Kamala's persuasion versus Trump. Lots of fun AI news and more.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Pluvicto Cancer Drug, OpenAI Copyright Policy, Elon Musk, The Simulation, AI Threatened Jobs, Burbank Airport ATC, Furloughed Federal Employees, AG Leticia James, Kamala Harris Persuasion, Low-Information Democrat Persuasion, CDC Vaccine Revision, Portland Insurrection, Rare Earth Minerals, Ghislaine Maxwell Pardon Speculation, Troublemaker Greta Thunberg, Cluster B Politics, Paid Influencers, FARA Rules, PM Netanyahu, Gaza Peace Talks, Jimmy Dore False Flags Prediction, Mexico Censorship Law, Ukraine War Casualties, 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.
Little technical glitch there, so it took me a moment to sign on.
Come on in, grab a seat, grab a beverage.
It's time for your favorite thing of the day.
Well, according to me.
Let me check your stocks first.
Let's see, up a little bit.
Tesla's down a little bit and video's up.
Wow.
NE is up again, 8%.
Wow.
Holy cow.
You guys ready for a show?
oh 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 is uh copper mug or a glass of tanker chalice or style, canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Oh, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
called that's right the simultaneous sip and it happens now Oh shit.
Yes, I'm a little bit in a little bit of pain.
All right, just an update.
Uh yesterday I spent a day in the emergency room for pain.
Cancer related.
Had a bunch of tests.
The the short version is um, it doesn't look like it's a spinal problem.
It looks like it's a bone problem, so it's bone cancer problem.
So my cancer is back all over in my body.
I don't know if it ever went away, but for a while it didn't bother me.
So I'm sort of back to where I was a few months ago, meaning that my life expectancy would be a few months.
That's about it.
Maybe six months if I'm lucky.
But uh there's a newishly approved drug called Pluvicno, which can remove tumors.
Not every time, and it's not a cure, but for some people it just totally removes their tumors.
So um I'm in the process of trying to qualify for that, which should be able to do, should be no problem.
And uh fairly soon I would imagine I would start that.
It's one of those you have to go to a place and get an IV six times over two months or whatever it is, and uh there's some chance that that would at least set the pain back a little bit.
We'll see.
We shall see.
Um, I don't know how many of you are subscribing to Dilbert on either X or on Locals, but you may have noticed that uh I also include for free the 10-year-ago Dilbert that ran on this date, but 10 years ago.
And if you notice that the comic from 10 years ago is consistently exactly like today, has anybody noticed that?
So 10 years ago I started doing all kinds of humanoid robots in the office, and it was all about you know the coworker who is a robot and the robot takes over for the boss one day, and you know, everything's about the robot.
But if you look at the 10-year-old comics, you cannot tell that I didn't draw them today.
That they're exactly like today.
Uh, all the things that you could anticipate would be a problem with robots.
Well, it's all there.
Anyway, I thought that was interesting.
Uh Elon Musk says that Grock, the AI, will soon be able to make a movie that's at least what he says watchable before the end of uh next year, so before the end of 2026.
And he thinks it'll be able to make what he calls a really good movie by 2027.
Does that feel right to you?
Do you think that by the end of next year grok will be able to make a watchable, but not you know, best movie in the world, but that by the end of the year after that, uh it'll be making full movies that you'll want to watch.
Well, I don't know.
Now, open AI, you know, related um related news.
OpenAI says that they're not gonna protect your copyright for people like me who own a property like Dilbert.
They're not gonna protect it.
You have to specifically ask them to exclude it from their training and from their answers.
So you have to exclude it so it can't be used by other people.
But you have to specify it.
And you have to specify every character.
So I can't just say all the Dilbert characters.
I have to say Wally, the world's smartest garbage man, Dilbert, Capper, Gratbert.
I gotta do them all.
Now, I do plan to do that.
Um, and also with my book, God's Debris.
So I did see uh Jay did this amazing little uh demonstration of God's debris, the first few pages of the book, and it's really impressive.
I have to say it's really impressive.
Um, but I don't know if we have what we could think we have enough to make a full short movie.
I don't think it's quite there yet, but boy, was it impressive.
Anyway, speaking of uh AI and Elon Musk, um, he was doing an interview somewhere where somebody asked him this question.
Uh what is the universe contained in?
Which is a funny question.
The universe exists, but what's it in?
Isn't that a weird question?
The first time I heard it, I thought, wait a minute, it's not in anything because the universe is everything.
But doesn't everything have to be in something?
And I wasn't sure.
But uh here was uh Elon's answer to the question, what is the universe contained in?
Answer a computer.
I agree with that.
And uh then I guess Lex Friedman asked uh Elon, what's outside the simulation?
And Elon's answer was um what was his answer?
Uh what's outside this simulation?
Damn it, did I not write down that down?
Apparently not.
Um but what's outside the simulation will, you know, would sort of uh tell you.
Oh, I'm sorry.
That was the question that Elon wanted to know the answer to.
It wasn't the one he has the answer to.
That's that's where I was going wrong.
I thought I didn't write down his answer, but he doesn't have an answer, it's a question.
The question is, um, what's outside the simulation?
Is there like somebody in a gamer chair who's running our world?
Maybe.
Maybe I'll let you know when I get there.
Um but here's a uh if you want a little lesson in credibility, here's what credibility buys you.
I gave you a uh Trump persuasion lesson the other day where I said if you're credible in the thing that you're persuading, well, you know, you're halfway done because people say, Oh, you could do that.
So you have to be credible.
Do you know how credible you have to be to be Elon Musk and say that reality is a simulation and have people say, hmm, yeah, maybe it is.
Do you have any idea how much credibility that takes?
That's like the maximum maximum credibility that you would even even for a second you would consider that possibility.
Like who else could do that?
When I have this conversation about the simulation, do you know what kind of response I get?
I don't get the one where people believe me because I'm so credible about science and the simulation.
I get sort of dismissed.
It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, you're really just talking about God.
You're just using different words.
So I always just get dismissed.
So that's where credibility is your superpower.
Elon has it on this topic and others, and I don't have it on this topic.
Well, open AI is announcing that uh ChatGPT, their app will now work with some other existing apps.
So I think that means it would act like the uh user interface for other apps.
Um, not that they wouldn't have a user interface, but you'd be able to control them just by talking to your AI.
So that includes so far, booking.com, Xpedious, Spotify, Figma, whatever that is, Coursera, Zillow, and Canva, and they're adding ones all the time.
So let me uh give you the business take on this.
As a user, wouldn't you love it if you could talk to your AI and you didn't have to open another app to do a thing?
How much would you love booking a trip without opening a booking app?
Oh my god, the booking apps are terrible.
The travel apps, it's not just me, right?
Oh, all the travel apps are complete garbage and you don't know which one to use.
And so, but if I can talk to AI and just say, all right, I'm planning a trip to the Northeast sometime in the autumn when the when the leaves are changing, and then just have it make you up a you know a great trip.
That would be amazing.
But do you know what these uh app makers are not calculating?
They're not calculating that if the user interface becomes AI, AI owns them.
So basically they're plotting their own uh their own demise.
So if AI can do all these things by working with an app, how long is it going to be able to take before AI can do all of those things without the app?
So once you get people used to using AI instead of opening up, say booking.com, how many people are gonna open up booking.com after that?
Nobody.
They're gonna open open AI, and then open AI can do stuff like put their own advertisement in it, and then booking.com will be like, hey, this is our app.
We we're the ones who should be doing advertising.
And open AI will say, no, we're sending them to your app, but after they see the advertisement.
So what I'm suggesting is that these uh small app companies, well, they're not that small, um, are very quickly going to learn that AI is eating their lunch and there's no way back.
There's no way back.
AI will absorb all of these apps.
Anyway, so that's what's happened.
Step one, step one, become the user interface.
Step two, replace the apps themselves.
Inevitable.
Uh, according to uh Max Rego who's writing for The Hill, there's a new Senate report that says that a hundred million jobs we lost to AI and automation.
Is that a lot?
A hundred million.
Well, if it were all in the United States, it would be every employee, wouldn't it?
Isn't that right?
I don't think there are a hundred million people even work.
It's maybe one out of three people work.
That would be everybody.
So I assume the 100 million is across uh the world, which wouldn't be that much.
100 million in the United States would be the end of everything, but 100 million across the world?
Well, maybe you wouldn't even notice it that much.
But uh what else they say?
Um so that the types of jobs they think are gonna go away would be fast food, um, and anybody who works the counter.
Probably.
Um what else?
Uh customer service reps, laborers and freight, stock and material movers, secretaries.
They're still secretaries.
What business has a secretary?
When was last time you even saw or heard of a secretary?
I don't even think they exist, do they?
Secretaries?
Maybe maybe for CEOs.
Um, and let's see, uh also executive assistants.
There's no way that AI is going to replace an executive assistant.
That's not gonna happen.
So I think I think that most of these estimates are totally overblown.
Um, I'm going with the people who say, well, it's probably just gonna make all those existing people a little more efficient.
It probably isn't gonna replace them because the there's so much of a problem with hallucinations.
Can you imagine a customer service rep being AI and then just hallucinating every time the customer asks it a question?
And the customer would just get you know more and more mad.
You can't have a customer service rep with this form of AI.
And we we've not invented another form.
There's only one form of AI, as far as I know.
I mean, one that you could use in this way, and it can't possibly work.
Like by its design, it can't work.
Because it's designed to hallucinate.
Not intentionally, but that's what the design gives you.
All right.
How many of you saw a story in the news that seemed to show an adult policeman putting handcuffs on a toddler?
And the alleged context was the toddler's family was protesting, or maybe they were they were gonna be shipped back to some other country.
Did anybody see that?
I didn't see the original story, but I I saw a post by Dr. Interracial, who's a real good follow, Dr. Interracial.
He's in an interracial marriage and has lots of insights from that.
Um but apparently the uh the thing that people thought was outrageous, somebody putting handcuffs on a toddler, there was somebody putting handcuffs on a toddler.
His father, when they played cops and robbers, it was literally his father playing cops and robbers, and the kid was enjoying every minute of it.
He's like, you know, give me your hands, and he handcuffs them.
Now, so that becomes some big story.
I didn't see it, but apparently people believe that was something else.
Well, yesterday would have been scary if you were flying into Burbank Airport because 100% of the air traffic controllers uh left or didn't come to work.
All of them.
There wasn't a single air traffic controller in the entire airport, and you've got all these planes looking to land, and none.
What do you think they did?
Well, apparently they have the ability to somehow work remotely from another airport.
So I think uh there's a team in a San Diego who somehow could get access to the uh to the you know critical stuff at Burbank, and they could just run it from off site.
Now, obviously, I'm pretty sure that would have some disadvantages to not be on site, but it but at least they got through it, you know, just in an emergency sense, they didn't get through it.
But it's mostly from people calling in sick because of the government shutdown.
So there's that.
Um I guess the Trump administration is looking into whether the so-called furloughed federal workers, the ones who are not working because of the shutdown, um, are gonna be guaranteed back pay.
Uh apparently there's an argument that they shouldn't be.
Now, I don't know if that I don't think that applies to everybody who's furloughed, but for some of them, um it looks like the Trump people want to make it uh optional so that they don't necessarily get back pay.
That doesn't feel like a good idea, does it?
Like, how could you win politically by cutting a little bit on the budget but doing it on the backs of the people who had nothing to do with the shutdown?
You you don't punish the people who had nothing to do with the shutdown.
So um, I don't know if they're just floating this idea and it won't happen, but it looks like a terrible idea, wouldn't you say?
I I'd say just terrible idea.
I like saving money, but not on the backs of people who just wanted to go to work.
All right.
Um let's see.
Uh so apparently there's a senior prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia who would be in charge of charging uh um New York Attorney General Letitia James for any mortgage um mortgage cheating.
So she's accused of cheating on a mortgage to get a lower rate.
And apparently the senior prosecutor decides not to prosecute, um, and the argument for it is that there's not enough, there's no probable cause.
There's no probable cause.
Let's see if I can uh pull some of these you know these facts together.
Let's see.
She's an attorney general.
That means she's a lawyer, right?
She's a trained lawyer.
Uh in the comments, how many of you who have been involved in real estate?
If you've never been involved buying any real estate, you can pass on this one.
But if those of you who have had any involvement in real estate, did you not know that you couldn't claim two houses as your primary residence?
Is there anybody here, lawyer, non-lawyer, attorney general, non-attorney general?
Is there even one person here who didn't know that you're not allowed to do that?
And if you and if you didn't know that, don't you think you'd be able to figure it out by the forms themselves?
As in the form would ask you whether you own it or rent it, and you would say to yourself, huh?
That must be important, because otherwise they wouldn't ask the question.
Why did they care if you have another house?
Right?
I mean, as long as you can afford it.
Well, the answer is you're only allowed to have one that's your primary residence.
Are you telling me that this uh top prosecutor believes that the attorney frickin' general is the only person in the world who didn't know you're not supposed to do that?
Claim two primary residence.
How about the part where she listed allegedly?
Maybe this didn't happen, but allegedly she allegedly she listed her dad as her husband or something to get in a better rate.
Do you think she wouldn't know that listing the wrong person on the application would be a problem?
Like she wouldn't know that?
The attorney general wouldn't know that.
Um, I think Trump needs to, or whoever, somebody needs to fire this person, the Eastern District uh Virginia.
Uh you gotta fire that person.
Uh there's just no way that the attorney general wasn't fully aware of what she was doing.
There's just no way.
I I give that a zero percent chance.
And by the way, ignorance of the law um is not a defense.
Oh, wait, according to Grok, it is.
So I went to Groc and said, you know, just to make sure, I said, is there any situation where ignorance of the law would be a legitimate defense?
Because I've always been told that ignorance of the law is no defense at all, and that it wouldn't matter what the law was.
You can't just pretend you didn't know.
I mean, that would be its own set of problems.
But there are some cases, according to Grok, where uh not knowing it was illegal would actually be a defense.
So if the crime requires what uh Grock calls willful or knowing violation, let's say a tax evasion, which would be sort of what this mortgage thing is, in a tax evasion situation, um, apparently, if you said, Oh, I'm giving I'm making up my own example here.
This is not from Grok, but I think this is right.
If you are if your accountant makes a mistake on your taxes and all you did is sign it, but you know, you're not an accountant, so you didn't really check the work.
I feel like that would be a case where there's no evidence of willful violation, because it would just look like your accountant got a little too aggressive, but maybe you didn't even know it.
You know, that makes sense to me.
I I don't think you should go to jail if your accountant makes a mistake on your taxes, or if it looks like that's what happened.
Here's another one.
If someone relies on official but incorrect advice, so let's say a government official advises them, oh yeah, that's totally legal, and then they do it and they find out it wasn't legal, that's actually a defense.
That depending on what government official told you, it would have to be somebody in the right, the right line of work.
But that's actually a defense.
I didn't know that.
All right.
Um, Kamala Harris, as you know, is out there drunken babbling about her new book and about Trump.
And uh yesterday she uh she had a moment that was uh reminded me of Trump being shot in the ear and jumping up and going, fight, fight, fight.
Very inspirational.
Except uh instead of being shot in the ear, Um she's just uh drunk.
She's just drunk and lying, and got up at a recent event and started yelling, it was the closest, uh, the tightest, closest presidential election in the 21st century.
He does not have a mandate, he does not have a mandate.
Did you hear me?
He does not have a mandate.
So that's Kamala Harris's uh persuasion.
Which one was better?
Fight, fight, fight with a bullet just at his ear, or uh give me some more of vodka.
No mandate, no mandate.
That's no mandate at all.
Well, I'm here to tell you that the answer is it's a tie, unfortunately.
Now, obviously, Trump was more inspirational, there's no doubt about that.
But if you're just looking at can you convince somebody of something that they weren't convinced of before, do you know what it takes?
Just repetition.
That's it.
If Kamala Harris just keeps saying this over and over again, and it looks like she will, it will work.
It won't work on any Republicans, none.
But uh of the low information Democrats, it will work with every one of them.
All they have to do is hear it three times.
They hear it three times, it's a fact for the rest of their life.
So that's your persuasion lesson of the day.
If somebody prominent says something more than three times and you hear it, you're probably gonna think it's true if they're on your side.
If they're not on your side, you might say, hey, I think they're lying.
But if they're on your side, you're totally gonna believe it.
So even though you might have thought to yourself, oops, sorry, cat, come down here.
Come on, Gary, don't step on that.
So even if you uh is that Gary?
Oh no, it's Roman, my other cat.
So even if you thought that Kamala was being pathetic and stupid and drunk, it totally works.
And by the way, um, she has an argument.
If she didn't have any argument, then maybe it wouldn't work.
But the argument is that if you looked at the number of counties won, it's an overwhelming win for Trump.
If you looked at the uh electoral college, nice solid win for Trump.
But if you looked at just the total number of people who voted, yeah, you might be within what is it, one or two percent or something.
So she's gonna argue the overall percentage number and then say, well, there you go, closest election.
I don't even know if that's true.
It doesn't need to be true, by the way.
It only needs to make you think it was really close, and then you don't need to know the details.
So totally successful persuasion, even though it's at least half bullshit.
Well, the CDC has updated their recommendation for vaccines, so to so to speak, and they want you want kids to get the chicken pox vaccines separate from the the big bunch of vaccines that they usually get that usually includes chicken pox.
Um so apparently there's some new information that says that if you get them separately, that I think you wait a little bit for one, but I can't remember which one.
If you wait for one, um, you avoid some very well-known specific health problems.
So is that an upgrade?
That do you call this uh RFK Jr. win?
Is that a win for Maha?
I'm gonna say yes, because there's nothing we want more from RFK Jr. than to say, can you show us the science?
All right, now that you've showed us the science, can you make sure that your policies conform to the science?
And what did RFK Jr. do?
He showed you the science, and then he modified the policy to match the science.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we asked for.
That is why you like a president Trump, that he can have the balls to pick an RFK junior.
This is everything.
This is everything.
Now, you know, is there any chance that later they'll modify it and you know there'll be a new Study, sure.
But this is still what we want them to be doing.
This is right on point for what we hoped they would do.
So this is all good news.
And then on top of that, they've updated the COVID booster recommendation to they don't recommend it for all adults now.
So it's only the COVID booster is only recommended for people who are, I guess, over 65 or have some specific health issue that they and their doctors decide makes sense.
So it's not even about the CDC now.
For the for the COVID, it's very much about you and your doctor.
Yeah, you can still do what you want, but it's between you and your doctor.
I like that.
Um Trump is teasing, according to just the news.
Trump says he's considering invoking the quote insurrection act in Portland.
Now, as you know, Trump wanted to send in the National Guard to Portland because he thinks there's too much crime happening.
Portland says, no, there's not too much crime.
There's just the right amount.
We'd like to keep it this way.
Or something like that.
And one way that Trump could, in theory, overrule the uh the local government and send in the National Guard, would be if it's an emergency.
And an emergency would include something like an insurrection.
You know, if there was a raging insurrection going on, then it would be totally legal for the federal government to send in troops.
But you would have to say it's an insurrection.
Now, Trump says it's not an insurrection, it's not an emergency.
Um, it's just something they'd like to do, but he doesn't rule it out.
What do I tell you about the decisions that Trump makes?
I told you that he's he's brilliant in persuasion, and that one of the things he does right all the time, all the time, is that if there are two ways you could go, and one of them would be described as strong, as in maybe an authoritarian, but the other way would be described as you know, weak.
He will always take strong, even if weak is a better argument.
That does that make sense.
He will always pick strong, even if you think going weak is a better argument.
And here's why.
Because the specific argument matters a little.
You know, does he or does he not go into Portland?
That matters, but what matters way more than that is that he can create a pattern that says, I'm always going to take the the strong, the strong position.
Because remember, he's got to convince all the other countries that he's strong.
He's got to convince both sides of this country that he's strong.
So every time you see Trump just reflexively take the strong position, even if you think it's the wrong decision, even if you think it's not entirely constitutional, and if he tried it, the Supreme Court would throw it out.
It's still the right choice.
And only he can do that.
Well, it's not true, not only he, but you would have to be a real special personality to always take the strong side and pull it off and still pull it off.
And he does.
It's kind of amazing.
All right.
Well, you won't believe this.
Um I I would like you to hold your chins, because you might get injured.
Uh, when I read you this news story, your chin is going to drop so far that it might come disconnected, and then you know, you'd have you'd be hospitalized.
So you don't want that.
So everybody, if you could just just hold your chin when I tell you this shocking and surprising news.
Are you ready?
You won't believe this, but another college president has been accused of plagiarizing and being a huge racist against white people.
Oh, oh, hold it, hold it, hold it.
All right.
All right.
I think the danger is past.
All right.
Got it?
Okay.
Now nobody saw that come.
Um apparently the U.S. federal government's going to take a 10% stake in something called trilogy medals, according to investing.com.
So, and then give some warrants for some extra percentages.
And I guess what they do is uh what do they do?
Um kind of metals, some kind of rare rare metals.
Which ones?
Do to do.
Um, seems like they should tell us right in this article which rare metals are getting.
It's not, you know, it's the it's the good stuff.
So that would be another 10%, maybe 17.5% if the warrants are used.
And uh so I went to Grok and I said, if the US took a 10% equity stake in every company in the US that was involved in rare earth minerals, um, what would that be worth in 10 years?
Because I was wondering, is this so valuable, these rare earths that even if you just get 10%, that if you wait 10 years, it's worth you know five trillion dollars or something?
Is that possible?
And then it would take an actual bite out of the national debt.
And the answer is unfortunately it's in the tens of billions.
So it's not in the trillions at all.
It's you know, you know, maybe up to a hundred billion, but you're not gonna get much more than that.
Still, it's free money.
Do you do you not want to take the free money?
If the if the federal government can provide a service that it wouldn't necessarily have to do, um, it can take some equity because it's not the government taking the equity, it's me, right?
It's you.
It it's the government doesn't own it, it's the people.
So yeah, give me some damn equity.
All right.
Well, apparently Trump has not ruled out, but nor has he ruled in, uh, a pardon for Glaine Maxwell.
And he was also asked about Diddy.
And uh in his Trumpian way, he did the perfect answer, which is he hasn't looked into it.
Uh it sounds like he will look into it, but he hasn't looked into it.
Now, what would happen if Ghlaine Maxwell got a pardon?
Well, what do you think that would do to the uh MAGA world?
If Ghane Maxwell got a pardon, wouldn't you assume that she's agreed to keep some secrets and that that would be the basis for getting the pardon?
Wouldn't you assume that?
Wouldn't have proof.
I wouldn't have even smoking gun.
But I would kind of assume that somebody made a deal, wouldn't you?
So if you really want to stir things up and get people talking about this forever, uh, the pardon would do it.
And by the way, I don't have an opinion on whether it should be done or not, but um I would say yes to the pardon if it required her to talk and give up some names that maybe we hadn't heard before.
So if we could learn something that the victims or the country needs to know, I'm not as concerned about punishing her.
Um she's been punished a little bit.
Um I'm not as concerned about that as I am knowing what really happened.
Now, some of you would say the opposite.
You say, no, punishment is the main the main thing, you know, even if we don't find out what happened.
You know, you gotta punish people for doing what she did.
I get it, I get the argument, but I put a little bit more weight given that she's been public she's been punished somewhat, you know, not enough, but somewhat.
Um I would look at what use we could get from her, and if she could open the vault and tell us all the things that we really care about, really care about, but wouldn't find out any other way, I would uh reluctantly be in favor of a pardon, reluctantly, and I I would never back off reluctant, but maybe we'd have to see what we got in return.
And if it's only you know the government who finds out what we got in return, that's not good enough.
The the people gotta know.
We gotta know if there's a deal made, you gotta tell us.
We're not gonna put up with we made a secret deal with the pedo.
That's that's not gonna happen.
What about Diddy?
It's hard for me to imagine that Trump would pardon Diddy, because I don't think Diddy has anything to offer.
And uh he got a relatively low sentence compared to what it could have been, and he's young enough that if he gets out in four years or maybe he would get out in two years, you know, time served, good behavior.
He's already, you know, so it might be like a two year sentence for what looks like pretty bad behavior, as far as we can tell.
So I feel like Trump would say, you know what?
I feel like you can last two years.
And then, you know, you've paid your you paid some of your debt, and then I'm not in the line for explaining it forever.
So I'm gonna say maybe yes on Maxwell, but probably no on Diddy.
That's that's my best guess.
Now, if Diddy is still there in three years, might Trump say, I'll let you out in six months early before the end of my term.
Maybe.
Maybe he'd you'd have to have an argument.
I don't know what that argument would be, but can't rule it out.
Well, Trump uh was commenting on Greta Tunberg.
Uh she was arrested in Israel trying to uh trying to advocate for the uh Palestinians, and she was part of that uh flotilla that went over there and they all got picked up.
And this is what Trump said, quote, she's just a troublemaker.
You mean she's no longer into the environment?
She's an angry man problem.
I think she should see a doctor.
If you ever watch her for a young person, she's so angry, she's so crazy.
No, you can have her.
You can have her.
She's just a troublemaker.
Could that be more perfect?
That's that's exactly what I would want Trump to say.
I I want him to say those exact words.
Yeah.
But here's what I think.
Um, I feel like we keep ignoring, although every now and then you'll hear you know, somebody like Dr. Jew or uh Jordan Peterson bring it up, uh, that there might be a cluster B personality type that seems to be concentrated in the Democrat or at least left-leaning world.
Do you believe that?
So the cluster B are the people who are you know narcissists, and you know, they've got they've got the kind of problems that bother other people.
The cluster B's are problems, mental problems that mostly bother other people, you know, like a narcissist.
The narcissist might be perfectly happy, but they bother other people.
So and we know that the uh democrats at least have massively more mental health problems and massively more often they'll go to therapy and massively more often they'll take uh antidepressants.
So it's really sort of a cluster B problem that pretends to be political.
I think the politicians, the elected politicians, are not necessarily cluster B, they're just you know, looking for power, but they can't have power unless they treat all the cluster bees like they're serious people.
That's how they get their power.
So you've got these democrat leaders who are pretending that these people who have serious mental health problems are just people with a different opinion.
No, they're not people with a different opinion, they are legitimately mentally ill.
Um, but that's our politics today.
Representative uh Anna Luna, she was on Danny Jones podcast, and she was talking about uh influencers who are being paid to push narratives, and I thought to myself, I still don't know even one influencer who pushed a narrative for money.
Do you uh when I hear the names of the influencers, it's always these super young ones that I've never seen even once, and they're usually on the left.
But I don't know, apparently this is a thing.
Uh and I'll tell you again, how in the world did nobody ever offer to pay me for my opinion?
What's going on with that?
And they haven't, not not even indirectly, not in any way whatsoever.
Um, not I've not had one conversation, I've not been in the room with somebody who might have offered just nothing.
And I'm thinking, do they not know how much influence I have?
I don't think they do.
I I feel like the entire right-leaning world is somewhat Invisible to the left in the same way that their world is invisible to me.
Because when they talk about other influencers, I always say, who?
Who?
I never heard of that guy.
So I'm as blind to their side as they are to our side.
But if they haven't tried to influence me, maybe they should try harder.
And no, I'm not going to take their money.
Don't worry.
I'm not, I'm not soliciting for money.
There's no way I'd do that.
There's not a chance in hell.
But I'm a little bit insulted and not been offered.
It's sort of like being uh a straight guy, and you know, one day you realize that no gay man is ever hit on you?
Have you ever had that experience?
Like one day you'll just say, wait a minute, not a single gay guy is ever hit on me.
Well, maybe I'm not gay, but I kind of like them to want to.
Don't you think it would be cool if they wanted to?
You know, be kind of a compliment.
Same thing.
All right.
Um here's the question.
Do you think that uh APAC, the American group that lobbies in favor of uh Israel?
Um they would say they they're lobbying in favor of the United States.
That's how they get away with the the pharaoh stuff.
So what do you think are the rules for uh whether or not you're FARA, meaning that you have to register as a foreign agent who's trying to influence America.
What do you think the rules are?
Well, um I thought I wrote that down.
I definitely did the rules are all right.
Here's the legal legal basis for uh APAC.
If if Israel were paying APAC, and then APAC were you know giving money to politicians, that would be a far a problem, because that would be a foreign country using some Americans to influence their uh their fate.
However, if the money doesn't come from Israel, but rather comes from billionaires and other small donors, uh, then as long as they're Americans, it's Americans giving money to an American entity, APAC, and that is not FARA, because it's Americans doing what Americans want to do.
However, uh, I think we'd all agree that Israel is kind of a special case, and that if Americans are giving money to APAC, it's sort of they're doing it for Israel.
You know, now they're doing it for themselves as well, because they would legitimately be supporters of Israel.
They're not making it up, they really are supporters.
But if they're but if the purpose of it seems more beneficial to Israel than it does to America, uh that's where it gets a little dicey, but it's still completely legal.
So I guess what matters is where the funding comes from.
So you got that.
Um that to me that seems that seems like uh technicality, I think most of you would say the same thing.
So there's no direct uh there's also no direct control of APAC by anybody who's an Israeli.
Well, anybody who lives in Israel, I don't know if they're any dual citizens, but um, so they don't have anybody on the board who's uh an Israeli um trying to manipulate the board.
So that's important.
So they're not getting money, and they're not directly being run by somebody in Israel.
And uh apparently the uh APEC falls better into another category.
So they just registered into this other category called the Lobbying Disclosure Act, exemption, and that allows uh APAC to disclose expenditures.
I got this from Grok, by the way.
Allows APAC to disclose expenditures and contacts with Congress without full Farah, as long as it doesn't represent a foreign government directly.
So it's the directly Part that does a lot of work directly.
Well, how about uh if APAC wanted uh the US to help Israel militarily with Gaza?
Do you don't think that would be direct?
That's about as direct as you can get.
But then you might say, well, that's just what everybody wants.
So it's not like, you know, it's not like APAC is the one entity that wants Israel to fight back against Gaza or against Hamas.
So anyway, it gets kind of uh gets kind of murky, is what I'm saying.
By the way, today is not only October 7th, the horrible uh anniversary of October 7th, of course, but it is also the Jewish holiday of the first day of uh Sukkat.
I don't know if I'm saying that right.
S-U-K-K-O-T, which I've never heard of.
Better known as the Feast of Tabernacles, and so a lot of your Jewish co-workers are taking the day off today.
I guess they take the day off, generally speaking.
And uh part of the key observance and traditions are that the Sukkot is a hut, and it has to do with something in their ancient history where they built a hut and lived in it.
So, as part of the celebration, um many people build a little temporary hut and then they hang out in it and maybe sleep in it overnight.
Kind of cool.
Um Netanyahu saying that Iran could soon target the US with its missiles.
Do you think Netanyahu really wants a peace deal?
How many of you think that Netanyahu wants a peace deal that puts Hamas a little bit, you know, having a little bit of influence after it's all done?
I'm gonna say no.
I don't think he wants that at all.
So we'll see how that goes.
Trump says the Gaza peace talks are going, quote, very well.
So Steve Wickoff and Jared Kushner are there to seal the deal.
As I've told you before, they're both closers.
So those are the best closers you could ever send.
That doesn't mean it'll get closed, but they're the best closers the US has probably ever had.
Um here's what I think.
And I've said this before, but it's worth saying again.
Um if you think that what's happening is negotiating, I think you're wrong.
If it looks like negotiating, and they'll talk about it like negotiating, and all the activities will look like negotiating, but that's not what's happening.
What's happening is the only way this deal gets done, because Hamas is basically said yes but no, and Israel is basically said yes but no, and both places in both cases, the but no part is the important part.
The yes part isn't even the important part, it's the but no, that's the important part.
So, how do you get a deal when both sides have just said but no on the most important things, such as does Hamas have a you know seat at the table and do they get to keep some weapons?
That's not a small deal.
I mean that's that's right in the important part.
Well, um, here's my frame.
I think that Trump, if he negotiates, even with these great closers, Wickhoff and Kushner, if he negotiates, he loses and doesn't get a deal.
But that's not what he's doing.
It only looks like negotiation.
Here's what it really is.
He's changing reality.
He's changing how we view reality itself.
He's basically telling us this is gonna happen, even though all of our common sense and all of our experience says it won't.
If he can convince us that this will happen, despite all evidence to the contrary, then he will have reframed reality itself independent of any negotiating.
The negotiating can't get in there.
You can't get there from here, because neither side is going to give up the important things.
The only way you can get to a good conclusion is you have to change reality.
Can he do it?
Yes, he can.
That's the fun part.
Nobody else can.
Steve Jobs could if he was, you know, if you were not dead, he could.
Could Elon Musk do it?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe.
But Trump can.
Trump can change reality.
And anything short of reframing reality itself is not going to get you there.
You can't get there by negotiating.
You have to look like you're negotiating, but you gotta change reality.
And you gotta change it big time.
And I believe that Trump knows that like nobody else knows it.
Like he he's the one person who completely understands that.
That the reason he's saying yes, we're close, even though objectively speaking, it doesn't look close to me.
Doesn't look anywhere near close.
But as long as he keeps doing the Kamala Harris thing, you know, it was a close election.
It was the closest election, that was the closest election.
Then you're gonna start thinking maybe it was a close election.
And if he says, we almost have a deal, we're so close.
We're oh, it's just the details.
We almost have a deal.
We're totally gonna get a deal.
I think maybe the Nobel Prize would be in.
Um, it's gonna look like this, it's gonna look like this.
It's so exciting, we're so close to a deal.
That's redefining reality, and that's what he's doing right in front of you.
He's redefining reality, and if he refines it enough, then the people who are hard know about some of the details.
Suddenly, they wake up in a world where yes is the more rational reason or the more rational thing to do.
So if he pulls this off, like I said, it'll be the greatest thing a president ever did, just ever.
50% chance.
All right, what else?
Um I saw a uh post by uh Jimmy Doer.
You all know Jimmy Dore, podcaster, stand-up comedian.
Um, he says that Israel will definitely do false flags inside the US to I I assume that means to get us to stay unfriendly to Hamas so that the you know the peace doesn't come.
The theory here is that uh maybe Netanyahu doesn't really want peace, but he has to play along as long as he as long as he can, so it doesn't look like he's resisting.
And uh Jimmy's theory is that Israel would do a false flag, which would be an attack on U.S. assets and or people, um, that would be blamed on Hamas, and then that would give Nanyahu a way to say, see, see, you can't do a deal with him.
Yep, you just have to destroy them.
Now, I went to Grok and I said, How often does a false flag happen?
Has Israel ever done a false flag?
Well, I thought I knew, um, but I did not.
So here's what uh Grok said.
There were two examples that you might call a false flag.
One was in 1954, called the uh again, this is from Grok, so I don't know if it's hallucinating or not.
Um, I should probably should have looked that up.
But it's called the Levon affair.
Um and uh Grok says it's quote, the only confirmed false flag by Israel targeting U.S. assets, it's the only one.
Now, what did it do?
Let's see, orchestrated bomb attacks.
Remember, 1954, uh targeted as symbols of Western influence.
Um blah, blah, blah.
So this was uh the bad old days.
Um, but apparently that's a confirmed false flag.
But it's also 1954.
So I'm pretty old, and that was before I was born.
Now I'm seeing in the comments that you're saying, Scott, you're forgetting the obvious one.
The USS Liberty incident in 1967, right?
So I'm looking in the comments, and every one of you is saying, Oh, you're forgetting the big one, the more recent one.
It was the USS Liberty, a US ship that got blown up.
However, there are two hypotheses for what happened with that.
And they're not the same.
One hypothesis is that it was always a false flag.
And that's what it was from the beginning to the end.
It was just a false flag.
The other, according to Grok, which I'd never heard before, is that it might have been a horrible thing that the Israeli military did, but it was to cover up the fact that they made a mistake in attacking the ship.
So apparently they machine gunned the uh the lifeboats.
They machine gunned the lifeboats.
And the thinking is that that was because they realized after they did the attack that it wasn't the ship that they thought they wanted to attack.
And that once they realized they'd blown up an American ship, that they may have um this is speculative, so this is unproven.
But the the thought is that they might have said just the military, not necessarily the government, but the military might have said, um, we're gonna have to get rid of the evidence.
So you've got one that's confirmed according to Grok, but it's in 1954.
Nothing since then.
Nothing.
And the one that uh may or may not be true was 1967.
That was pretty long ago as well, uh, over 50 years ago.
And um, so we don't know.
Now, I believe that uh if this is like every other thing in the world, the people who have a anti-Israel bent will say, Scott, you fool.
That's obviously a false flag.
And the people who are more pro-Israel are gonna likely say, Oh, well, I didn't realize it was ambiguous.
You know, either way, it's terrible.
So is it it's not remember, it's not excusing Israel if the real answer is that they machine gunned the survivors.
So if you think that there's there's one story that makes them look good, but another story that doesn't, that's not happening.
No, there are two stories that make them look like terrible, or at least you know, the military who happened to be operating in that specific area, not the whole country, of course.
So I don't know.
Uh so you that that's your context.
Do you think uh Jimmy Dore is correct that Israel would do a false flag attack, given that there's always some chance they get caught, because if you're doing any kind of sneaky stuff, you can never really be sure if everybody is on your side that's in on the plot and that nobody's listening to your digital communications.
Can you imagine Israel doing a false flag while Trump is president and getting caught?
So here's my take.
The the risk reward analysis of doing something while Trump is president, a false flag, and maybe getting caught, no matter how clever you are.
I know Mossad is really good at this, but you'd always have a chance to get it caught.
There's no frickin' way that Netanyahu is dumb enough to take that chance.
No way.
Uh unless you can come up with some kind of false flag that nobody could ever catch.
Then maybe.
But I'm gonna say that seems deeply unlikely.
So I I disagree with the false flag, but we might see something we think is one.
So that's possible.
All right.
Let's talk about some other countries.
Let's see how Australia is doing.
Apparently, Deloitte uh will refund Australian government for their AI hallucination-filled report.
Or stack that's writing about this, Kyle Orland.
So apparently Deloitte, you know, the big accounting firm, um, did this major, probably very expensive study, but it was just made up shit by AI, and they found out it was all hallucinated bullshit, so they asked for their money back.
Uh good job, Deloitte.
How could you be a how in the world could you be one of these high-end consultants for Deloitte and not know that AI hallucinates?
Are you the last person in the world who doesn't know you can't do a report based on this?
I mean, I just did one right in front of you using Grok.
But I think Grok is better on historical things.
Uh, I think it's much less better if it can't look it up.
The historical stuff I can just look up.
So I I feel like it's better, but I would take a fact check on that if that's not the case.
Well Mexico has got a bill according to Reclaim the net Dan Fries is writing that Mexico is proposing a bill that would put you in prison for AI memes that mock public figures.
Great.
Like I need one more reason not to go to Mexico.
Good luck.
And then Ukraine, of course, said it struck more Russian ammunition plant, an oil terminal, and a weapons depot.
And here's what you don't hear.
Number of human casualties.
Have you noticed that?
That the Ukraine war, this major World War III, people want to call it, and we don't talk about casualties?
And I think the reason is there are not that many.
It's like a handful per day.
And that all the real work is being done by the drones taken out big infrastructure and facilities.
I think it's turned into the drone, the robot energy war.
It's sort of an energy war and it's sort of a robot war, but it's a robot energy war because the robots will mostly be attacking other robots and energy projects.
So it's a robot energy war.
And let's see, Ukraine now has approved 80 domestically produced drones.
So Ukraine, just the little country of Ukraine, knows how to make 80 different kinds of drones.
Holy cow.
According to Euro maiden Olena Makina.
And the domestic production has jumped 40%.
You know, I've told you before that whoever can make the most and best drones is going to rule the future.
So apparently Ukraine is making a good step to being the future because Ukraine will...
will be better at drones than the US is the US can't make that many drones at the moment maybe someday but I think we're we're way behind all right ladies and gentlemen that is all I wanted to talk about today did you have any questions anything I didn't answer.
If you joined late yesterday I did have to go to the emergency room to get some MRIs and some CT scans some cancer tumors that were bothering me greatly but we'll get that under control and uh but I feel good now.
