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 is up.
Wow, and 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 a copper mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice, a stein of canteen, juggerna 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.
It's 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.
Yesterday I spent the day in the emergency room for pain, cancer-related.
Had a bunch of tests.
The short version is it doesn't look like it's a spinal problem.
It looks like it's a bone problem.
So it's a 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 there's a newishly approved drug called Pluvicto, which can remove tumors.
Not every time, and it's not a cure, but for some people, it just totally removes their tumors.
So I'm in the process of trying to qualify for that, which should be able to do, should be no problem.
And 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 there's some chance that that would at least set the pain back a little bit.
We'll see.
We shall see.
So I don't know how many of you are subscribing to Dilbert on either X or on locals, but you may have noticed that 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 co-worker who's 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.
They're exactly like today.
All the things that you could anticipate would be a problem with robots.
It's all there.
Anyway, I thought that was interesting.
Elon Musk says that Grok, the AI, will soon be able to make a movie that's at least what he says watchable before the end of next year.
So before the end of 2026.
And he thinks it will 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 best movie in the world, but that by the end of the year after that, it'll be making full movies that you'll want to watch.
Well, I don't know.
Now, OpenAI, in a related news, OpenAI says that they're not going to protect your copyright for people like me who own a property like Dilbert.
They're not going to 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, Catbird, Ratbert.
I got to do them all.
Now, I do plan to do that.
And also with my book, God's Debris.
So I did see Jay did this amazing little 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.
But I don't know if we have what we could, I don't 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 AI and Elon Musk, he was doing an interview somewhere where somebody asked him this question.
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 here was Elon's answer to the question, what is the universe contained in?
Answer, a computer.
I agree with that.
And then I guess Lex Friedman asked Elon, what's outside the simulation?
And Elon's answer was, what was his answer?
What's outside the simulation?
Damn it, did I not write down that down?
Apparently not.
But what's outside the simulation would sort of 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 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, 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.
But here's a, if you want a little lesson in credibility, here's what credibility buys you.
I gave you a 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, OpenAI is announcing that ChatGPT, their app, will now work with some other existing apps.
So I think that means it would act like the user interface for other apps.
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, Expedius, Spotify, Figma, whatever that is, Coursera, Zillow, and Canva.
And they're adding ones all the time.
So let me 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?
All the travel apps are complete garbage and you don't know which one to use.
But if I could talk to AI and just say, all right, I'm planning a trip to the northeast sometime in the autumn 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 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 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 going to open up booking.com after that?
Nobody.
They're going to open OpenAI.
And then OpenAI can do stuff like put their own advertisement in it.
And then booking.com will be like, hey, this is our app.
We're the ones who should be doing advertising.
And OpenAI will say, no, we're sending them to your app.
But after they see the advertisement.
So what I'm suggesting is that these small app companies, well, they're not that small, 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.
According to Max Rigo, who's writing for The Hill, there's a new Senate report that says that 100 million jobs will be lost to AI and automation.
Is that a lot?
100 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 100 million people who even work.
It's maybe one out of three people work.
That would be everybody.
So I assume the 100 million is across 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 what else they say?
So the types of jobs they think are going to go away would be fast food and anybody who works the counter, probably.
And what else?
Customer service reps, laborers and freight, stock and material movers, secretaries.
They're still secretaries.
What business has a secretary?
When was the last time you even saw or heard of a secretary?
I don't even think they exist, do they?
Secretaries?
Maybe for CEOs.
And let's see, also executive assistants.
There's no way that AI is going to replace an executive assistant.
That's not going to happen.
So I think that most of these estimates are totally overblown.
I'm going with the people who say, well, it's probably just going to make all those existing people a little more efficient.
It probably isn't going to replace them because 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 more and more mad?
You can't have a customer service rep with this form of AI.
And 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 going to be shipped back to some other country.
Did anybody see that?
I didn't see the original story, but 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.
But apparently 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 him.
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 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 at the 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 there's a team out of San Diego who somehow could get access to the 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 at least they got through it, 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.
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, are going to be guaranteed back pay.
Apparently, there's an argument that they shouldn't be.
Now, I don't know if that applies to everybody who's furloughed, but for some of them, it looks like the Trump people want to make it 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 don't punish the people who had nothing to do with the shutdown.
So 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'd say just a terrible idea.
I like saving money, but not on the backs of people who just wanted to go to work.
All right.
Let's see.
So apparently there's a senior prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia who would be in charge of charging New York Attorney General Letitia James for any 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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.
You know, I think Trump needs to, or whoever, somebody needs to fire this person, the Eastern District of Virginia.
You got to fire that person.
There's just no way that the Attorney General wasn't fully aware of what she was doing.
There's just no way.
I give that a 0% chance.
And by the way, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Oh, wait, according to Grok, it is.
So I went to Grok 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 not knowing it was illegal would actually be a defense.
So if the crime requires what Grok 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, apparently if you said, oh, I'm making up my own example here.
This is not from Grok, but I think this is right.
If your accountant makes a mistake on your taxes and all you did is sign it, but 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 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.
Depending what government official told you, it would have to be somebody in the right line of work.
But that's actually a defense.
I didn't know that.
All right.
Kamala Harris, as you know, is out there drunk and babbling about her new book and about Trump.
And yesterday, she had a moment that reminded me of Trump being shot in the ear and jumping up and going, fight, fight, fight.
Very inspirational.
Except instead of being shot in the ear, she's just drunk.
She's just drunk and lying and got up at a recent event and started yelling, it was the closest, 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 persuasion.
Which one was better?
Fight, fight, fight, with a bullet just his ear.
Or, give me some more vodka.
No mandate.
No mandate.
There'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 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 going to 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 going to believe it.
So even though you might have thought to yourself, oops, I'm sorry, cat, come down here.
Come on, Gary, don't step on that.
So even if you, 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, 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 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, 1% or 2% or something.
So she's going to 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 speak.
And they want kids to get the chickenpox vaccine separate from the big bunch of vaccines that they usually get that usually includes chickenpox.
So apparently there's some new information that says that if you get them separately, I think you wait a little bit for one, but I can't remember which one.
If you wait for one, you avoid some very well-known specific health problems.
So is that an upgrade?
Do you call this RFK Jr. win?
Is that a win for Maha?
I'm going to 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 shown 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 Jr.
This is everything.
This is everything.
Now, is there any chance that later they'll modify it and 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 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 COVID, it's very much about you and your doctor.
You can still do what you want, but it's between you and your doctor.
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.
But one way that Trump could, in theory, overrule 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.
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.
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 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 weak, he will always take strong, even if weak is a better argument.
Does that make sense?
He will always pick strong, even if you think going weak is a better argument.
Here's why, because the specific argument matters a little.
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 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.
I would like you to hold your chins because you might get injured.
When I read you this new story, your chin is going to drop so far that it might come disconnected.
And then, you know, you'd be hospitalized.
So you don't want that.
So everybody, if you could, 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.
Hold it, hold it, hold it.
All right.
All right.
I think the danger has passed.
All right.
Got it?
Okay.
Nobody saw that come.
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 get some warrants for some extra percentages.
I guess what they do is, what do they do?
Some kind of metals, some kind of rare, rare metals.
Which ones?
Seems like they should tell us right in this article which rare metals are getting.
It's not, you know, it's the good stuff.
So that would be another 10%, maybe 17.5% if the warrants are used.
And so I went to Grok and I said, if the U.S. took a 10% equity stake in every company in the U.S. that was involved in rare earth minerals, 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 $5 trillion or something?
Is that possible?
And that 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 maybe up to 100 billion, but you're not going to get much more than that.
Still, it's free money.
Do you not want to take the free money?
If the federal government can provide a service that it wouldn't necessarily have to do, it can take some equity because it's not the government taking the equity.
It's me, right?
It's you.
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, a pardon for Ghelain Maxwell.
And he was also asked about Diddy.
And in his Trumpian way, he did the perfect answer, which is he hasn't looked into it.
It sounds like he will look into it, but he hasn't looked into it.
Now, what would happen if Ghelane Maxwell got a pardon?
What do you think that would do to the MAGA world?
If Ghelane 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, the pardon would do it.
And by the way, I don't have an opinion on whether it should be done or not, but 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.
I mean, she's been punished a little bit.
I'm not as concerned about that as I am knowing what really happened.
Now, some of you would say the opposite.
You'd say, no, punishment is the main thing.
Even if we don't find out what happened, you got to 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 punished somewhat, not enough, but somewhat.
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 reluctantly be in favor of a pardon, reluctantly.
And I would never back off reluctant, but maybe, maybe.
We'd have to see what we got in return.
And if it's only the government who finds out what we got in return, that's not good enough.
The people got to know.
We've got to know if there's a deal made, you got to tell us.
We're not going to put up with we made a secret deal with the pedo.
That's not going to 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 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 made your, you paid some of your debt.
And then I'm not in the line for explaining it forever.
So I'm going to say maybe yes on Maxwell, but probably no on Diddy.
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 have to have an argument.
I don't know what that argument would be, but can't rule it out.
Well, Trump was commenting on Greta Tunberg.
She was arrested in Israel trying to advocate for the Palestinians.
And she was part of that 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 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 exactly what I would want Trump to say.
I want him to say those exact words.
Yeah.
But here's what I think.
I feel like we keep ignoring, although every now and then you'll hear somebody like Dr. Drew or Jordan Peterson bring it up, 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 narcissists and they've got the kind of problems that bother other people.
The cluster Bs are problems, mental problems that mostly bother other people, like a narcissist.
The narcissist might be perfectly happy, but they bother other people.
And we know that the 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 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 looking for power.
But they can't have power unless they treat all the cluster Bs 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.
But that's our politics today.
Representative Anna Luna, she was on Danny Jones' podcast and she was talking about 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?
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.
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 even indirectly, not in any way whatsoever.
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 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 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.
I've not been offered.
It's sort of like being a straight guy.
And one day you realize that no gay man has 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 has ever hit on me.
Well, maybe I'm not gay, but I kind of like them to want to.
Don't you think it'd be cool if they wanted to?
You know, be kind of a compliment.
Same thing.
All right.
So here's the question.
Do you think that APAC, the American group that lobbies in favor of Israel, they would say they're lobbying in favor of the United States.
That's how they get away with the Pharaoh stuff.
So what do you think are the rules for 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, I thought I wrote that down.
I definitely did.
The rules are.
All right, here's the legal basis for APAC.
If Israel were paying APAC and then APAC were giving money to politicians, that would be a FARA problem because that would be a foreign country using some Americans to influence their fate.
However, if the money doesn't come from Israel, but rather comes from billionaires and other small donors, 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, 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.
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 the purpose of it seems more beneficial to Israel than it does to America, that's where it gets a little dicey, but still completely legal.
So I guess what matters is where the funding comes from.
So you got that.
And to me, that seems like a technicality.
I think most of you would say the same thing.
So 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 so they don't have anybody on the board who's an Israeli 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 apparently the APAC falls better into another category.
So they just registered into this other category called the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption.
And that allows APAC to disclose expenditures.
I got this from Grok, by the way.
It 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 if APAC wanted the U.S. to help Israel militarily with Gaza?
Do you not 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 murky, is what I'm saying.
By the way, today is not only October 7th, the horrible anniversary of October 7th, of course, but it is also the Jewish holiday of the first day of Sukkot.
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 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, many people build a little temporary hut and then they hang out in it and maybe sleep in it overnight.
Kind of cool.
Netanyahu is saying that Iran could soon target the U.S. 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 going to 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 U.S. has probably ever had.
So here's what I think.
And I've said this before, but it's worth saying again.
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 has basically said yes, but no, and Israel has 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 seat at the table and do they get to keep some weapons?
That's not a small deal.
And that's that's right in the important part.
Well, here's my frame.
I think that Trump, if he negotiates, even with these great closers, Wickoff 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 is: he's changing reality.
He's changing reality.
He's changing how we view reality itself.
He's basically telling us this is going to 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 him 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.
In other words, people have to think they woke up in a different reality.
Can he do it?
Yes, he can.
That's the fun part.
Nobody else can.
Steve Jobs could, you know, if he 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've got to change reality.
And you've got to change it big time.
And I believe that Trump knows that like nobody else knows it.
Like 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.
It doesn't look anywhere near close.
But as long as he keeps doing the Kamala Harris thing, you know, it was a closest election.
It was the closest election.
It was the closest election.
Then you're going to start thinking maybe it was a close election.
And if he says, we almost have a deal, we're so close.
Oh, it's just the details.
We almost have a deal.
We're totally going to get a deal.
I think maybe the Nobel Prize would be in.
It's going to look like this.
It's going to 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?
So I saw a post by Jimmy Dore.
You all know Jimmy Dore, podcaster, stand-up comedian.
He says that Israel will definitely do false flags inside the U.S. to, I assume that means to get us to stay unfriendly to Hamas so that the peace doesn't come.
The theory here is that maybe Netanyahu doesn't really want peace, but he has to play along as long as he can.
So it doesn't look like he's resisting.
And Jimmy's theory is that Israel would do a false flag, which would be an attack on U.S. assets and or people 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 him.
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, but I did not.
So here's what Grok said.
There were two examples that you might call a false flag.
One was in 1954 called the, again, this is from Grok, so I don't know if it's hallucinating or not.
I probably should have looked that up.
But it's called the Levon Affair.
And 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, targeted as symbols of Western influence, blah, blah, blah.
So this was the bad old days.
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 U.S. 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 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 this is speculative.
So this is unproven.
But the thought is that they might have said just the military, not necessarily the government, but the military might have said, we're going to 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 may or may not be true was 1967.
That was pretty long ago as well, over 50 years ago.
And so we don't know.
Now, I believe that if this is like every other thing in the world, the people who have an anti-Israel bent will say, Scott, you fool, that's obviously a false flag.
And the people who are more pro-Israel are going to likely say, oh, I didn't realize it was ambiguous.
Either way, it's terrible.
So 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 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.
So that's your context.
Do you think Jimmy Doerr 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 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 of getting caught.
There's no freaking way that Netanyahu is dumb enough to take that chance.
No way.
Unless you can come up with some kind of false flag that nobody could ever catch.
Then maybe.
But I'm going to say that seems deeply unlikely.
So 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 will refund Australian government for their AI hallucination field report or stack that goes writing about this, Kyle Orland.
So apparently Deloitte, you know, the big accounting firm 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.
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.
I think it's much less better if it can't look it up.
The historical stuff it can just look up.
So 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 taking 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 say 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 Euromaiden, 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 be better at drones than the U.S. is.
The U.S. can't make that many drones at the moment, maybe someday.
But I think 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.
I've got some cancer tumors that were bothering me greatly.
But we'll get that under control.
But I feel good now.
So at the moment, it doesn't hurt to sit down.
Walking hurts.
So I'll try not to walk.
But I got better meds so I can just take some painkillers if it hurts.
So today is much better than yesterday.
Much, much better for me.
All right, everybody, I'm going to say a few words to my beloved subscribers on locals.