put Microsoft out of business and Apple too and take all of their business.
Microsoft and Apple at the same time.
Oh, no, not that.
I'm sorry.
Did I say that he was going to try to take Microsoft and Apple's business?
I didn't mean that.
I meant Microsoft, apple and all of the mobile phone company business because his satellites will be the mobile phone company so he's going to be your internet provider your phone provider your operating system and he's already 75 there because the ai is the important part right we we
already assume that if uh if elon musk decided he wanted to build a phone that he could figure out how to manufacture a phone i mean he might not do it in the United States for the same reasons that nobody else does.
But yeah, he could either find a partner or start a company and manufacture a phone.
So the future, I believe, is laptops and mobile phones that have only AI and it does everything you want to do.
Whoa, wouldn't that be cool?
All right, so not only will Elon Musk be the first trillionaire, but he might be the first hundred trillionaire if he pulls that off, that would be worth, I mean, how much is that worth if it replaces all of those companies' entire businesses?
And it looks like he's got a, I'd give him a 25% chance of pulling that off, maybe higher, might be 75%.
And here's another thing that AI might do.
It might replace GPS.
So it turns out that if you've got detailed satellite maps and you've got cameras on your car, that your car can sort of look down the street and compare it to, I guess, like a Google map that mapped a street.
And it will just figure out where you are by what it looks like, no matter where you are.
Now, it might only be used as a fill-in for when GPS fails.
So in other words, you could imagine your car would have the AI navigation where it just looks where you are and tells you where you must be.
but it would only kick in when the GPS failed, perhaps.
But how cool is that?
To not have GPS and still have AI tell you where you are.
Now, it's not going to work if you're in the middle of a forest, but it would work wherever the streets have been mapped.
That's almost everywhere.
Well, one of the, what probably is several dildo throwers at the WNBA games, you know about that.
Multiple people, I think, probably multiple people, have thrown a colorful dildo onto the And I think somebody did it on football turf yesterday as well.
But one of those dildo throwers has been caught.
He's a family man from Ohio who traveled all the way to New York, I guess, to throw a dildo onto a WNBA court.
And he's not even like a big fan of WNBA.
Why would you do that?
He's a family man and a small business owner.
And there's no indication that things are going wrong in his life, but he still thought it was necessary to travel across state lines to throw dildo and just throw.
and disrupt a WNBA game.
Where did that come from?
Was that just for fun?
Did he lose a bet?
Did somebody pay him to do it?
Was it a dare?
That's not good judgment.
Anyway.
Apparently, Vladimir Zelensky of Ukraine has already asked if he can buy a if you will.
There's a claim that the dildo hit somebody.
I don't know that that's true.
But if it's true that colorful dildos are that dangerous, I think Zelensky should start dropping a man of drones.
It'll really make a difference in that war.
Speaking of dildos that are being dropped in various places, Kamala Harris is launching a book tour for her book, 107 Days.
Now, it's pretty gutsy to write a book about your failed presidential campaign, unless it's about why you failed.
And I suspect it's not going to be that.
It's probably about how awesome she was and she probably won, but maybe Russia hacked the election systems.
Who would buy a book from someone who's most famous for not even being able to talk in public?
If the book were called Word Salad, and it was nothing but nonsense words that AI put together or something, that would make.
more sense, but who would read it?
Who wants to hear from the loser unless they're funny or a good writer?
Do you think she's a terrible speaker in public, but she's a good writer?
No.
Do you think she wrote one word of it?
Probably not.
I assume it's a ghostwriter.
So it wouldn't really be her voice, and she didn't win the election.
and she doesn't have any wisdom to impart.
Wow, I'll bet you can't wait to buy that book.
You better get in line now.
Yeah, get in line.
Well, according to the Hill and others, I guess, there's a phrase which I hadn't heard until today, a romantic recession.
So in America and probably other places, there's a romantic recession.
So that would mean that people are having less sex or dating less and all that.
But now there's a Bank of America survey that says that having...
Half.
Now.
Isn't that the way it almost always was?
If you're counting men and women, hasn't it always been only half of them are spending money on dates and the other half are having the money spent on them?
Isn't that exactly how it's always been?
Half of the people spend nothing on dates and the other half spend all of it.
I don't know.
I don't know if that's anything new there.
But I found that 53% of men, Oh, so they did divide it by gender.
53% of men and 54% of women didn't spend a dime on dates.
I feel like if men were willing to pay for dates all the time, you know, if they could afford it, but they probably can't at the moment, that don't you think that more women would say yes to dates if they knew that they would not spend a penny?
Doesn't that seem like that would make a difference?
Because I feel like you would go on a date that was a little marginal if you didn't have to spend any money.
But if it was like, well, you know, we're going to date a few times and you're going to pay for our expensive dinner once and we'll pay once.
I don't know.
No, you're not going to do the marginal ones.
All right.
Another good news.
Apparently the U.S. and Canada are making progress in getting some kind of a permanent trade deal.
And indeed, the U.S. had dropped some, what would you, I guess you'd call it some revengey tariffs that we put on them.
And then Canada just dropped some tariffs that they had on us to reciprocate.
But Canada and the U.S. are heading toward, it looks like, resolving everything.
And so we go back to what did you.
predict would happen with tariffs?
Did you predict that it would be doom and gloom because we would ask for things we couldn't get or whatever?
Or did you believe that Trump was simply using it as a negotiating tactic and when it was all said and done, that we would just end up with better trade deals?
I certainly didn't know.
if the old tariff thing would you know cause a problem and i'm still not positive but it looks like it's a huge success for trump at this point um things could change, but at this point it looks like a huge success.
So now it looks like we're happy with our Canada tariffs, so we don't really need to negotiate anything.
That's what Scott Besson said.
We've got Europe looks like it's getting close to being handled, but it's not an emergency in any way.
Canada's coming online.
But what caught my attention was Carney.
is bad at negotiating.
Here's something that Carney said out loud in public in the context of still negotiating with the United States.
He actually said that Canada has the best trade deals in the world with the U.S. And so he'd like to keep that, you know, keep that situation.
Now, here's some advice.
If you're negotiating, you should never say you've already given us the best deal in the world.
Why would we give you anything else?
If you just told us you had the best deal that anybody had in the whole world, which might be true, by the way, that's not like, let me see.
So you've got the best trade deal in the world is what you're saying, but you're asking for more.
Why would we give you any more?
You just said you had the best deal in the whole world.
The world.
Look how many countries there are.
Have you counted the number of countries, Carney?
It's a bunch.
Lots of countries.
And you have the best in the world.
You're not getting anything else.
So, yeah, if you're negotiating, don't start with you've already given us the best deal in the world.
Well, Representative Mike Lawler, I like the fact he has Law, right now, right in his last name, Lawler.
So he's floating a bill, according to the New York Post, to charge fentanyl traffickers with attempted murder.
Now, that would be a trafficker.
So I don't think that necessarily means your local street dealer.
I think that means the person who takes it across the border, but I'm not positive.
But it would be attempted murder, and you could get up to life in prison.
Go All right.
So I had a shocking revelation yesterday.
I'm always fascinated when there's something that I just assumed was true and find out it's totally untrue.
And I feel like you're in the same position.
So I'm going to talk about something that probably you think is real.
according to what I learned yesterday is not even a little bit real and it goes like this do you believe that the company named blackro and some other big money companies have been buying up single family homes in the United States so much so that it's a big force on rising prices and making those homes unaffordable.
How many of you believe that that's a real thing that's happening in the real world?
Let me say it again and listen carefully, right?
So you have to listen carefully.
Do you believe that a company called BlackRock, money company BlackRock, in Vanguard and Stage Street, do you believe that.
they buy and have purchased so many single-family homes in the United States that it is raising the price of homes in the United States.
I believe that.
I kept hearing it over and over again.
All right, you ready?
You ready to find out what's true?
This is going to blow your mind.
And I didn't know this until I saw the Amuse account on X. And you should be following Amuse just like it sounds.
Just amuse.
and follow it.
But there was a long thread.
Here's the first thing you got wrong.
There is a company that buys single family homes in the United States, but it's Blackstone.
It's not BlackRock.
BlackRock's not even in that business.
So the first thing is, it's not BlackRock.
And I don't believe it's the others either.
But there is a company called Blackstone that has bought some tens of thousands of single family homes.
But The total amount that these money people have bought is 0.1% of the supply.
0.1%, not 1%.
Do you believe that the prices of homes in the United States are higher because Black Stone, not Black Rock, and some others own 0.1 percent of them?
Almost certainly not.
It's way too small a percentage to be affecting the total price of homes.
I mean, maybe a little bit, but you wouldn't even be able to measure it.
So, you know, my source, there is the Muse account.
So if you have anything to.
fact check me on, let me know later.
But how many of you, did that blow your minds?
How many of you thought that was true, that BlackRock had bought so many homes that was raising the price of homes?
I actually believed that.
I actually believed it.
Nothing is real.
So I've got a little bit of a theme for today.
The theme is nothing's real.
It's all fake.
Well, the Texas Senate passed their GOP redistricting map.
And so it looks like they'll gain five seats, or the Republicans will gain five seats in Texas.
And according to Axios, April Rubin is writing that Trump's plan is to get as many as 100 seats through a combination of having the Republican states redistrict.
I assume that means he will be But on top of that, Trump's trying to get rid of mail-in ballots.
And he believes if he does those two things, that the Republicans would pick up a 100-seat Republican majority.
Does that sound too aggressive, meaning that there's no way that's going to happen?
I don't know.
I have to put this in the category of tariffs.
where I hear the idea and I think to myself, I don't know.
I don't know.
I believe that BlackRock buying houses thing.
I mean, I got fooled by that.
So I guess anything's possible.
Maybe, maybe.
But some people say that Trump will not succeed in getting rid of mail and ballots because the states have full control of how they do the elections.
But I'm going to ask you a question that's going to make your head go, wait a minute.
Does that make a lot of sense or am I going crazy?
You ready?
So here's another mindbender.
Because I haven't heard anybody say this to my.
best of my knowledge um i haven't seen any news report with the suggestion i'm about to make okay let's um let's accept the assumption that the states have the ability to run their election any way they want okay we all We all would understand that.
And therefore, if Trump tried to do an executive order or even if the Congress made some law that they tried to apply to the states, the courts would throw it out.
because the states definitely have the power to decide how to run the election in their state.
So I think we'd all agree on that.
But here's my question.
Does the federal government have the ability to reject any state's numbers that they find not credible for any reason whatsoever?
Let's say there was a report that was very well-sourced that showed that one state had cheated on an election.
Would the federal government be required to accept that result?
Let's say the state tried to push it on the feds anyway because it's the only result they had.
But we knew there was very.
credible reports that it wasn't a good number.
Would the feds have the ability to say, we're going to skip your state because you don't have a credible number?
Or say, we're not going to give a result.
We'll just keep running the country the way it is because the election is not complete.
There's a state that hasn't weighed in.
which would also be bad for Democrats because that would keep Trump in office.
Or could it be that we don't have to have evidence that there was cheating?
Would it be enough for the federal government to say the only sources of numbers that we find credible are the ones that don't involve voting machines, if they decide to say that, and the ones that don't involve mail-in votes?
So the government could say we will accept all of your numbers that do not come from those two sources.
And it's not because we have proof that there's any problem with those numbers, but while what we do have is a, we've identified two systems which we have judged not to be credible enough to be acceptable.
Could the Trump administration and therefore future administrations too, I guess, decide what they would accept based on the credibility of the process by which they collected the numbers?
Had anybody floated that idea?
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and even a lawyer would not have necessarily the you know, the domain specific knowledge about elections.
So I don't know how to test that idea, but I don't think I've heard it before.
It does seem like the feds have, doesn't it seem to you that the federal government would have the power to reject numbers that were just not credible?
Don't you think that has some weight?
I don't know.
Maybe it's time to test it.
We'll find out.
Trump says that Chicago might be next.
for the cities that he would flood in some federal resources like the National Guard and try to conquer the violence and the crime there as he is trying to do in Washington DC.
Now if you judge Washington DC by what's happened so far, it all looks good, but we don't know what happens if he inevitably has to reduce the number of forces there, etc.
So anything could happen.
But hold that in mind.
I'm going to tie this all together.
So remember, Trump has federal forces in Washington, DC.
And so far it looks successful.
He might do the same thing in Chicago.
Now I'm going to switch topics, but I'm going to tie them together.
so pay attention.
Bill Maher had his show last night, and of course we watch him to watch this very entertaining, I would say, arc from a Trump hater to a, damn it, he keeps doing things I like.
And I don't believe Maher is ever going to become a Trump supporter member of MAGA.
But every week, it seems like he gets closer by validating that something that Trump did was worthy of compliments.
However, just to make sure you know that he would never go all the way to supporting Trump, he has this one ace in the hole that he says is disqualifying for Trump.
Oh, yeah, there's maybe lots of things you could complain about Trump, but there's this one thing that Bill Moore lets us know almost every week is completely disqualifying for Trump.
And that is the idea that Trump is running a slow motion coup, as Bill Moore calls it.
And that he knows that Trump will never give up power.
Now, he believes that January 6 was an example of that.
However, he is deeply within the hoax realm because Trump did give up power.
He literally gave it up.
He gave it up.
Well, I don't know what show he was watching, but the one I watched, he lost the election.
He complained, where we all have a right to, and then he peacefully left.
and then ran for election again, just like the system was designed.
So, but in Bill Maher's world, he's already proven that he would not give up power and therefore he might not give it up this time either you know and of course he did talk about trump uh having a 20 did he talk about this that trump has a hat 2028 hat so bill more believes that uh trump is not joking about remaining in power although he jokes about it a lot um however Bill
does have a stronger argument when he's watching the feds move their own little private army, so to speak, the National Guard.
It's not the feds, but they can nationalize it whenever they want if they had an argument.
And he points out that the troops are coming more from southern states as in it's almost like he's forming a private army.
Do you remember that I said you don't have to worry about the president, any president, but you don't have to worry about Trump trying to take power unless he had his own army?
Because if you don't own the army, there's no way you're going to stay in power.
So you would have to have something like Iran has, you know, the Revolutionary Guard or all the dictators have, you know, this smaller, highly funded and motivated group that can protect at least the capital.
So now he's got his own, this is what Bill Maher would say, he's got his own kind of military that's now guarding the capital conveniently.
Now, I would point out that it's not guarding Mar-a-Lago.
So it's not like the street I mean, he's going to be golfing and stuff.
But on top of that, as Bill Maher correctly points out, the only way you could have any kind of a coup, the kind that people fear, is if you really did start a process by which you were building toward having your own private army to keep you in power.
Now, does it look to you like that's what's happening?
Do you believe that what you see is Trump starting the beginning of his getting a federalized under his control?
You know, maybe later there's some moves where he fires some National Guard leaders and puts his loyalists in there.
You know, maybe something like that well here's what I think If you do, the first thing I'd worry about is if you do another election with voting machines and mail-in ballots,
you're kind of asking for a coup because you're running an election system that at least half of the country, and I believe it's more than half'cause I think both parties have some questions about these systems.
If you're running a system that the And I don't mean just Trump.
I mean, whoever's in power, if you keep running a system that the public doesn't trust, yeah, it doesn't seem like that could go forever.
But in my view, Bill Maher has the TDS problem of his problem with Trump is not the things he's done that we can verify.
He mostly likes that stuff.
And I'll give you some examples in a minute.
It's the things that he worries about that are imaginary.
And that's what it's come down to.
The smartest people who also have TDS, you know, the well-informed people like Bill, literally have to imagine an imaginary scenario where a very unlikely set of events happen that, you know, you could say, I told you, didn't you see that coming?
So that's imaginary.
But to his credit, Bill is also very complimentary, he was on Friday, saying how Trump is so good, and he gave lots of examples of how he's so good at targeting micro groups within the country and making them happy because he finds their their issue that they're tied to so he used the uh trump going to reschedule weed as
something that the the democrats were just stupid for not doing at first they just leave it to trump and so mar correctly points out that the people who would really like him to do that or like any leader to reschedule weed um trump is just going to nail them down So it'll be one more group of people that Trump gets for free, which is people who consider that one of their top issues.
But then Marr points out accurately that Trump did the same thing with crypto.
He became the one that the crypto people like.
And then he got that tiny little population on his side.
He did it with the first step back, got the people who were activists and the reform of the justice system.
know in terms of getting people out of jail early first step back he did it with the your toilets and your showers not having enough water pressure he did it with plat with straws he did it with no tax on tips.
He did it with Make America Healthy Again.
Each of them have a tiny motivated, really strong set of believers, and Trump just checks them off.
You want this?
No tax on tips.
Boom, I won Las Vegas.
And it was sort of a full circle for me.
Some of you know that in, I think it was 2016.
I was on his show, the real time, and I predicted that Trump would win.
So this was before the election, when people were not expecting.
Trump to win.
And I said he would win.
And I said the specific reason is that his persuasive skills were unparalleled.
So I gave my reason.
And my reason did not have to do with policies.
I didn't even mention any.
It wasn't about his fundraising ability.
I said there's one variable.
his ability to persuade is like we've never seen.
And he's going to go right into the White House.
Now, you see Bill Barr praising him because he so adeptly can identify these little areas where with just the smallest tweak in what you say about it, you end up owning that whole population.
You get them for free.
It's like leaving money on the table.
Oh, you mean, all I have to do is say I'm pro crypto and then a million more people will start looking at me as a better candidate.
All right.
Let's do it in a reasonable way.
I mean, he doesn't do it in a crazy way.
He makes sure that, you know, these things all make sense in their own way.
But yes, I would say that the Bill Marshall.
The Bill Maher is now a complete convert, as are most of the world, by the way.
Most of the world caught up with me in 2016, and they now believe that he, they like to use the term, he's the best political athlete.
Now, I like that, but I would say persuasion.
Political athlete is a wider category, and I agree with it.
He is the best political athlete we've ever seen.
But everybody sees the persuasion element now.
And then Bill Maher also astutely mocked Kamala Harris.
Paris, for instead of doing all these real world things that people like, you know, like the straws and the light bulbs and all this stuff, she went after saving democracy.
So she went after a concept.
Trump went after your toilets, your taxes on tips, your crypto, your weed.
Those are all real things.
Almost all of those things.
you can feel or see or you have a memory of it or an image pops into your head.
These are really salient, touch you, you can feel them, you just have a feeling about all those things.
And Kama is going for saving your democracy.
And the closest I can get to even understanding that topic would be, wait, what?
What's wrong with our democracy?
What?
And the only thing I think that needs to be saved is the credibility of our election systems.
And Trump's trying to do that.
So anyway.
And now Trump is doing more of what Bill Maher correctly points out is part of his persuasion genius of really relating to real people.
The fact that he's going after crime and also the beautification of our cities is so, so like right in the heart, isn't it?
Because there's nobody who doesn't have a picture in their head of a city with graffiti and garbage and people on the sidewalks.
So right away, he's in that visual domain.
And he's telling you he's going to beautify it and make it beautiful and clean it up and get rid of the crime.
The crime is also something you feel.
I don't feel the loss of democracy, but I definitely feel the danger of cats visiting, the danger of crime and stuff.
But listen to this statement.
So Trump said recently, and I quote, and listen how visual this is.
Quote, we are going to make D.C. totally safe, Trump said.
When people come from Iowa, Indiana, all the big, beautiful places, they're not going to go home in a body bag oh my god they're not going to go home in a body bag you see it right you you see the but you see the bag and and you can almost see yourself on the inside of it as they're zipping up the body bag that is visual persuasion it's visual even without the visual because you you fill
in the visual in your mind but the way he talks about everything is so relatable, so on the money, so you feel it.
It's really amazing.
So what do the Democrats do when faced with the greatest political athlete of our time having no policies and no leaders.
Well, according to something called the Atlantic Daily, they've got an article that says that some Democrats believe their best bet might be to imitate prominent Republicans, and they give an example of Stephen Miller.
So now...
So people like Newsom.
are literally pretending to be Trump in a mocking way, but they're trying to make their own Trump.
All right, we'll have Newsom.
We'll be doing a lot of insults and he might come up with some nicknames.
But they don't really know what part of Trump is the active ingredient.
So the things they're copying.
get some attention, but they're not very effective.
So now they want to find their own Stephen Miller.
They've already said they need their own Charlie Kirk.
And you know that they talk obsessively about getting their own Joe Rogan.
Now, you could not misunderstand the world any harder than that.
These are extraordinary people.
And if you haven't noticed, the extraordinary people are all being drawn to the same side.
You don't get extraordinary people by acting the way the Democrats act.
The extraordinary people either were born on the right or they said, ah, the left is freaking crazy.
I'm going to go toward the common sense world where I can get something done.
So no, you can't find your own Stephen Miller.
Do you know how much personal hell somebody like Stephen Miller had to go through before he got to be Stephen Miller?
Almost nobody would sign up.
So I don't know too much about Stephen Miller's personal life, but don't you assume?
that the level of personal risk and sacrifice he's put into this is way bigger than ordinary people put into anything.
And that would be true of Charlie Kirk and it's probably true of Joe Rogan and certainly true of Trump.
You don't just go find one.
You don't hold auditions to find yourself your own Stephen Miller.
Those only grow naturally.
You don't build them.
And somehow the Democrats live in such an imaginary entertainment fictional world that they believe that they can build heroes.
When there's no example of anybody else ever doing it.
Has anybody else ever built themselves a Joe Rogan?
No.
Do you know how much hard work Joe Rogan put into his career?
I mean, if you haven't looked into the number of things he's done and the skills he's picked up and the chances he took and, you know, that whole road, you don't just imitate that.
You have to be born into that mindset that would make it possible for you to become.
you know, a Joe Rogan.
But I should point out, if I haven't said this directly, the newsome strategy of just mocking Trump and doing funny truth or well funny posts that use Trump style and then swearing a lot and showing up on on all kinds of podcasts and having your own podcast and stuff that's it's kind of working now it's working in this narrow sense it's working in the sense that he's getting all the attention so he's and
people are starting to assume that he's the likely primary winner to be the candidate.
So it's working for him because it makes him look like he's fighting Trump the most.
And he's getting the most attention and we know that attention is you know half of the battle and apparently it's helping him raise money and we know that money makes a difference but uh I should point out the following things.
Number one, it's August.
In August, there's not really much news to compete with Newsom doing a funny truth social mock.
I would also point out, it's not the sort of thing you can do forever.
They managed to hit on a really clever little vine, which is mocking the posts and using that style.
But how long would you be willing to be entertained by that?
I feel like three is the most I can handle.
I'm not even sure I'll read a third one.
But the first two I read because they were kind of clever.
They were well executed.
Whoever is doing the strategy and writing those, I don't know if it's Newsom himself, but it's well done.
As what it is, it's well done.
But do you think anybody's going to change their vote?
If we've already accepted, and even the Democrats have kind of grudgingly accepted that Trump is the best persuader and communicator of all time.
So of all time.
And if what you're doing is mocking him for the thing that is the best of all time, his communication skills.
So.
So if you were mocking him for something he was doing poorly, that could be a really good strategy.
But if you're mocking somebody for a skill in this case communication skill in which he is possibly the best in the world in all time that doesn't really leave a mark all it is is like a tribute band let me say that again wait wait until you feel this he's become a tribute band for a candidate who's not even running for office again.
Think about how weak that is.
He's the tribute band.
Again, if Trump were a bad communicator and he were mocking his bad communication skills, that might be something.
That might leave a mark.
But if the whole point of Trump's communication is even both sides admit, okay, it's the best anybody's ever been in the world, in the history of the whole world.
Nobody's ever been close.
If you're dealing with that as a thing you're mocking, I don't know how good your mocking would have to be, but all it does is draw attention to the fact that he's the best communicator we've ever seen and then on top of that it turns you into the tribute band uh i'll give you uh i'll give you a choice you can go watch the beatles give a
concert in their prime if you could travel back in time or you could go to vegas and you could watch a tribute band play their songs Which one would you pick?
The tribute band or the Beatles?
So that's sort of the comparison that Newson was say up, and then that he has the cursing.
Of all the things that Trump does, his cursing is the least important, but easiest to copy.
So the appeal of the cursing is it's easy to do and maybe a little bit of fun.
It's not his most important variable.
It's not what makes Trump Trump.
he never swore once, Trump would still be Trump.
I mean, you're talking about less than 1% of his technique, which he does well.
But they think that's the thing to copy.
Anyway, I think it would be hilarious if all the Republicans who are pundits played a hoax in which we pretend that the cursing is really working for us.
So every time you go on a podcast and you get interviewed, you say, "You know, I have But lately with all the cursing, I'm getting a different feeling about him now.
A man who could curse like that, well, that's a leader.
I mean, I used to like it when Trump would curse, but I believe Newsom is cursing even more.
And I'm really drawn to that.
So I've decided to re-register as a Democrat so I can vote for him in the primary.
Yeah, I wasn't even motivated to vote.
until I heard him cursing.
And I was like, damn it, that man can curse.
And then try to do, try to make it look like the cursing was the acttive ingredient so that they never get close to understanding that they really need ideas and they learn how they need to learn how to do persuasion and then they would know what the active ingredient part is let me tell you where the active ingredient is you don't want to go home in a body bag okay you could feel that now compare to uh
trump is uh f and up the city i use a swear word did anybody catch that i use a swear word one of those is four star A ⁇ persuasion.
It's the body bag one.
Yeah, it's not the, oh, he's effing things up.
Oh, I'm going to effing fight so hard.
Oh, mockery.
I got a happy cat right there.
All right.
People can't see you if you lay down there.
They're going to have to look at me.
Well, Trump was asked about Newsom, of course.
And Trump said, I know Gavin very well.
He's an incompetent guy with a good line of bullshit.
So Trump does the cursing.
And again, I don't think it's true, but I love, you know, just recreationally, I like believing that Trump knows that the more he swears, the more they'll think that's the magic sauce.
And see if he can get into a swearing contest with them.
And they'll have nothing, nothing at all.
Well.
Well, so here's how I like this reframe from Trump, or it's a frame, I guess, that Gavin is incompetent.
He's a good guy, but he's got a good line of bullshit.
Doesn't that feel kind of perfect?
Because Newsom has that pretty boy, you know, a little bit too good-looking.
His hair is too good.
He's a little too tall.
his tan is a little bit too good and that sort of biases you to think that maybe he's not that competent because he's you know it's hard to be good looking Good looking and competent at the same time.
You know, not too many people pull that off.
I mean, I do, obviously, but not too many people can pull that off.
So it's a really good frame.
It's sticky.
He's an incompetent guy with a good line of bullshit.
All right.
Well, here's an update on John Bolton being raided by the FBI.
Can I lay my notes on you, Kat?
I need them to be sort of right there, but that's sort of where you are.
I'm just going to lay them right on top of you.
All right.
All right, it's working.
So Gary the cat is so relaxed that he doesn't mind if I put my notes on top of him.
No, stay down there.
It's okay.
Anyway, update on Bolton.
So there's some thought that the reason he was being raided is he had some potentially classified materials and that he mentioned them in his book.
so that there's no there's no real question whether the materials are classified because we already saw the book and I guess I think even the judge because it even admitted as a statement of fact that it was classified material and he shouldn't have had them.
But he was still allowed to publish the book.
But there is some thought that it was more than that and that he might have been behind some other leaks.
We don't have evidence of that.
But we do know that Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA, is the one who provided the information that was the predicate, as they like to say, for the FBI to go into his house.
So what would the CIA know?
know that the FBI didn't know already.
So there might be something there.
We don't know.
We'll keep an eye on that.
So do you believe that the Bolton action is more evidence that Trump is on a revenge tour?
And how do you feel about that if you think that's what's happening?
Here's my take.
I believe that The worst thing the country could do is to get into a revenge situation where every new administration wipes out the prior administration, tries to put him in jail, but we're there.
And I have mixed feelings about it.
I don't like it, but on the other hand, the only thing that keeps society together is the risk of mutual destruction.
The reason that we're civilized is because we don't want somebody to kill us.
for being uncivilized around other people.
That's it.
The only thing that keeps us together as a society is the risk that if we go too far, somebody's going to go right too far on our ass.
And what we're watching, in my opinion, is Trump executing mutually assured destruction and that it is revenge and it's necessary.
Now, you might say, but Scott, by taking the gloves off and going so hard at his enemies, which he is clearly doing, It's just going to make them go hard and it will be this endless cycle of revenge, to which I say, why is it even.
necessary for him to get revenge?
If you don't do something to somebody, they don't need revenge.
So maybe you should learn that you can make the cycle stop just by not trying to lawfare a guy who might become your president later.
So I'm completely in favor of the revenge in the context of mutually assured destruction.
I do believe that the Democrats went way too far in trying to put him in jail.
And I think they went way too far in putting other Republicans in jail.
Quite a few of them, the ones who were around Trump, you know, his accountants and all of his associates, they went after his family members, they went through his wife's underwear drawer.
They went hard.
And so, in my opinion, if he did not unleash full mutually assured destruction, and he is, but if he had not, it would have empowered them to be like that in the future.
He has to go full salt the earth.
And he's got to pull as many of those weeds as he can in the time that he has because society requires that you not be what the anti-trumpers were you You can't be in power.
You cannot be in power and be like that because whoever comes after you is going to get the revenge and we're just going to sit back and watch.
Do people like me have the power to put the brakes on this by complaining?
The answer is yes.
Yes.
This would be one of the categories.
It wouldn't be true for every category.
But for some categories like this, if people like me, the people who talk about politics and are pro-Trump, et cetera.
If we were unified against this, he'd cut it out because there are enough of us.
I mean, Trump is smart enough that he knows he needs the pundits, the podcasters, and that that world supports him.
If we were all on the other side and said, no, no, no, don't be a revenge administration.
We can't handle this.
It might trigger a civil war.
If we said that, we could slow him down.
And so I'm taking some risk and taking some responsibility at the same time.
I'm taking some responsibility because he's the candidate I support that I'm also going to share that risk.
I feel like he has a free hand for full revenge as long as there's backing for it.
I mean, it doesn't count if he just starts taking out people who are good at their job at being Democrats.
That doesn't count.
If somehow he started looking for, I don't know, some dirt on Fetterman, just so they could find some way to put him in jail, I'd be against that.
Very much against that.
That would flip me immediately.
But so far, it looks like he's only getting rid of people who participated in hoaxes against him or acts which I would consider unethical, you know, going after the January 6th, for example.
So he's on strong ground.
I'm completely supportive of, if they want to call it revenge, go ahead.
I call it mutually assured destruction has been activated, He's the agent of it.
And he's going to make sure that if you think about law-faring the next leader, maybe you should think about what happens when you do that.
Maybe you should think that that leader is going to kick your ass if he gets a chance.
So that's okay with me.
Hold society together.
Apparently, Chairman Comer, Republican, is looking at subpoenaing camel harris to talk about the uh hiding of Biden's health problems.
And I have two feelings on that.
Number one, yes.
Yes, I would like to know what she says about that.
And the other feeling is yes.
And why haven't we done that yet?
Why is it even a question?
She was the vice president.
That's the most obvious person to ask.
What did you know?
And when did you know it?
And why didn't you do something about it?
So yeah, I hope that happens.
I don't know that it will.
And if she did, maybe she would just take the fifth, would look really weak well believe it or not we now have the galleen maxwell transcript and audio.
I think it's, is it fully unredacted?
It might be.
Where Trump's ex-personal lawyer, who now works for him in another capacity, interviewed her and asked all the important questions.
So there were quite a few things that came out of it.
So I'll run down the list.
Big part of the list I got from Data Republican.
So on X, the Data Republican account, did a good job of summarizing some of the things we learned.
All right, so before I tell you what we've learned, can we all agree on the following?
She is not a credible witness.
Everybody?
Because otherwise it's going to drive me crazy when I look in the comments and you're yelling at me and saying, Scott, you fool.
Don't you know that she lies?
Can we all start by saying we all understand she's not a credible witness on anything she says?
Say it.
Say it out loud.
I understand she's not a credible witness.
And then I can save some time when I tell you the thing she said so I don't have to stop after every fucking one and say, but remember, I'm smart enough to know it's not necessarily true because she said it.
Are we all on the same page?
Can we handle this?
All right.
All right.
Glaine Maxwell says that Trump never did anything inappropriate and that he was a gentleman in all respects.
and that he was never even around a massage setting.
Hold, hold, hold.
Thank you.
I know.
You want so badly to say, but she got in return a better jail.
So, of course she said that because he might pardon her.
Hold, hold.
We all understand that.
You don't need to say it in the comments.
You don't.
No matter how much of an NPC you are, you don't have to say it.
We all know.
All right, she also said that Bill Clinton never went to the island, and I don't think she believes she saw him do anything inappropriate either.
Huh.
So you're telling me that Bill Clinton, the guy who's associated with the highest body count through his wife, that he never did anything on the island either.
Huh.
Huh.
Well, totally believable.
She said Trump did not receive any massages.
She said Bill Clinton didn't even visit the island.
She said there's no client list.
Epstein didn't work for any intelligence agency.
She said that there were no cameras on the island.
So that there were no videos.
I know.
Hold.
Hold.
Don't make me say it again.
Hold.
And let's see.
So apparently, And I believe that's the entity that everybody assumed was a pay-for-play, was a huge bribery mechanism so that foreigners could pay large amounts of money into it.
And then Hillary Clinton, when she was a State Department and or Senator, I guess, would have done what they wanted in return for that large amount of money to their Clinton Global Initiative, which they allegedly may have siphoned off for themselves.
And she believes that Jeffrey Epstein actually funded the Clinton Global Initiative and that that was the main reason that Clinton and Epstein had a relationship is financial.
Okay.
And let's see.
So the new movie that's emerging, I'm going to call the Mike-Benz filter on it, is that it's possible, and I'm not going to say that this is my view of it, but it's possible.
that the sex crimes were entirely Epstein doing it himself and or just some people close to him that he might you know may have pulled into the the scene but that it might not have been about it might not be blackmail that rather he seems to have been involved in very large financial entities and and uh transactions,
and that he seemed to be an expert on rich people hiding and moving money that can't be tracked.
So that makes sense if he was setting up the Clinton Global, whatever it was, that he was an expert.
on helping rich people make money illegitimately and or hiding it illegitimately.
And it could be that everything we think was, you know, a blackmail scheme and working with intelligence agencies may have been nothing but a whole bunch of opportunities that were big ones.
So that he may have intersected with some intelligence people, but that he wasn't on their payroll.
It's entirely possible that he worked with some of them and that maybe he helped them out in some cases in return for some other favors.
So I wouldn't say that he had no contact with any intelligence people, but it might be that that wasn't sort of what defined him.
It could be that was just opportunistic or something.
And that really he was just looking for gigantic financial transactions and that it helped him to have close personal relationships with people, not necessarily for blackmail.
But if you did some, let's say, hypothetically, you had some rich friend and the two of you got into some sketchy sexual behavior that the two of you had.
of you knew about but other people didn't you probably would be more open to you know to working with that person so they didn't sell you out.
So it could be that the situation with Epstein was more nuanced, but that's not my view.
I'm just saying that more than one movie has now appeared.
We don't know which one is true.
Ghislaine thought that Epstein did not kill himself, so she thinks he was murdered, but doesn't know by who.
She denies that she solicited women for Epstein.
I've certainly read lots of details that would suggest that she did.
She did not see underage girls involved with anything non-consensual or anything improper.
Okay, we don't believe that.
Maxwell says that, again, I'm using the data Republicans summary here, says there's never been a list, you know, like a client list, which would make sense.
if he wasn't in the business of just blackmail, if he was in the business of knowing as many rich people as possible and helping them set up clever schemes with their money, it could be that the sexual stuff was just, it made sense in some cases, didn't make sense to bring somebody into that world in other cases, and he just discriminated.
And Maxwell said there was no blackmail and no intelligence ties, as I said.
And Epstein managed the money of Elizabeth Johnson, a Johnson and Johnson heir in the 90s.
And he had a business relationship with the ex-head of, the ex-CEO of Barclaysys.
I don't know why that's important.
And he helped Linda Rothschild financially, but Rothschild will deny it.
I don't know why this stuff is important.
And he hung out with the president of Colombia and met with Castro in Cuba.
Larry Summer was a personal friend of Epstein.
Larry Summer.
So he's a very prominent.
Hillary Clinton friend and prominent Democrat.
Maxwell says she thinks she met Alex Soros, the son of George Soros, at an event, but doesn't remember the exact context.
She said that Sergey Brin held a birthday party possibly with Epstein and that Elon Musk was present.
All right, that doesn't mean anything.
Bobby Kennedy knew Epstein.
That doesn't mean anything.
Trump seemed friendly with Epstein, but explicitly says she never saw anything improper.
And that Epstein liked to invite famous scientists like Stephen J. Gould for dinner.
He liked talking science.
All right, well, so in summary, we can't believe a single thing that Maxwell said.
But here's the genius of it from Trump's perspective.
I saw a lot of accounts on social media say, and there it is.
Maxwell says that Trump never did anything.
Case closed.
Is it?
I mean, that's as far as you can get from being a credible report.
So I don't think the case is closed.
I don't think that Trump did anything inappropriate.
But to imagine that Maxwell could be the one...
one to confirm it.
However, because people are not up to date on all the details of a story like this, the fact that Maxwell did very clearly deny that Trump did anything inappropriate, Trump and all of his supporters will forever be able to say that.
And the person who might know the difference is like, no, no, that came from Maxwell.
You can't trust that.
But it won't matter.
because the mere existence of the fact that Maxwell said as clearly as possible that he was not involved in anything is really going to carry a lot of persuasion weight.
It should not, but it will because it's associated with a person and there's an actual quote and it'll be repeated and repeated and repeated.
And most people will only hear it as a headline.
Maxwell says Trump didn't do anything wrong.
They will forget that maybe she had something to gain and she was playing the system.
They will not see the context where everything else she said looks pretty.
unbelievable, pretty sketchy, or maybe half of it looks just obviously sketchy.
So it's going to lose over time, it's going to lose all the nuance that would help you not find it credible.
And by repetition and the fact that people just hear the highlight, it will become very persuasive in Trump's favor.
And it already is.
All right.
And Trump said the Democrats don't know what to do.
So they keep bringing this stuff up, meaning the Epstein stuff.
He said, it's a hoax to diminish the significance of what we've done over the past seven months.
Well, I don't know if that's completely true, but they certainly would like the public to think about him more than his accomplishments.
Tulsi Gabbard shut down something called the Foreign Malign Influence Center.
Now, if you heard it was the Foreign Malign Influence Center, you would assume that their job was to keep foreign entities from influencing the U.S. in a negative way.
But allegedly, it was used to suppress free speech in the United States.
So it was a clever workaround to actually control the United States.
So she shut that down.
It makes you wonder how many entities are there that are funded by taxpayers, but if you knew what they did, you'd say, wait a minute, I don't want that.
Stop doing that right away.
According to Nature, publication, peer reviewers are more likely to prove an article for peer review.
uh they cite their own work now I didn't know that was true, but if you had asked me, I probably would have guessed it was true.
So since scientists get, they get benefits for how many times they're cited.
So it makes their own work look more important.
So if you want to get a peer reviewer to say good things about your study, you just cite the person who's the peer reviewer as one of your sources.
And then the odds of them saying, oh, yeah, this is a good paper because it increases their own citations goes way up.
Surprise.
Nobody's surprised by that.
I think science is at least 50% fake, meaning at least, and it might be, I think it's a lot more actually.
It's probably closer to 75, but most of what you hear about science is fake.
I've been fascinated by the Eric Weinstein take on science, that progress in physics stopped.
I forget what year he says, but there's an actual year.
or decade, I guess, in which progress in physics just sort of stopped.
And the idea was that the only thing that's worth looking at is string theory, but that never quite completely paid off.
And that science is just stalled.
And it's not because we're not able, but rather there's some force that maybe we don't completely understand that is stalling science intentionally.
Why?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But it does seem that...
So that part I've also observed long ago.
And I also have been criticizing string theory for years, saying it does seem like they're not really making any progress on this thing.
Is any of this real?
Well, Sean Ryan on his podcast has a guest, the host of something called The Y Files that many of you have seen on YouTube.
And AJ Gentile, I think, is the name of the host.
And that show does lots of...
of conspiracy theory kind of stuff but he's not a true believer uh often he'll say after he tells you the conspiracy he'll say but probably not true, and here's the reason why.
So he's not like a crazy conspiracy guy.
He's just somebody who talks about crazy conspiracies, and he doesn't automatically just throw them away, but he's not somebody who just believes every conspiracy theory.
So he's fairly credible, I find.
And what he said was...
What the hell?
And he had a theory that there's some chemical that they found there that shouldn't be there unless they were doing that.
And somehow it might be built to shoot the electricity up into the atmosphere so that in a Nikkei Tesla kind of way, somebody else could suck it out of the atmosphere and use the power.
Yeah, Gary's still here.
Good boy.
He just loves going to sleep to my voice.
So do you.
But anyway, my take on that, besides the fact that it's interesting, is if you look at the stories that we just talked about today and how many of them we don't know the truth.
I mean, we don't really know the truth on the Epstein thing.
We went through the whole Russia hoax.
We've got people who believe that Trump is doing a slow motion coup.
I mean, I don't even know how historians.
are going to write the history of what we're going through right now because we have two to three completely different narratives for every set of facts so what does the history book do And then we look at the pyramids.
So here's the context I want to give you.
What are the odds that our understanding of the pyramids, the kind of traditional one where the Egyptians built it, but it was really hard, but we don't know how, but it was just humans building, you know, maybe tombs or something like that.
What are the odds?
that almost all of our stories in the modern time, like right now, are fake, but we got the pyramid story right.
Do you think there's any chance that our understanding, I'll say the normal understanding where the Egyptians just built it themselves and forgot how.
Do you think there's any chance that's real?
So I don't know.
I wouldn't necessarily say that any one of the other theories is correct.
So I'm not buying into the, you know, it was used to generate electricity, although it might.
I don't rule it out.
I just have the general observation that if all of our stories that are in the public today are fake, what are the odds we got the pyramid thing right?
It's close to zero, right?
I mean, almost zero percent chance that we have a clean, clear understanding of what the pyramids are all about.
Well, there's a, according to a company, according to Interesting Engineering, the publication, there's an idea for a hybrid delivery system that would be part electric vehicle and part robot.
So the electric vehicle would go to your house, the robot would get out of it to deliver the package and then there would also be some kind of lock box not for everybody but for prime customers if they want one so so nobody could steal it because the robot would be able to lock it in the box and i'm thinking to myself yeah that is where everything needs to go you should be able to get everything cheaply and fast although i still i still think that sending
my tesla to pick it up might make sense By the way, I think I would be ready to buy a Tesla if it could deliver itself to my driveway.
So if you hear that Pleasant in California will allow you to buy something online and have it delivered to your driveway, let me know.
I'll probably buy a Tesla the same day.
I just don't want to go to the showroom.
I'm just trying to cut out that process.
Well, speaking of California, the Daily Wire is reporting.
Luke Rosiak that there's a California anti-poverty activist and also a gigantic Democrat donor who was running a massive carbon credit scam.
Oh my God.
So every large complicated thing is a scam and corrupt.
Everyone.
Anyway, that is all I had to talk about today.
How do we do?
We went long today, but you loved it.
So Owen Gregorian will be doing his spaces event in a few minutes.
