Trump and Kimmel and lots of other fun with headlines and bad sciencePolitics, Meta AI Glasses Rollout, Speaking Bonobo Monkey, MMR Vaccination Age, Biden's Forgetfulness, democrat Hoaxes Standard Timeline, Short-Term Government Funding, DOE Funding Cuts, TPUSA New Chapters, Jimmy Kimmel's Suspension, FCC Equal Access Requirement, ABC The View, Brendan Carr, Christopher Rufo, John F. Kennedy FCC Rules, FCC Public Interest, democrat Hoaxes Families Impact, Mark Halperin Podcast, President Trump's Strength, Success Humility Importance, Candace Owens, Narco-Terrorists Capture, Influencer Destiny, Orca Boat Attacks, Tyler Robinson Controversies, Greta's Hamas Support, Senate Rules Change, Congress Incompetence, ChatGPT Marriage Impact, BLM Activist Fraud, 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.
Will you allow me to maybe disagree with you a little bit today?
Can anybody handle that?
A little bit of disagreement.
A little bit.
All right, we'll get to that in a minute.
Got to make sure I've got your comments lovingly placed where I can see them.
By the way, if you didn't know it, see that book behind me?
No, you don't.
Do you see that book behind me?
Never mind.
It's too hard to show it to you.
I happen to be blocking it.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I'm going to move it a little bit.
All right.
Now you can sort of see it over my shoulder.
That's right.
Loser Think.
The book is reissued after being canceled for a few years.
People really like that book, Loser Think.
Because it teaches you how to not make simple and obvious reasoning mistakes.
It's the worst title for a book ever, but it's a really good book.
It will make you smarter.
Guaranteed.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
And you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper and marker glass, a tanker, chalice, and stein, a canteen jugger 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 day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Well, if there's anybody who didn't know that I've done the Dilbert cartoon continuously for, I don't know, since 1989.
That's a lot of comics.
But I still do it every day for people who subscribe.
You have to be on locals or on X and you can get it.
All right.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Americans are having a record low amount of sex, even less than during the pandemic.
Even less.
Why do you think that is?
Well, I think it's because people are less attractive to each other.
That's it.
That's the whole story.
You've seen the little pictures of what humans look like in, let's say, the 50s.
There'd be pictures of old pictures and New York City of people just walking around the street.
And every one of them was seemingly young enough to have sex.
So first of all, there's an age problem.
They were younger then.
But they were all thin and well-dressed.
And people were not that different, whether you think that's good or not.
You know, there was less diversity.
So if you met somebody, there was more likely you had something in common.
But my suggestion is that you have sex during my podcast.
If you can work it out.
Because if you did, I mean, imagine that.
You remember on Seinfeld when George tried to combine his favorite things and tried to eat a sandwich while he was having sex because he liked those two things really well?
Well, if you combine this podcast with wild sex, oh my God, it might be just so good you can't even stand it.
But no, don't do that.
That's the worst idea ever.
No, don't do that.
All right, there's a new study according to Psychology Today that says that having a growth mindset or the intervention trying to teach people to have a growth mindset doesn't help their academic performance one bit.
Now, I'll tell you what, well, let me explain what a growth mindset is.
Growth Mindset Debate00:03:24
The growth mindset is if they work hard and do the right things, they will do better in school so that they can raise their grades through a growth mindset.
That didn't make any difference.
But I'll tell you what will make you seemingly smarter, a skill stack, which I talk about too much.
If you intelligently combine a little bit of knowledge in the right kind of fields where that knowledge fits together really well, you will be effectively smarter.
It's not really going to help you with your spelling and your math and your school stuff.
But in the real world, if you knew AI, plus you knew whatever it was that was your job, obviously you're going to be smarter just in the sense that you know more stuff that's useful than other people.
So, skill stack for the win works every time.
Apparently, Marcus Zuckerberg was yesterday, tried to do a presentation of the new meta glasses, where you've got all kinds of capabilities, but they come in glasses.
And I guess the rollout was kind of awkward and didn't work too well and had long outages.
And it was called a poor showing.
Now, that probably doesn't have much to do with how good the product is.
It's just the way the world works.
When you do a demo, everything breaks.
I got to say, I'm a little bit more curious about these meta glasses than I have been about other things.
So if I can get a pair that are prescription, I know.
Now you're just looking at the cat that's over my shoulder that's looking at my book.
The book is called Lose, I think.
And even the cat loves it.
I mean, look at how much that cat loves that book.
I mean, if a cat loves it that much, how much are you going to love it as a human?
Way more.
Way more.
All right.
Best marketing I've ever done.
Okay, we just want to watch the cat now, don't we?
If you're only listening to this, I apologize.
But there's something very funny happening right over my right shoulder.
That is kind of funny.
All right.
Never mind about that.
There's, according to nature, not nature, the phenomenon, but nature, the publication.
AI is going to maybe help animals speak, or at least help us understand what they're saying.
So, but there's a story about these bonobo monkeys deep in the jungle who were discovered to be putting, I'll say words together in the sentences, but usually it was just like a grunt and a squeak or something like that.
But if you put them together differently, apparently the other monkeys knew what you're talking about.
So I think you have the same feeling about this that I do.
Teaching monkeys to talk.
Teaching Monkeys to Talk?00:15:14
What could go wrong?
Nothing comes to mind.
Feels like that's a clear path.
Yeah, monkeys learning to talk.
Yeah, no problem.
All right.
According to Fizz Org, people who are conservative politically are more likely to believe in health disinformation.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that conservative people are more likely to buy into disinformation about healthcare?
About health techniques, I guess.
Does that sound right?
What's the first question you would ask about this study?
If you were a skeptical kind of a person who had listened to my podcast a few times, what skepticism might you bring to this?
Well, here's where I'd start.
Who the fuck knows what is the right answer for healthcare?
Have you been alive in the whole world?
Have you noticed anything in the last 10 fucking years?
Nobody knows what is healthy.
Nobody knows what to eat.
Nobody knows what vaccination is good for you.
I'll talk about that.
There's different recommendations coming out of RFK Jr.'s group.
How in the world can you judge people on medical disinformation?
You can't because it would require that there's somebody who knows what's right.
If there's somebody who knows what's right, why have they been so quiet lately?
Maybe they could have helped us out a little bit during the pandemic.
Maybe RFK Jr. didn't need to do a big study about the health benefits of vaccinations.
Maybe they could have just asked these people who did this study.
Say they seem to know what's true and what's not, which is magic.
All right, I think I made my point.
Speaking of that, the CDC panel, which is only recently installed, to be at least compatible with RFK Jr.'s way of thinking.
So the panel has voted to push back the MMRV vaccine to four years old, meaning that it wouldn't be, let's see, what would they call it?
Not approved, recommended.
It wouldn't be recommended by the government until they're at least four years old.
So the MMRV, is that the one that's got several things in it?
That's the one that's got measles, mumps, rubella, Veritella.
I guess that's chicken box.
And when they're all together, it's there.
Now, one of the counter-arguments, and I think they're also talking about not giving all of them at the same time, because it might be a the thought is it might be a big load for a little kid.
But the counter-argument is if you say it's two shots or four shots instead of one, the odds of getting people to go back more than once and get the full compliment a lot lower.
You know, people are just less likely to do something four times than one time.
So they'll have to do some rigorous testing to see if any of the changes make an improvement or make things worse.
And I hate the fact that we have to experiment with four-year-olds because there's no other real way to do it.
You just have to kind of experiment with them.
Say, well, I think, I think it's better if we wait, but we'll find out.
All I have to say about that is obviously I don't know what's right and what's not.
But as long as RFK Jr. shows his work and they really show it, I mean, they really, really make everything that they use to make a decision available to us.
Well, of course, we'll all disagree on the interpretation of that same information as we do.
But I think the best you can do is fight it out in public.
I don't think you could beat that as a model for how you can at least get close to the truth.
You know, if a lot of people weigh in and smart people who wouldn't have otherwise been involved can get involved, you know, even just as the public, that could make a big difference.
All right.
New York Post is reporting that the ex-Biden chief, his name was Jeff Zeitz, told Congress, I guess, that Biden forgot names, dates, even simple decisions.
Okay, I do that.
How many of you have ever forgotten a name?
How many of you have ever forgotten a date?
How many of you have ever forgotten that you had made a decision already about something?
I hate hearing that those things are signs that you have dementia and you should be removed from the field.
I do every one of those things and have since I was born, I think.
Oh man, I have way more dementia than I imagined.
Jeff Zeitz.
And you know, if you want to know something about healthcare, you should ask Jeff Zeitz because nobody else knows what works.
All right.
Anyway, so he forgot a bunch of stuff and he said that Biden had the mental freezes that were unprecedented.
All right, so let's take this as Democrats finally, not finally, but he's one of several now, who have sort of confessed that Biden wasn't all there and that they were completely aware of it.
Now, what's interesting about this story is nothing about Biden and nothing about Jeff Zeitz or what he did or did not know.
What's interesting to me is that it takes at least one year, at least, minimum of one year, for a Democrat hoax to be confessed.
They wait one year, right?
Sometimes it's more.
I think the fine people hoax took several, and the Russia collusion hoax took several.
But one is the minimum.
It's at least one year.
And I will say once again that there is no comparison to the fact that the Democrat Party is a hoax and essentially criminal enterprise.
It's hoaxes that create this situation and allows them to steal massive amounts of money.
Not every one of them.
Maybe close, but probably not every one of them.
But I do think most.
I do think most members of government, Democrats, are criminal.
That's my belief.
Now, that's based on observation.
It's not based on a deep study or anything.
But if you ask me my opinion, I would say a really solid majority of every elected Democrat is a criminal.
I mean, like a real, real criminal, as in taking bribes, as in laundering money, as in selling their support for stuff.
Probably, if I had to guess, 70% minimum are just flat-own criminals.
Now, of course, of course there are Republicans who are all flat-owned criminals, but I will think it's 70%.
You know, I feel like it's 30%, but it does feel like there's a big difference.
That's just how I feel.
So I want to be very clear that that's not based on data.
It's based on just watching the news.
And it just looks like Democrats get into the job for the theft.
It doesn't even look like they're there for the right reason.
Apparently, the president is telling us there's going to be a budget vote maybe today, today or tomorrow, in which it'll be about what's he say?
The House Republicans are going to take an important vote to pass a clean temporary funding bill.
You know what that is?
A clean temporary funding bill.
You know what the other name for that is?
Complete failure.
That's what that is.
If you're doing another kick the can down the road, I've complained about it enough on all the prior ones, so I probably don't need to add that much.
No, this is a complete failure of government.
Now, it's hard to say whose failure it is because it takes all of them acting the way they act so that they can't make decisions.
So it's not like it's one side in this particular case.
It's really a design problem.
The system is designed so that it can't work.
It just can't.
They don't have the ability to reduce spending, which is the only way we'll survive, as far as I can tell.
There might be some other clever tricks coming.
I don't know.
I'm not aware of what they would be.
But no, just say, I want to say it as clearly as possible, total and complete failure of government.
Every temporary funding bill is complete collapse of capability from everybody collectively.
Individually, you might say, well, but this member is good and I like Thomas Massey.
It doesn't matter.
They can't control anything.
So, yeah, absolutely disappointing, disgusting, despicable, irredeemable, bordering on criminal, not criminal, but bordering on it.
And I cannot have any respect for the Congress that acts that way.
None.
None.
Zero respect.
I have zero respect.
All right.
Trump is going to apparently dedicate $500 million to historically black colleges.
And the source of that, he says, would be from cutting the Department of Education funds.
So in other words, Trump has decided to do something super racist.
Now, he's done that funding before for the historically black colleges.
And I would say this.
I would agree that historically, having historically black colleges where black students have a place they can go that is really comfortable and makes sense.
I like that historically.
But would you agree with the following statement?
You have to wind it down eventually.
Otherwise, it turns into the opposite of its thing.
The original thing was: wait a minute, white people have everything.
Let's make sure that black people are getting a real serious bite out of the big apple, if so you will.
And so you create a way that at least the best and the brightest, which makes the biggest difference because they're the ones who could be hiring and educating the next generation and everything else.
So it made sense to me.
And I've often thought of it as a form of reparations.
So when somebody says, how about reparations?
I think we already have historically black colleges.
That's a heck of a good reparation.
So I would say it's racist, obviously.
It's just completely racist in 2025.
But it's probably not yet time to wind it down.
Might be a little early.
But would you agree that the long arc of history is that you have to get rid of, I'm giving my money to black people.
Just like you have to get rid of, I'm giving my money to Asian people.
I'm giving my money to Albonians.
I'm giving my money to white people.
It's all the same.
It's just racist.
So once the historical, the historical reason for it dissipates over time, and it will, yeah, it's just racist.
But you could argue that we're on the border of that right now.
Well, Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk's old organization, had, what, 2,100, what were they called, chapters.
And now they have, as of today, I think 62,000 requests from high school and college students nationwide to start a chapter or get involved.
62,000 people.
Now, that doesn't mean there would be that many chapters.
It could be, you know, one school had lots of people who asked, you know, so it might be just one location that might turn into something.
But we're talking about tens of thousands.
That's amazing.
If that's really, if that's a real number and people don't lose interest and they follow through and stuff, that should be the biggest change in the country politically.
Would you agree?
I feel like it would be the biggest change in the country.
So we'll see.
All right, we have to talk about Jimmy frickin' Kimmel because that's the big story.
So yeah, why not?
I'll start with a correction.
You were nice enough to correct me from a mistake I made yesterday in which I saw somebody else characterizing what he said and I used their characterization of it and it was just wrong.
I mistakenly believe that he did not directly say that MAGA was that the shooter was MAGA.
I thought incorrectly that he'd said something more along the lines of it, you know, anything's possible or it could be or something like that.
But he said it directly.
And it didn't appear to be anything like a joke.
It looked like just a statement of what he believed is true.
Now, here's the thing: are you so sure he was lying?
Because that's something that people on the left believed was true at about that time.
Jimmy Kimmel's Business Decision00:15:59
Now, I would agree he would have been one of the last to figure out that that had been debunked.
But you don't think that there's a strong enough bubble of you just not having access to any alternative views.
You don't think the bubble was strong enough that by the time Kimmel walked out there, he thought that was true.
Now, I believe he would have been going off the fact that the family was very conservative.
So that certainly would ramp up the odds that the children were conservative.
It's probably, I don't know, I guess 80% likelihood that if the entire family and the entire community is strongly conservative, that would be a real strong indication that anybody who came out of that environment was, but 20% chance he wasn't.
And of course, there's plenty of evidence now that he was left-leaning.
But he came from that family, and There were some early reports, which I believe have been debunked, you can tell me, that some of the writings alleged, writing on the shell casings, were somehow evocative of Grouper, Grouper stuff.
That would be Nick Fuente's followers are called Groupers.
Now, if any of those things were true, that would look sort of mega-leaning.
But now we know that there's more evidence that he was part of a far-left, trans-related, gay, furry situation, like literally gay, furry video game culture and stuff like that.
So I don't think there's really my own view.
And of course, we can be fooled by anything at this point.
It's still a little fog ore.
But my own view is there's no question that it was a left-leaning person who did the act or persons, maybe more than one.
But is it possible that Kimmel did not know that when he went on stage and his writers didn't know it and his producers didn't know it?
Yeah, that's totally possible.
I would say most likely.
Because I don't think that Kimmel would have imagined he had some advantage in walking out there and saying something that was so debunked that he would just be mocked for it in 24 hours.
Like, why would you tell that lie?
That's not a lie you would take.
Even if you were the most partisan person in the world, you wouldn't tell that lie.
That wouldn't make any sense.
You would just be proven wrong in no time at all, and you just look like an idiot.
So I think if you're looking at did he lie or did he think it was true at the time, he definitely thought it was true at the time.
Now, is that as bad a crime as lying?
No, it's not as bad a crime as lying.
You have to kind of allow that people could be wrong and maybe they can apologize.
Did he get a choice?
I don't know if he would, actually.
This is interesting.
If he had been given the option of apologizing, would he have said, oh, okay, now I'm better informed?
That was incorrect.
Or would he go out there and act like he was sure it was true, what he said the first time?
Well, we don't know exactly, but I feel like by then he would be well informed.
People would make sure that he had followed up on the details and that he would have been right.
He would still have the same anti-Trump, maybe anti-Kirk stuff.
But anyway, that doesn't help the fact that what he did was widely disliked by a lot of the country.
So let's talk about a few things.
Apparently, by the way, we'll talk about Jimmy, but did you know that the FCC, when it grants these licenses to the big networks so that they can have a portion of the airwaves, the ABC, NBC, CBS, they have to agree to something called equal access in a political sense.
So if, let's say, the View let a bunch of only Democrats on the show for a year and no Republicans, that would be violating the terms of their license because they're not allowed to just bias everything in one direction.
That is the opposite of a public good because it's a limited good.
Now, I think some of these rules are on the border of obsolescence because now that you have the internet, I don't even know how many people get their news from the airwaves, but the airwaves are not what they used to be.
I mean, when there were really only three of them and they control all the news, you really, really had to make sure that they let people from both sides on the air.
But what happens when it's just a minor part of how people get news?
And they have other options on cable.
So if they want to watch Fox, they can.
And if they want to watch ABC, they can.
So they got lots of choices.
That's not what it was like when the rule was first made.
It made a lot of sense when they first made the rule.
Does it make sense now?
Marginally, a little bit.
But it's not the thing it was, right?
So I'm not surprised that it wasn't really being used much.
But anyway, Brendan Carr out of the FCC reminds us that the View has been violating FCC rules by having only guests that were Democrats.
I believe they had zero right-leading guests for a long time, years, I think.
Now, that means that the view will be in the crosshairs.
So, what do you think the view did when it came back from their break or whatever?
I don't know if it's a break.
No, I guess they were already back.
But what do you think they said about the Jimmy Kimmel situation?
Since that was their own network, that was ABC, and they're on ABC.
Do you think they went after the people who canceled it?
No, actually, they acted like it didn't exist.
They just skipped the whole thing.
That will tell you where ABC's mind is at.
Maybe we should just skip the most interesting, biggest story in the whole country, even though our whole thing is talking about the big stuff in the country.
So that happened.
But Brendan Carr's sort of implied or more than implied threat is that you would look into the view.
And if you're ABC and you hear that the FCC is thinking about looking into you for this, first thing you're going to do is change how you act.
You know, just in case that's enough.
Like, okay, we'd rather they don't dig back at the last several years to see what we're doing.
How about we just start acting nice now?
Would you accept that?
How about if we do it now?
So that's what ABC did cleverly.
Well, I saw a lot of people say that, Scott, this was no political act.
Maybe ABC is pretending it is.
Maybe people are talking about it that way.
But no, Scott, this is a corporation who was losing money on the Jimmy Kimmel show, and they took this opportunity to get rid of it.
Well, I would say the following: I don't know that they've gotten rid of anything.
I'm pretty sure they're still paying them and probably still paying everybody else because I don't think that they've decided that they'll get rid of them.
They might, pretty good chance.
But no, they haven't saved any money.
And I don't know that they will.
Don't know that they will.
But I did go to Grok and asked it: hey, is Jimmy Kimmel alive?
His TV show is it?
Is it losing money or making money?
Well, it's not public information, but the smart people, the industry analysts, believe that it's probably losing $10 to $20 million annually.
And that would be based on the long-term trend of reduced viewership, what they know about ad revenue, et cetera.
Now, remember, that's only the industry experts.
That's not ABC confirming that.
But I feel like if the other shows are probably losing tens of millions, they're basically all the same shows.
And I believe that his was the lowest rated of all of them.
So is it likely that they were losing money?
Yeah.
Yeah, it's pretty darn likely they were losing money.
All right.
Let's come to a decision about whether this is a question of free speech or was it just a business decision?
Did you know?
Here's a good background, is Christopher Rufo tells us on X, I didn't know this.
I just found out this morning.
Did you know?
I'll just read Christopher's post.
He says, sorry, but the FCC was established by FDR to impose public standards on broadcasters and used by JFK to pressure station managers into dropping right-wing radio programs.
The shoe has been on the other foot for almost 100 years.
Turnabout is fair play.
Now, here's the meat of his opinion.
I didn't know that about JFK.
He said, what did he say?
The only way to get a good equilibrium, meaning between the left and the right, is an effective strategy of tit-for-tat, strategic tit-for-tat.
So Christopher Ruffo thinks that softening up would be a mistake, if I'm characterizing him correctly.
And that once the Republicans have this power, they should use it.
Because if the other side had the power, they would use it.
And they did.
So if they would use it, and they did, why wouldn't you use it?
Why wouldn't you use the power?
Well, the reason to not use it would be if it looked like a clear violation of free speech.
But is it a clear violation?
Well, here's where it gets fun.
So Trump has weighed in and said his opinion is the FCC probably should do something about Jimmy Kimmel.
But he says, you know, the FCC makes their own decisions.
And sure enough, on paper, the FCC is an independent group.
So if the FCC puts pressure, does that mean that Trump put pressure?
Suppose the FCC has no conversations with the White House, but they know exactly what the White House would want.
And by a majority and also their leader, they're a Republican entity at the moment, because the president gets to appoint.
And I think Trump has appointed to make sure that there's a Republican majority and Republican leadership.
Do you think that they need to check with the White House?
Well, no, even you and I would know what the White House wanted.
Do you think there's anybody in the FCC who thinks that Trump wants a little bit more Jimmy Kimmel?
No, of course not.
Now, that doesn't mean the FCC is his lapdog and doing whatever he wants.
But these are somewhat obvious things that they should be looking into.
If the View is a top show and they haven't had a single Republican for years, is that not fair for the FCC to look into that?
Now, maybe after the result of looking into it, they might say, okay, these rules are obsolete in the world of internet.
These networks just don't have that much power anymore.
Or maybe we're almost there and maybe you could say 10 years we phase it out.
I'd be in favor of that, probably.
But yeah, it's absolutely fair that they look into it.
Is it fair that they looked into Jimmy Kimmel's statement?
Well, yes, because their mission is literally called public interest.
And what Jimmy Kimmel said generated a lot of public interest.
Again, I'm using interest in slightly different sense in two sentences.
But yeah, if there's something big that comes up and the country really cares about it and half the country, you know, just pick a number, a third of the country thinks that somebody did something on one of the licensed airwaves that was not in the favor of the public.
And that's what people said.
You're on the licensed airwaves and you did something that absolutely is unacceptable.
Said a lot of people.
Yeah, that's the FCC's job.
They don't need to check with the White House if it's the biggest story in the country and it's right in the middle of their, you know, it's a new sweet spot.
It's not like a stretch.
It's exactly what they should be working on.
And the FCC doesn't have the authority to do whatever they want.
You know, their job is pretty narrowly constrained.
And I think they stay there.
However, so now that you know that it was almost certainly losing money, do you think that that was a business decision?
Or was there some pressure there?
Well, I'm pretty sure they weren't going to fire him on their own right away.
Apparently, there's some indirect benefits they might get from having the show.
I don't know, maybe clips they can put on the internet or something.
But it's not a 100% story that it's just they're just losing money.
Obviously, they kept it on to this point.
And if they were losing money up to this point, you have to question how much of a business decision it was.
It wasn't like they were doing some thing to make them profitable.
I didn't see any change.
So was that a business decision?
Oops.
Maybe it was a business decision or partially a business decision.
Or was it a business decision?
Why am I slurring?
Or was it more of a business opportunity?
As in, well, we didn't see this coming and we don't like any bit of it.
But now that we're here, why waste a crisis?
We kind of wanted to cut our expenses.
Now, like I said, I don't believe any expenses are cut.
Not yet.
And there's no compelling evidence that they ever will cut them.
But certainly they could say, well, pretty soon we'll cut these as soon as the, you know, as soon as the temperature goes down a little bit.
Gray Area Worries00:04:50
So maybe.
But suppose the FCC was putting pressure on them primarily for political reasons.
And how would you know what they were thinking?
Because I'd be okay if they sort of continue the recent trend of not really getting in the faces of these TV shows, sort of just letting them do what they want.
I'd be okay with that.
I mean, I was okay with it up till now.
It didn't bother me until now.
I didn't like those shows, but I thought it was, you know, part of the competitive landscape and I wasn't too worried about it.
So, but what if the FCC decides to get involved?
Is that automatically political?
Because they're not typically involved lately with TV shows.
I would say gray area.
Gray area.
There's definitely fear from the networks that if they go the wrong way with the administration, they'll have hell to pay later when they need to get something approved.
That's real.
But we don't know what people are thinking, and it all depends on that.
If ABC, CBS, NBC were thinking, oh, we're not even worried about that at all.
Well, then it would not be pressure.
But we don't know what they're thinking.
We don't know what pressure they're under.
And we don't know if that pressure is legitimate, as in they're worried about something that's real.
I would say that the Trump administration is in the mode right now of whenever they have the power to get something they want, they go for it every time.
It feels like that's sort of what's happening right now.
If we can do it, oh, we're going to do it.
So to me, it's too close to something that looks like implied coercion for me to be okay with it.
So I call it a gray area of freedom of speech.
How many would say that?
How many would say, yeah, there definitely might be just a, there might be just a business reason.
But there's no way that they're ignoring the fact that the administration would want to clobber them if they didn't do this.
You think they're just ignoring that?
Like that wasn't one of the variables?
All it has to be is one of the variables.
It doesn't have to be the only variable.
It could be that 90% of the variable was they just wanted to save money and they got sort of an opportunity to do it.
But what if 10% of their thinking, if you ask them, they'd say, well, honestly, 10% of my thinking was that the government's scaring me.
You know, they're threatening me a little bit.
Would that be tapping down on freedom of speech?
I don't know.
But I definitely know it's a gray area.
So here's my rule.
If it's a gray area about free speech, I always go with free speech.
I don't recognize gray areas on free speech.
If there's something that's impinging on free speech, it might, we think it is, it could, there's an argument that it did.
Anything like that.
If that's a gray area, I'm biased toward allowing this speech.
So there are a lot of things going on here at the same time.
So I don't recognize the, it was just business argument.
That's a poor argument because it doesn't, for sure, it doesn't capture all the variables, and you really have to.
Because if you ignore the government pressure, why would you do that?
That's a gigantic part of the decision.
All right.
Did you know that Brendan Carr of the FCC, the only thing he asked was for an apology?
But I think it was Sinclair Group, so they would be the local affiliates.
I believe they're conservative by nature.
And they said, hell no.
You know, our conservative-owned, you can give me a fact check on this, but I think they're conservative-owned.
I think they just said, no, we're a conservative-owned entity, and we're not going to put that a-hole on the air after what he said in the hottest part of the Charlie Kirk disaster.
They have that right, and that would not be government or political or anything else that, well, it would be political in a way.
Media's Lost Dominance00:15:14
But at that point, ABC pretty much had to yank him because they can't put on the show if the affiliates don't run it.
So they didn't have much choice.
And then there's a question about, let's see.
Yeah, I could skip that.
So here's something I haven't heard anybody say, and it's the most important thing, according to me.
All right.
I believe most of you can back me up on this.
But when I grew up, when people lied about stuff on TV, it didn't usually make that much difference to my life.
It was just people on TV lying about stuff, and politics was all lying.
And, you know, we all understood that, etc.
But in today's world, the anti-Trumpers have created a situation where something like half of the country is losing family members, like sons and daughters and parents, like the close ones.
I'm not talking about losing your cousin.
I'm talking about having your mother won't talk to you, or you won't talk to your father, or you don't talk to your siblings.
This is not the same.
And this is caused almost entirely by hoaxes that the Democrats, in an organized fashion, run on the country continuously.
It's, you know, I don't have to mention them all, the, you know, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, the Russia hoax, you know, the suckers and losers hoax.
I mean, it's just one hoax after another, non-stop.
So people lost family.
Family.
People lost all their friends.
I heard about another friend that I had lost that I didn't know.
I just wondered why I hadn't heard from that person for a long time.
It was over Trump.
I mean, really, really big dislocations of friendships and families.
How about reputations?
People had their reputations ruined for simply having a side in politics like we always do.
And what about people who lost jobs or couldn't get jobs or wouldn't be considered for jobs?
A lot of people.
So when you look at the larger picture and you're looking at Democrats creating hoax after hoax after hoax, then suddenly the whole, oh, well, it was just his opinion.
Or the view just has their opinion.
Those are just opinions.
Well, there was a time when they were just opinions, but they morphed into weapons.
They weaponized the fake news, right?
news used to be just the news and you could let everybody have their say.
But once people weaponized it by making it up and then acting like it was real and then having all the other entities also back you up on the thing you made up, obvious hoaxes, that's not like anything we've experienced before.
And that shit has to be dismantled completely.
Now, I saw a video by Mark Halperin.
Two Wire, I think is the name of his podcast.
And I don't know why it took me so long to see this, but he put together all the pieces and I will try to do the same for you.
But this is Mark Halperin's realization that we're just sort of assuming that the left has all the media control and that the right is just scrambling and scratching and trying to get its little attention.
Of course, it's got its Fox News and its Breitbarts, and it's got several entities, but it doesn't compete with the big networks and the main structure of the media.
But you might not be paying attention to how quickly things are changing.
Oh, two-way.
I'm sorry.
It's not two-wire.
His podcast is two-way.
It's very good, by the way.
I watch it.
I probably watch an hour of his content every single day, you know, with little, just little clips at a time.
Yeah, it's very, very good.
So he pointed out that the landscape is moving right, the media landscape.
Here are the examples.
So Larry Ellison's son, I guess the Ellison's lean Republican.
And so Larry Ellison's son will have control of CBS, or maybe he already does.
He's talking about buying CNN.
Can you imagine if a right-leaning billionaire owns CNN and also CBS?
But we're just getting started.
Obviously, X was the biggest media play of all time.
And more than anything, it allowed the political right to have a voice, more than anything, at least in terms of the size of the voice.
Then you've got Colbert already going to, he's going to disappear.
Hasn't happened yet, but it's scheduled.
So Colbert will be gone.
The View may just have to shut up about politics forever.
Imagine how many people only saw political news from The View because they were not really political people, but they liked watching The View.
And then The View would slip in there.
Obviously, Trump is a dictator.
Oh, obviously.
And then the people who are not that into politics that much are like, whoa, wow, that guy's a dictator.
That's bad.
And then, so that's ABC.
So Time and Newsweek still exist and have left, I think, left-leaning owners, but they're completely irrelevant at this point.
They're not magazines that have any impact on anything.
And then, of course, the right has a podcast advantage.
I don't know if it lasts, but at the moment, it seems like a pretty big podcasting advantage.
And of course, they have the bully pulpit.
The Republicans own part of the government now.
So that's getting a lot closer to parody.
You might argue that it's already past parody.
Would you?
Because, you know, Fox News is so dominant, just completely dominant.
But now, if you add to it, that you've subtracted from the other side a bunch of assets, which is what I just described.
Are we at some kind of tipping point where the media message is just beginning, maybe for the first time, or maybe after Colbert is actually gone?
Maybe we have to wait a little bit longer to see it.
But are we near a tipping point where the political right unambiguously has more media muscle?
Maybe.
Maybe.
We're certainly heading in that direction.
And certainly the government power is largely in the hands of Republicans.
So if the Republicans take the political power and then they wrestle control from the left of the media power, what's that going to look like?
What's that going to look like?
Fascism?
The left will just start screaming fascism louder than ever.
And so one of the balance that you have to find is how do you handle moving from underdogs, let's say media underdogs, and also political underdogs.
I'm talking about the Republicans.
How do you move from being underdogs to being dominant in two things that we care about the most: government and all the things government touches, and then the media.
And what if the dominant control was just really solid looking?
It looked like it wasn't going to change in a while.
How would that feel for the half of the country that believes that they live in some kind of a fascist regime?
It would feel pretty bad.
You would actually have a risk of, I don't know, maybe civil war or something.
Because remember, Republicans aren't going to pick up their guns if they think they have another way.
And they did.
They won the election.
That was the other way.
If the Democrats believe they don't have another way, would any of them pick up a gun someday down the road?
Don't know.
But it would be dangerous.
So I was thinking the other day about giving some advice, and then I pulled back on it because I don't know this good advice.
But I'm going to put it out there so that you've heard two versions and then you can select.
I already know which way you're going to pick.
I'm not going to act as though there's some mystery of which way you're going to pick.
All right.
Choice number one.
Once you get the advantage and you get ahead of the other team, you might as well use all of your advantage to crush them completely and keep them crushed.
Choice one.
That seems to be something like the Trump effect.
And I was saying yesterday how there's a real advantage to that, that somebody like Trump can pursue that almost nobody else could, which is that he tries the strongest version of everything.
Sometimes it works.
Sometimes the court stops him or something else does.
But his first take is always whatever is the strongest option.
And as I was explaining yesterday, if you try the strongest option and it doesn't work, you still win.
See, this is the Trump magic.
He does not create a situation where if he tries something and it doesn't work, well, he's a big old loser.
Nope.
As long as everything he tries, some of them work.
Actually, most of them are working.
But when he gets stopped, you still remember that he tried something quite aggressive.
You remember how strong he was, even if he got blocked.
And that is worth a lot, especially when you're negotiating with other countries.
Imagine watching what Trump has done domestically, and then he visits your country.
You treat him like the strongest leader you've ever seen because he's the strongest leader you've ever seen.
At least, let's say in our generation.
He's the strongest.
I haven't seen anything like it.
Nothing even close, really.
So I believe that his continuous, I will do the most aggressive, strongest thing in every question.
By the time he gets on the plane and goes to Europe, Europe is rolling out the red carpet and saying, oh, God, we better keep this guy happy.
Totally works.
He works when it works and he works when it doesn't work.
Because what you remember is power.
Right?
Now, this is very similar to who somebody famous, you'll remind me, said this.
They won't remember what you said, but they'll remember how you made them feel.
Same thing.
This is straight out of hypnosis persuasion, right?
If you can make somebody feel a certain way, that will beat the memory of any details of this or that you liked or didn't like.
So when Trump does the power thing, you remember the power and how it made you feel.
And you forget, oh, there was that court that blocked that thing.
I don't care.
That doesn't make me feel anyway.
But the fact that he tried 400 executive orders, I'm making that up, but hundreds of executive orders that nobody saw coming and he got, I don't know, 80% of them through.
You'll remember that.
You will remember the power and how it made you feel.
So choice number one.
He goes full power all the time, never lets off the break, crushes all the competition all the way.
A lot of it is revengey for all the lawfare, which I totally get.
And maybe the world needs a little bit of mutually assured destruction.
But now let me give you the competing argument.
And again, you're not going to accept the competing argument.
You've already sold yourself on.
Yeah, let's just keep that boot on him as long as we can.
Because if it reversed, right?
If the power reversed, what would the Democrats do to you?
Well, you already know.
They put the boot on your neck and they would never let it up.
That's why you've lost your family.
It's why you lost your friends.
It's why you lost your reputation.
It's why your career didn't go well.
Because they put the boot on you and they never fucking took it off.
Do you owe them the same?
Yes.
Yes, you do.
If the only thing that mattered was, you know, payback, well, yeah, yeah, you really owe them a lot.
But is that your best strategy?
All right.
Now, I'm going to throw in the other possibility.
Might be too early for it.
So you could also say, well, maybe someday I'll do that, but not today.
I'm enjoying winning too much.
It goes like this.
I'll give you a little buildup to it.
I had the experience, which many of you have not had.
Most people have not had, which is starting from having no money and no fame and no power whatsoever, just a 20-year-old sitting in my little one-bedroom apartment wishing I had friends, right?
So somehow I've experienced all of that, but then I got lucky.
I sort of hit it big with Dilbert.
From Zero to Power00:13:25
So then I immediately went from no power at all to being the most important person in the room, pretty much all the time.
And it never really stopped.
Now, when I say most important, I just mean everybody's kind of hyper-aware of you if you're, you know, if you're a public figure.
And they treat you better.
I mean, just everything's different as soon as you get famous.
It's never really stopped for me.
Now, here's what I discovered the hard way.
I thought that I could talk and act the same way when I was famous as I did before I was famous.
And it turns out you can't do that.
And I found out the hard way.
Because the things that are just talk when you're, you know, you're unimportant like everybody else, you know, you just don't feel important.
They don't think you're important.
Nobody really cares about your opinion.
You can say all kinds of shit.
People don't take you seriously.
You can criticize people and people don't even care because they're like, well, who are you?
I don't care.
But the moment you become famous, if you criticize somebody a tiny bit, it ruins their whole month.
You know what I mean, right?
If somebody that was important gave you a genuine criticism, it would change your life.
I mean, it would just fuck you up, right?
But if it's just some idiot, it's just some idiot.
So here's what, and then I'll give you another concrete example.
A friend of mine became a billionaire once.
His company went public, and he suddenly went from having a nice job to being a billionaire.
And he actually asked me for advice.
Like, how do I navigate this big change?
And one of the pieces of advice I told him was that, all right, you cannot talk honestly about your day anymore.
Because let me tell you what that looks like.
If I did it, you know, when I was at the height of things working out for Dilbert, if somebody said, so, Scott, how's your day?
Here would be an honest answer.
Oh, it was amazing.
Are you kidding me?
I just got a $5 million book deal, and I've been invited on CNN and Fox News, and my calendar is number one in the country.
Do you know how often you can say that before somebody wants to slap the shit out of you?
And all it is is describing what happened today.
That's exactly what I used to do when I was unimportant and poor and nobody knew me and I was 20.
Scott, what'd you do today?
Well, I sort of sat in the chair and turned on the TV and I don't have any friends.
Oh, that I could say.
In both cases, all I'm doing is being me.
Scott, what did you do today?
Oh, I'll tell you what I did today.
You can't do that when things start working out because people will be so jealous, so jealous.
They will want to kill you instead of hanging out with you.
I was telling this to my friend, the guy who had just made a boatload of money.
And our mutual friend happened to walk in the door, sort of in the middle of it, after I told them.
And I'd given him this advice.
So instead of saying all these amazing things, like I'm going to be on my private plane going to my ski house, wherever, instead, if you accidentally step in some dog shit, talk about that.
Hey, how's everything going?
Don't say, I'm buying a private jet, which literally was the kind of thing that he was experiencing.
Instead, say, oh, God, I stepped in some dog shit.
It's going to take me all day to get this off.
I might have to throw these shoes away.
And then people will say, oh, okay.
I like this guy.
So the friend walks in and he goes, Hey, how's it going?
And the friend I had just trained looks at him and goes, I just stepped in some dog shit.
And you know what?
He didn't admit.
I think I told the friend much later, but he didn't admit that that was part of the conversation.
He was testing it out.
Guess how it went over?
Really well.
It worked perfectly.
So here's my advice.
That was a very long windup to get to this place.
As you, Republicans, and conservatives and MAGA people start to consolidate control of the country, and you will, there will be a lot of payback, and probably some people deserve it.
And I'm not opposed to that.
But be aware that the way you act and the language you use when you're in power needs to be modified.
If you talk the same way as when you were being downtrodden by the other team, that's not going to work.
It just won't work.
Now, here's why I didn't give you that advice.
I'm just explaining it as something to be aware of.
It might be way too soon.
At some part, humility is the only thing that will keep you alive.
Is that clear enough?
At some point in your ascension to being on the side that has more power, at some point, humility is the only thing that will keep you alive.
Because if you do all that shit with an arrogant attitude, the kind I'm seeing right now, you're going to get killed.
The whole country is going to come apart.
You need to talk more about stepping in shit, figuratively speaking, and a little bit less about, I own you, we own everything, we win, we're going to kill you all, not kill you, but we're going to suppress you and kick you off TV, and your favorite stars will be no longer on TV because you did it to ours.
You took out Roseanne, so we're going to take out yours.
That works right now.
It's still working, definitely still working right now.
And I wouldn't take my foot off the gas yet.
Trump has a lot of consolidating the power that he can still do legitimately, you know, well within the Constitution.
There's lots of stuff he can do.
And it's probably worth doing all of it.
But just be aware that very soon, possibly, you need to modify how you act to stay alive.
I'm talking about your benefit.
I'm not talking about being kind.
I'm talking about you, self-defense, staying alive, keeping out of trouble, staying in power.
At some point, you got to learn how to talk like champions.
All right.
There's some kind of weird story about Candace Owens and some meeting that involved Bill Ackman and Charlie Kirk.
And I guess the topic for all of them was Israel.
And there was some thought that Charlie Kirk was not sufficiently supportive of Israel, maybe about Gaza in particular, or maybe it was about Iran, whatever.
But Charlie Kirk was very pro-Israel, very pro-Israel.
But he may have had some questions about specific things they were doing.
I don't know about that for sure.
But there's a rumor that he was maybe offered a lot of money or something to get more on board and maybe turned it down.
But you should know that whatever Candace says happened there, Bill Ackman says didn't happen.
So they're completely different stories about what happened at this one meeting.
So I don't know what to do with that.
I guess you can make your own decision on that one.
So I don't know anything about that.
So the Coast Guard has seized 5,000 tons of cocaine and got 60 suspected narco-terrorists.
I guess they got them all on a boat.
Fox News is reporting this.
There were 60.
They had 60 narco-terrorists on one boat?
I don't know.
Maybe it was more than one boat.
But the Coast Guard is busy.
And I think you're going to see stories like this almost every week for sure.
And I think it's the stories that might do as much work as the actual blowing up of boats.
Because if you blew up boats, but you didn't let everybody know, it wouldn't deter the next boat.
So it's kind of brilliant to show the videos of the boats blowing up.
You could argue that it's illegal war acts, but in terms of persuasion, it's pretty strong.
Pretty strong.
They don't have to blow up every boat that hits the water.
They just have to blow up enough that nobody thinks it would be smart to try to use the water.
And they're pretty close to that.
Do you know the liberal influencer creator type named Destiny?
Have you all seen this piece of work?
He looks like he has serious mental problems that he's, I don't know.
I don't even know what mental problem it is, but he seems so evil and angry and completely unreasonable that he got famous because you watch it like a traffic accident.
You're like, oh my God, what am I even looking at here?
What?
What is this?
He said, what?
So he's real good at getting attention because he's so far out of what people expect is the appropriate box for everything.
That part I don't mind, being outside the box.
But he doesn't say stuff that my audience would be happy with.
Anyway, it looks like he's been completely demonetized and kicked off of platforms and stuff.
Now, I don't think that will make much difference to the elections, but it's a sign of the times.
But he tried to do a Charlie-like, you know, a Charlie Kirk-like debate at a college.
And he got, you know, sort of, there was some yelling involved from somebody who was trolling him.
But it's funny, he seems like the anti-Charlie.
You know, Charlie was all light and love.
And this guy is darkness and evil.
If you looked at him for five minutes and you remembered I referred to him as darkness and evil, oh, you'd see it.
Yeah, you don't have to worry that it's just something in my mind.
Yeah, you would see darkness and evil the minute he does it, starts into his act.
So I think of him as not the antichrist, but the anti-Charlie.
And I found it distasteful, like everything he does, that he tried to do Charlie Kirk's act, you know, while everything's still too hot and fresh.
I mean, everything he does.
And then I guess he got demonetized for saying some wildly inappropriate things I won't even repeat.
Well, another news, apparently there's a bunch of orca whales.
Is an orca always a whale?
Are those the same word?
Orca and a whale?
Or is there an orca whale?
But other kinds of whales?
Why don't I know that?
Anyway, apparently these orca whales, as they're being called by ABC, have been attacking and sinking small boats.
Now, ABC says they most likely just want to play, and then they accidentally sink these boats.
I don't think so.
I think if they figure out a way to make animals talk, they should do these orca whales first and say, why are you doing this?
Come on.
Guys, guys, why are you doing this?
Why are you sinking all our little yachts?
Conspiracy Theories: One Shooter?00:07:09
I believe what the orcas would not say is, oh, we're just playing.
Oh, we're just playing.
I feel they would say, you bastards, you better stay out of our ocean and we'll sink the rest of you.
Now, when I first saw the video of the orcas sinking in the boat, I thought it was a scene from the view.
I'll let that sink in for a little bit.
No, it wasn't a scene from the view.
That would be what a terrible thing to say.
All right.
According to an ex-account, Stock Market News talking about Jerome Powell and the interest rates.
And I think Jerome Powell's of the view, as are others, that we haven't seen much inflation that's derived directly from the tariffs, but that is guaranteed to come.
There's just a delay.
And the thought is that the companies that are paying the tariffs, they're not the ones who manufacture it in China.
And they're not the customer, but rather it's the company that imports it is paying the tariffs.
And that in the short run, they didn't want to destroy their whole business.
And they also didn't know how long tariffs would last.
So they just sort of said, all right, we're going to eat it for now in case it goes away.
Maybe it'll go away.
But if it doesn't go away, and it looks like it won't entirely, there's a 100% chance that they will start increasing their prices as they're able.
And so eventually they will put the entire price of the tariff, if they can, we don't know that they can, they'll move that on to the consumer, and that would be inflation.
Now, that's also what everybody said would happen over the summer.
So I remind you, economists are mostly just guessing.
They really don't know.
It could be the manufacturers eat it.
Could be.
It's not impossible.
The whole shooting of Charlie Kirk has, of course, resulted in lots of conspiracy theories that go like this.
Wait a minute.
How could, let's see, the ones I saw yesterday were it's impossible that he could have assembled and disassembled his gun in the time he had.
And there was some gun expert showing himself disassembling his own rifle and showed how long it took, and that you also needed fine motor control.
And that somebody who just assassinated somebody and needed to get away for his life probably didn't have a lot of fine motor control at that time.
Now, that's, you know, maybe that's not the reason.
So, and then there's no way it would have fit in his, I don't know, no way it would have fit in his backpack.
But we saw some pictures of him approaching the venue in which he seemed to be limping.
And when I saw it, I said to myself, wait, he's not limping.
He's got a gun or a rifle shoved down his bat leg.
So that's probably how he got it there.
But somehow, did he dissemble it after the shooting and before he got off the roof?
Or at some point, was it dissembled?
I don't know.
So there's that question.
Then there's a video of him at Dairy Queen 17 minutes after the shooting.
And people are saying, how can he be just getting a meal at Dairy Queen like right after?
Seems to me that murder would make you really hungry, especially if you were a cold-blooded killer.
Some people say that the real shot came from the back.
I saw somebody who somewhat convincingly, but it's the documentary effect, so you can't trust it, but convincingly argued that the size of the hole in his neck had to be an exit wound because it was way too big for an entry wound.
So if you shoot somebody with, you know, depending on what you're shooting with, I guess, when it enters the body, the hole would be the size of the bullet hole.
But when it leaves, you know, it's going to blast a whole new hole that's much bigger than a bullet.
The size of the hole that we saw in the front of his neck looked like a really big hole for an entry.
So even if you assume that, you know, it hit some artery or something, it seemed like the hole was too big.
I don't know.
I'm no expert.
So I'm not buying any of these stories.
I think my best guess is that there was one shooter with one gun.
We know who it is.
He shot from that direction.
That's my best guess.
However, you want a really good conspiracy theory that I'm just making up?
What if this was so well planned that the real shooter, that there was a real shooter who got away, and that the entire act by this guy that we think is a shooter, Robinson, what if his entire act was to look like the shooter until they checked the gun and find out it wasn't fired?
Or maybe he had to fire it once at home or something so it looked like it was fired.
What if he knew he could get away because he had some mechanism to prove he literally was not the shooter, but that he pretended to be the shooter in every way because all attention would go in one direction and then the real shooter could cover his tracks and get away.
Now that's crazy, right?
Except the old man who said it was him that was sitting in the crowd actually said he was trying to, he was trying, who knows if he was lying, but he said that he was claiming that to help the real shooter get away.
Not that he knew who the real shooter was necessarily.
So that's how I got the idea.
If you were going to be a murderer, and you were like really crazy, potentially you could pretend to be the real killer until they proved you weren't.
And then the other one would be in another country by then.
I do not believe that's what's happened.
My personal belief is that there was one killer.
It's exactly who you think.
He definitely told other people, and they're pretending they didn't.
His note to his boyfriend was, or whatever, to the lover, that the note to his lover was only to cover, to protect the lover from ever having known about it.
Hamas vs. Antifa00:07:02
I think it's exactly what it looks like.
But there are a lot of stuff breaking out.
President Trump canceled some $400 million that was going to be for Taiwan military use.
And it might have to do with the fact that he's in trade talks with China and doesn't want to get them all riled up.
Now, let's look at the timing.
Allegedly, China finally agreed to a TikTok deal that we know they were holding out for something.
What would they hold out for?
What was it that China wanted?
Because they don't have a done deal.
Why would China agree to anything unless they had a full done deal?
That was their leverage.
Huh?
So at the same time that China approved TikTok, President Trump canceled $400 million in U.S. military aid for Taiwan.
Probably just a coincidence, right?
Did we just trade Taiwan for TikTok?
Because it kind of looks like it.
Now, I don't know that, but are you concerned at all that these two things happen at about the same time?
That China got something they wanted and we got something we wanted?
I don't know.
I got questions.
Let's see what else.
So I guess there are 14 members of the UN Security Council backing a measure for Gaza to have an unconditional and permanent ceasefire, as if that's something you could just do because other people said it's a good idea.
But apparently the UN Security Council or the UN has formally declared a famine in the territory.
So if you declare famine, does that change anything?
Probably not.
So I can't, you know, I don't have any idea if people are eating.
Everything you get out of the war zone is undependable.
So as you know, Trump is going after Antifa or the, I guess, Department of Justice and FBI probably.
And I heard Democrats say, good luck with that, because there's no such thing as Antifa.
That there's no organization that is organized that calls itself Antifa.
And I thought to myself, Are the Democrats really going to gaslight us that hard?
It's not like we don't know that there's an Antifa, right?
Is that even a little bit in question?
No, it's not even a little bit in question.
Of course, there's Antifa.
Andy No, who has been following him, says, of course, there's an, you know, I assume he's saying that because he wrote a book about them.
You must think they exist.
And he suggests RICO, which suggests they exist.
You can't RICO something that doesn't exist.
And that it's organized violence.
Jesse Waters had somebody on the show who says that she had infiltrated their Antifa meetings and that they were doing organized military training.
So that doesn't sound like they don't exist.
If they don't exist, who exactly did she infiltrate?
All right.
So we'll see what happens of that.
That would be another example of Trump acting with strength.
Let's say that he says, yeah, we're going to take down Antifa, but maybe something gets in the way and he can't take down Antifa.
As long as it's not his fault, once again, it will look like he took the strong move, even if everything did work out.
Well, this is no surprise.
Israel's Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Anti-Semitism.
Okay, really, guys?
Like, you had a meeting and you decided that was what you're going to name your outfit.
The Ministry of Dias, is that how you say diaspora affairs and combating anti-Semitism?
That's just too many things in one title.
Anyway, they've got a claim that Greta Tunberg's flotilla is really basically tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
So the so-called freedom flotilla, they say, is nothing more than a propaganda tool for Hamas jihadis.
But I guess as long as you pretend you're bringing them food and supplies, you can get away with anything.
So do you believe that?
Do you believe that Greta Tunberg went from saving the planet to working as a tool for Hamas?
That would be a pretty big change.
I believe it.
I believe it because I believe that nothing is what it's presented to be.
So yeah, I believe that it probably is a Hamas-driven thing.
I don't know that, but Israel says it.
And I'm inclined to believe that that's true.
Sorry, Greta.
Well, I guess the Senate had been blocked from getting all their nominees through all the way to now.
It's like, what, seven months or something?
And the Democrats blocked them.
But I think the Republicans had also blocked Democrats when it was reversed.
So there's a history of this.
And I guess the problem was that they needed 60 votes where it's easier to get 50.
So as long as you need 60, the other team can block you pretty reliably because we always have close senates.
But it looks like the Senate can vote themselves some new rules.
And they voted some new rules that they only need 50.
So now they just zipped through and got 48 Trump nominees through, according to Newsmax.
What a measurably incompetent group.
Congress is absolutely thoroughly messed up.
Well, according to Ars Technica, the Trump's Golden Dome, that would be the missile defense system, will cost 10 to 100 times more than the Manhattan Project.
ChatGPT And Marriage Breakups00:02:30
Well, is that adjusted for inflation?
I'll bet it's not.
What do you think?
I didn't see the details, but probably not adjusted for inflation.
But still, it's going to be a lot.
We all know it's going to be a lot because it has to defend against a wide variety of airborne threats.
But it could cost, let's see, the White House said in May, it might cost $175 billion over three years, but it could be hundreds of billions and take longer than we think.
So this will be a good test of the Trump administration.
See if they can get this done on time and on something that looks like a reasonable cost.
We'll see.
All right.
Chat GPT is apparently ruining some marriages according to futurism.
And the one example they gave, I couldn't help it but laugh.
So apparently the wife in this couple, they were still married, the wife had been consulting ChatGPT to figure out better attacks on her husband and bringing up old arguments that they thought were settled.
But when she went back to ChatGPT, she got a new line of argument, so she brought them all up again.
Can you imagine having a fight with your spouse and then saying, all right, we're going to let ChatGPT be the final say.
You go, all right, ChatGPT, let me tell you what happened.
My spouse did this, and I said that, and then she did this, and I said that.
Who was right?
What if ChatGPT has an opinion and just says, yes, under those circumstances, it would be fair to say that the wife was 100% right in this case.
That would end a marriage pretty quickly.
So yeah, ChatGPT is going to blow some marriages apart.
Would you like some news that you could have guessed randomly?
All right.
Here's a news headline that if you never knew what happened, you could have sat in a chair in a darkened room and said, you know what?
I think this is going to happen.
And you would have been right.
BLM Leader's Fraud00:01:37
All right, here it is.
A Boston BLM activist is going to plead guilty to federal fraud charges.
She defrauded donors out of more than a million in grants and donations to fund their lavish lifestyle.
You tell me that you could not have sat in a darkened room and said, I'm just going to go out on a limb here.
I think there might be another BLM leader who may have gotten caught taking some donations.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Yeah.
How many have we seen now?
I remember when I first got involved with Black Lives Matter before we knew just how bad it was.
And I was told by somebody in the organization that it was kind of a money-making endeavor.
And I believe that that was true.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you.
Went too long.
Sorry about that.
I'm going to talk just for a minute privately to the beloved, beloved locals people.
If you'd like to be beloved, join locals, locals.com.
You can just find me on there.
And if you just want the Dilbert comic, and that's all you want, you can get that on X. Just look for Scott M. Says, and you'll see where to subscribe.