Trump conquers Asia. Our billionaires might be hybrid aliens, and other Sunday news you can't use at all.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, TDS Group Therapy, Confusopoly, Meela AI Chat Bot, AI Learning Models, Election Trust, Doug Ford, Canadian Fake Reagan Ad, President Trump, Malaysia Rare Earth Minerals, Trump's Ballroom, Birthright Citizenship, TerraPower Nuclear, Bill Gates, Gen4 Nuclear Development, Stephen Miller, Governor Pritzker Arrest Risk, Candace Owens, Non-Human Nuclear Observation, 3l/ATLAS, Rahm Emanuel, Cultural Cul-de-Sac, James Carville, Shaving Trump Collaborators, Victimizing Trump Supporters, Timothy Mellon, 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.
It's almost time for the best thing that ever happened to you.
There's a seat up front.
It's good to see your smiling face.
Have you been to the gym lately?
You look marvelous.
Probably got a good night's sleep.
No?
Well, you look marvelous anyway.
Would you like to do a show?
Anybody?
all right good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker, Chelsea Stein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day.
The thing that makes everything better is called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
And it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Oh.
Delicious.
You know what I need a little bit more of?
Focus on the locals' comments on my second device.
Then we'll have something.
Well, as tradition requires, I'll be reading you a reframe from my book, the best book in the world, Reframe Your Brain.
Changing people's lives everywhere, one sentence at a time.
So we've been doing one frame a day.
We'll actually get through the whole book if I survive.
All right.
We'll see how far we get.
Here we go.
We already did that one.
I want to pick the best one.
All right, here's one that's a little cynical, but it's also really, really useful.
You ready for this?
The usual frame is that your hard work will be rewarded.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think it's true that people will notice if you're a hard worker and they will reward you?
That's kind of true.
So the normal frame, true-ish.
They'll recognize your hard work and you'll be rewarded.
But here's a reframe that's better than that.
The illusion of hard work will be rewarded.
The illusion of hard work.
If you would just come in five minutes earlier than your boss, your boss will have a greater illusion of how hard you work.
If you could find a way to stay later, five minutes, than your boss, your boss again will think that you're working really hard.
Maybe it was only five minutes.
If you carry papers around when you walk back and forth in the hallway, it'll look like you're on a mission.
If you have nothing in your hand when you're walking back and forth, no laptop, no phone, it just looks like you're going to the restroom.
So I would argue that you should do what my co-workers did.
My old boss, the one who actually named Dilbert, he came up with the name Dilbert.
He used to answer all questions about how you're doing with answers about how hard he's working.
And at first, I didn't really realize the brilliance of it, but over time, it's sort of a Trumpian hypnosis that makes you think he's the hardest working guy.
And I'm here to tell you, I loved my old boss, Mike Goodwin.
Great guy, but he was not the hardest working guy in the office.
He was just the guy who talked about it the most.
So he'd say, hey, Mike, how are you doing?
Let's say it's Monday, you haven't seen him.
He'd be like, jumping on hand grenades and crawling through the swamp.
And I got five jobs to do today.
Some of it was true.
But the illusion of how much work he was doing was great.
And his career went pretty well.
It's the illusion of work that you need to master.
Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked Scott.
Oh, here's some.
In Side Post, Karina Petrova is writing about this.
There's a 35-day study.
I'm going to guess that you could have all guessed this one too.
I'm not going to take any credit for getting this one right.
A 35-day study of couples finds that being present and non-judgmental during sex is associated with greater sexual well-being for you and your partner.
So paying it, you're saying that paying attention to the person you're having sex with while you're having sex can make the experience better.
Well, apparently, that's what I've been doing wrong my whole life.
I learned to doom scroll and eat a sandwich while I'm having intercourse.
And I wasn't getting very good reviews, if you know what I mean.
So apparently, don't be using your phone while you're in mid-intercourse.
That's what science tells us.
I don't know if you could guess that on your own, but I have full confidence that many of you could.
Many of you could.
There's another study from Monash University that listening to or playing music when you're over 75 is linked to up to a 39% reduction in dementia risk.
So learning to play music was good, but apparently just listening to it all the time is really good too.
Do you believe this study that they can measure the dementia risk based on how much music you listen to?
Do you think that's true?
It might be.
It might be.
I won't rule this one out.
It seems to me that anything that engages your mind would probably reduce your risk of dementia.
Every other time we look at anything that activates your mind.
Yeah, Siro disagrees.
I'm a famous anti-musicker because I think if you have a regular life, music is just pollution in your brain because your brain is just so full of stuff.
You're not going to get dementia when you're 40, if it has anything to do with how much you have to think about.
Because when you're 40, you're thinking about a lot of stuff.
But if you're 75 and you got nothing going on and you just be otherwise walking around the house listening to whatever's on the news, feels like it'd be better to listen to music.
I don't know.
That one might be real.
Well, according to Fox News, Sarah Rumpfwitten, that's a tough name.
I see why she hyphenated it.
Rump.
The No Kings protest was largely made up of older white educated women in their 40s.
And there's this expert, Jonathan Elpert, who hypothesizes that they're using it for therapy.
That the reason it's this particular demographic, you know, we've speculated, why is it this demographic?
And, you know, we thought, well, maybe it's they're retired.
They're the ones who watch legacy news.
And probably all those are factors.
But it might be that Jonathan Alper has the exact right answer, which is that it's exactly the same group that are having mental problems about Trump.
And they believe that marching around with other people who have the same viewpoint would be a form of group therapy.
And I thought to myself, you know what?
It is group therapy.
And you know what else?
I'll bet it works.
I'll bet it works.
Just feeling validated by marching around with people who agree with you and tell you that you're right on point.
Oh, yeah, you see the world clearly.
You don't have any mental problems.
There are just real problems in the world.
It's called Donald Trump.
So if you see these protests as more group therapy, everything makes sense.
Like all the pieces come together.
It's like, oh, oh, now I get it.
It's just group therapy.
That's why there's no violence, right?
That's why there's no looting because that's not why they're there.
They're not there to change policy because that's when things get a little violent when they're trying to change something.
They're not really trying to change anything except how they feel.
And that explains everything.
Well, according to WTF detective, whatever that is, a study at Michigan State University said that one in five adults don't want children and that people decide early in life that they don't want them and they actually stick to it.
They don't change their minds.
Do you think we're in trouble if only 20% of the people don't want children?
Because it feels like that's not that different than it ever was, was it?
Did 20% what was it always true that more than 80% of people had children?
I feel like 20% is sort of what it's always been.
Or was it 10%?
I don't know.
Maybe it doubles.
All right.
There's a new economic study out by, let's say, Nicole Ganakis and Tobias and Pretschmer.
It's in the CEPR, whatever that is.
Anyway, so it's a new economic study.
And what they did was they wanted to study to find out if confusopolies are real and if they're being used.
Now, have you ever heard that word, confusopoly?
It was coined in the 90s.
Do you know who coined that phrase in the 90s?
I did.
It was in my book, I think it was in the Dilbert Future.
It's now in the economic literature.
So if you were to Google Confusopoly, you would find out that it's attributed to me.
I think Wikipedia still talks about it.
And the theory was that I invented in the 90s is that big companies that had confusing pricing were being confusing intentionally because their product was the same as their competitors.
So the only way they could argue that you should buy theirs is if you couldn't tell the difference between theirs and somebody else's.
So the confusopoly is the idea that cell phone companies and insurance companies, I use them as my examples, they would give you pricing that you could not compare to anything else.
So the cell phone company would be like, well, you're paying by minutes, but this one has rollovers, but only for family members, but you have to pay first to be eligible for the rollover, but you had to buy your phone instead of, you know, so even AI wouldn't be able to figure out which phone service was best for you.
Nor could you necessarily easily tell if you had coverage in the places that you were personally going to go.
It's easier now, but in the early days, you couldn't even tell if you'd have coverage.
So that's a confusopoly.
Everybody gets their piece of the business because they all sort of collude without colluding to be confusing.
And they all know that that works.
So this economic study was done, and they concluded that it is highly plausible that the firms do act in a confusopoly fashion.
So now it has some actual rigorous economic backing to the confusopoly thing.
Have you ever tried to buy insurance?
Oh my God.
Insurance is just a monster of complexity and confusopoly.
According to the Newark Post, Georgia World is writing that U.S. home ownership dipped in 2025 for the first time in nearly a decade.
And that is mostly because of interest rates, I think.
Interest rates plus the general affordability of everything is worse.
So it's not a big change.
It's just a tiny little downtick, 0.1%.
But we need U.S. home ownership to go up.
You don't last long if that goes down forever.
That's not a good sign.
But it's just a blip at the moment.
I talk about this all the time, but this market is developing the loneliness market, especially for senior citizens.
So now there's a new AI startup called Mila that's like a little chat bot for your senior citizen family members.
And apparently they like it.
They're pretty happy with it, the seniors.
Now, the part I don't understand is that the company says they added memory to it so that your little chatbot will remember your conversations.
To which I say, how could that possibly be true that they added memory to it?
They don't have memory on ChatGPT, at least memory that's going to be reliable.
Grok doesn't have memory.
It has memory during the conversation, but it doesn't remember you when it comes back.
So are you telling me that this little app for seniors has cracked the hardest part in AI that literally nobody can crack?
I don't think so.
I think maybe the old people don't know that it has the wrong answers.
Maybe their memories are as bad as the app, so they can't tell the difference.
40 bucks a month gets you one.
If I did not have all of you, I'd be using that app.
I mean, why not?
All right, here's another.
Scott was right without being an expert.
It's Scott against the experts today.
So the head of Meta's AI is this guy, Jan Lekun.
You may have seen him.
He gets a lot of attention.
But he was in some event, and he was saying that the current way that we train AI will never get you to intelligence, basically.
And that the whole pattern, you know, language, the large language models, you could train them forever and it would never create intelligence.
So the head of AI at Meta is saying exactly what I've said for two years: that there's no logical way you can get from pattern recognition of words to intelligence.
But it might look like people.
It might look and act like people, because what we would discover is that people are just operating on patterns too, and we don't have intelligence.
Was I right about any of that?
Yeah, I was right about all of it.
I was right about all of it.
Now, what he says, and you've heard other people like Elon say this, I think, that the current models, they look like they're going to be PhD smart, but they never will be.
There's no way they can get there.
And I've been saying that.
I was like, I think this all looks like a fraud.
It doesn't look like the thing they're doing with these gigantic data centers would ever, under any circumstances, could ever succeed.
It's just logically impossible.
I guess he agrees, but their solution.
I don't know if the solution makes any more sense, but the solution is that the models have to look at things happening in the real world and understand real-world physics.
So the thinking is if your AI could just observe humans or other robots doing things, it could learn sort of the way that humans learn by observing and then trying to imitate it.
So that would get the robots and the AI to something like real intelligence.
But that's untested.
It's definitely the approach that I'm pretty sure this is what Elon's doing now.
I think he's training his with real world physics as opposed to large language models.
Talking about his robots specifically.
Something else I was going to say about that.
I guess as things like the robots' hands get more sensitive, Tesla has good hands on their optimists, as says Elon.
The hands would capture a lot of stuff in the real world too, as long as it's doing stuff.
All right.
So that's coming.
So the robots now are being trained on artificial worlds, which they imagine.
And I'm trying to figure out if that matches how humans learn.
That was weird.
Hold on.
Oh, you're kidding me.
It's the worst lamp in the world.
So I've got a lamp that doesn't have any raised buttons.
So when the lamp goes off, you have no idea where to touch it to turn on the light.
And if you hit the wrong button, it goes on a 45-minute timer instead of just turning on.
Who designed that?
Who designed the light that you can't find the switch if the light is off?
I mean, seriously, did they test that even one time?
Did they test their light in a lit room every time they turned it on?
It's like, oh, look how easy it is to find this button.
I swear to God, I have so many products that could not possibly have been tested even once.
Even once, that could not have been tested.
God.
Anyway, so these models are imagining what the world looks like and then learning from their own imagination.
So the same way that you would create a video with your AI, you tell it, oh, imagine a cat is a samurai samurai or something.
The AI is doing the same thing.
So, it's imagining a world and then it's observing its own imagined world and then it's trying to learn the physics from the world it created, which I'm not sure makes sense, but people smarter than me say it does, so I'll accept it.
Apparently, Apple, according to Doge Designer, this is the only place I saw it was one account on X. Doge Designer says that Apple's in talks with SpaceX to work on Starlink, meaning that your future iPhone could work on Starlink alone as opposed to a phone company.
Hmm, now we're getting interesting.
Does that suggest that SpaceX and Starlink will not make their own phone?
Now, apparently, they're not talking to Android, don't know why, or not talking to yet.
But they're talking about it in terms of dead zones.
So, if the only thing that Apple is doing is agreeing that Starlink will fire up if you're in a dead zone, but only in a dead zone, then it's not that big a story, but it's kind of cool.
I don't really have any dead zones where I live.
Do you guys still have dead zones for cell?
When was the last time you were somewhere where your cell didn't work on a mountain somewhere?
I don't do a lot of hiking.
All right, so Trump's got this lawsuit he's had for a while against the Des Moines Register newspaper because one of their pollsters close to the election, this last election, published what most people would consider a fake poll.
So, it was one of the most respected pollsters, but it this Ann Selzer pollster.
But just before the election, dropped a poll that said that Kamala was doing great, and none of that was true.
So, people thought that the poll was intentionally fake to bolster Kamala, and that's what Trump is claiming.
And I guess he had some kind of a state court win that is not a victory on the case, but rather allows him to press it.
So, the only thing that's changed is that he's allowed to go forward with this case.
I think he's got a case.
It was so obvious that that was a fake poll.
I mean, again, I'm not an expert at polling, but I knew it was fake as soon as I saw it.
Didn't you?
There's a lot of stuff you don't have to be an expert about to know it's fake when you see it.
That's sort of my only skill.
I don't have technical skill, but I can spot bullshit pretty easily.
Pretty easily, not every time.
There's a Center Square voter's voice poll that found out that almost half of adults between 18 and 29 either have not much confidence or no confidence at all in the midterm elections coming up.
So, half of people in that young category don't think you can trust the elections.
That's just MAGA.
Do you think that came from Trump, or is it just a generic young people don't trust stuff?
Could be both anyway.
My question would be: why would any young person trust an election?
I understand the argument for not trusting it, but what would be the argument for trusting it?
How inexperienced in the world would you have to be to think that there's something like any big organization that has any kind of power over you that also operates completely ethically?
We don't really see that when there's some big organization that has power over you.
They're always operating unethically.
Always.
How's your financial world?
How's your healthcare world?
How's your NGOs?
How's your taxes?
How's your professional gambling and sports?
It's everything.
You know, if you're between 18 and 29, you think you didn't notice that literally everything is rigged?
And to believe that the only thing that's not rigged is the thing that will rig the most and probably have the most access to rig.
Probably.
Really?
Is that what you believe?
That everything else is observably, provably rigged from the lawfare to the government, you name it, right?
That climate change was a hoax.
All the news is fake.
Everything's rigged except the elections.
How could you believe that?
How inexperienced in the world would you have to believe that everything is rigged, provably so, except the elections?
I don't know.
People.
Today's the first day of early voting for New York City, so I would say that the result is over.
There was, you know, some Hail Mary hope that maybe Sliwa would drop out before the voting started.
He did not.
And apparently, it was just a huge day of first voting, just lots and lots of numbers, which would suggest that the conclusion is already a done deal.
And it would suggest that Mondami is going to win easily.
We'll have to wait for the results.
But that's what it suggests.
So I wasn't really following this whole Canada Ronald Reagan tariff advertising story, but it just persisted a little bit longer than I wanted.
So I'll mention it.
So the basic idea was that things were starting to go well with negotiating a trade deal with Canada.
But then the who was it?
This guy for Ontario Premier Doug Ford somehow he got millions and millions of dollars to run an ad campaign that used Ronald Reagan and I think they AI'd him to make it look like he didn't like tariffs and he did that to sort of embarrass Trump and the United States and to and to essentially use our golden Reagan against us.
Trump didn't like that at all.
And so he decided to cancel their, just cancel the trade talks based on an advertisement on TV and add another 10% to their tariffs.
And he said, apparently they had agreed to take it down earlier than they are.
They're going to let it run through the weekend.
And that's what he was mad about.
If they had taken it down immediately when he asked, I guess he'd be okay with it grudgingly.
But they seem to have, he's indicating Trump is that they may have misled him, possibly lied to him.
And I think it's the lying to him part that he's responded to as much as the Reagan part.
But he's got two things that go under his skin.
Don't fuck with our Reagan neighbors and don't lie to us.
You don't get to do that.
We'll still be your best friends, but don't fuck with our Reagan.
Don't lie to us.
Then we're fine.
We're not asking a lot there.
Let's not ask a lot.
Anyway, we'll see where that goes.
That'll probably calm down a little bit.
Trump's over in Asia right now doing what I hope will be some kind of a victory tour.
He's good at this overseas stuff, but he's already gone viral for dancing when he got off the Malaysian plane.
So he lands in Malaysia, and they have this giant welcoming party outside the plane on the tarmac.
And most of the people there are dancers.
So they're doing some native dance.
And Trump sees the dancers.
He joins right in with his Trump fist pump dance that doesn't move much except the fists.
But he still likes seeing it.
I don't know why, but we all like seeing him do it.
And then that became a giant story that he was bonding with the locals just so immediately.
Because leaders of major countries don't get off the plane and start dancing, right?
Can you imagine Putin going out there and seeing the dancers like, yeah, and he starts doing that Russian dance?
I can't imagine it.
Can you imagine President Xi coming out with his Winnie the Pooh face that never changes?
And then suddenly seeing the dancers and going, oh, you can't even imagine it, right?
You can't even imagine it.
If I wanted to imagine a leader who would be, let's say, loose enough and celebrity enough to do what Trump did, which is just a little bit dance, you'd have to go all the way to Boris Johnson just to give somebody that you can even imagine would try it.
So only Trump.
And I'm sure they love him for it.
That will be the Malaysian news will probably just cover that non-stop for all day long, just showing him dancing with the locals and then everybody like, hey, we like this guy.
So he's signed some deals, I think, already, but they were sort of things we knew were going to happen.
Maybe some improvements on the trade.
I think he's already signed some of that.
And I guess he's finalizing a deal that would already been done between Thailand and Cambodia so that they're no longer on a warring basis.
That was already a done deal, but I guess they made it official.
So he's got stuff to sign that's not groundbreaking, but it's all good news.
End of fighting, end of trade negotiations, so we can get ourselves a good deal.
So that's all good.
And Thailand, according to Reuters, Thailand and Malaysia are going to play a bigger role with our critical minerals.
So if what Trump gets out of this is they like him better over there and he gets some better trade deals, he nails down his eight N of nine or eight or nine wars that he's ended, according to him, and he gets some extra mineral play, pretty successful.
Pretty good.
And we just have access to three countries' markets that have been, Reuters says, enhanced.
Good.
It's just free money.
Now, didn't he promise us that the trade deals would basically just be free money?
Free money.
It looks like we got a better deal.
And it's not 100% obvious that these Asian companies also feel they got a better deal.
They might, just because more trade is more better.
But it looks like he's winning.
Have you heard Peter Zion talk about the impending collapse of China for demographic reasons?
He's got a fairly strong argument that China doesn't have any mechanism for survival, that there's no path, and that it's brought on by their demographic manipulations.
So they have so few young people compared to old people that they really don't have any way to survive if you're looking 10, 20 years out.
Now, I'm confident that they'll figure it out.
Robots or some damn thing.
But he does make a strong argument that the size of their problem is not like the size of our problems.
The U.S., actually, even though we've got that demographic problem too, it's small compared to theirs.
So maybe this is the biggest thing that will happen in the future.
Well, I'm still loving the ballroom story distraction because Trump can go over there and make a bunch of news that all looks like good news for him.
Well, the Democrats are left to argue that you should not upgrade a building that is often upgraded.
That's what they have.
Okay, you guys go work on.
You don't like upgrading the building that has been upgraded many times, and it is the responsibility of the president to upgrade it.
All right.
We'll be making some trade deals while you're doing that.
But the ballroom story has so many legs because it's the perfect story for lazy podcasters and lazy news, including myself, because I don't have to do a lot of research to understand construction of a ballroom.
We all understand that prior presidents built basketball courts and swimming pools and stuff.
We all understand what it costs.
Now we know we got the full list yesterday of who's donating to the 350 million.
Turns out it was really easy to get $350 million.
Those companies cough that money up so fast.
Oh yeah, get us on this.
Because they're all smart enough to know that this one's sort of a passion project for Trump and means more.
It's got sort of an emotional hook.
So they're smart enough to know this is not like other things.
Oh yeah, we'll put some money behind this.
We're all in.
So a lot of the big companies stepped up.
It's already funded.
They might even have more money than they need, which is funny.
But it turns out that it's fake news, according to Trump, that he had ever anticipated naming it after himself.
Do you remember the news yesterday or the day before?
Said that Trump was going to name it the Donald J. Trump Ballroom.
Trump says that never happened.
We have not even talked about a name for it.
He's leaning toward the presidential ballroom.
Do you believe that that will be the name?
Apparently, the staff is already sort of cheekily referring to it as the Trump ballroom.
But Trump is very smart to act like that's not a done deal.
After it gets built and you can't take it back, do you think you'll still want it to be the presidential ballroom?
Or will he wait to name it when it's done?
And the first time you'll hear its actual name is when he cuts the ribbon.
And when he cuts the ribbon, he'll say, I'm introducing the what?
Just before he cuts the ribbon.
Introducing the presidential ballroom?
Or the Donald J. Trump ballroom clip?
Too late to change it.
Already made the signs.
So I wouldn't bet against him naming it after himself.
And I wouldn't mind it either because he is the one who took the heat and got it done.
If it gets done, we assume it will.
Anyway, I guess Tennessee filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court challenging birthright citizenship on behalf of 24 states.
So 24 states don't want people to be a citizen just because their parents from some other country came in and had them here.
But I talked to Grok a little bit about this issue, and Grok believes there is no way in the world that the 14th Amendment, which talks about the birthright citizenship, will be altered.
It notes that Trump would like to either narrow it or get rid of it, but it thinks there's no chance of that.
Is that your understanding, too?
That there's really no chance at all that the Supreme Court will get rid of that birthright citizenship.
I don't know enough about the law to have an independent opinion about this, but the only thing it relies on, the people who want it to go away, the birthright citizenship, is this one line that the people born here would be citizens if they're, quote, subject to the jurisdiction they're in, meaning the laws of the United States.
So if they're born in the United States, they live in the United States, and they're subject to all the laws, it would have to be all the laws of the United States, then they're Americans, according to the 14th Amendment.
So you would have to come up with some example where the babies born here who are not citizens until they're born, of course, you'd have to come up with some example where the jurisdiction does not apply to them.
And Grok did not have any examples.
It said, no, there's no example.
Somebody who's born here naturally will be treated exactly the same under our laws.
I think that's true, right?
Would they not be draftable?
They could be drafted, right?
I feel like if you could be drafted, that's the end of the conversation.
How many would agree with me?
If you're born here and you could be drafted, there's not a draft, but if there were, you could be drafted.
You're a citizen.
I don't need to have that conversation expand to any other part of the conversation.
If you could be drafted, you're on my team.
Maybe I don't like it.
Maybe I wish the law were different.
That's a different conversation.
But as long as that's the truth, the reality is that you could be drafted to fight for my freedom.
Oh, you're on my team.
Yeah, that's a.
Yeah, I hear you if you're disagreeing with it.
I understand the arguments on both sides.
But for me, if you're going to be in the military and take up arms and defend me and my country, you're on my team.
That's the end of that story.
But I would like it to go away, actually.
If I could choose, I would want that loophole to go away, but I can't choose.
Apparently, the Trump administration found more than a billion dollars in taxpayer money that was going to illegals.
I think this was just one place.
Have you been paying attention to this stupid argument on the news where the Democrats will say no money ever goes to healthcare for illegals because it's literally illegal to give illegals healthcare money?
And then what do the Republicans say as a response to that?
Well, it's not true.
And then they say some word salad dumb thing that makes the Democrat look like they were right.
I don't think the Democrats are right.
But why can't any Republican explain the other side of this issue?
And I'm not even sure what it is.
Is it something like we don't directly give the money to the illegals for healthcare because that would be illegal?
So instead, we fund we fund the hospitals who are covering them?
Is that the argument?
The Republican response to that is so poor that I've experienced the argument going back and forth several times, and I still don't know what the, I don't know what the Republican argument is.
Do you?
Because then I also saw, was it Elizabeth Warren or something, who said that if your argument is that they're getting treated at the hospitals, that would be the same under all scenarios.
There's nothing that would change the fact that they'll still get treated at emergency rooms.
So what exactly is the Republican argument to that?
I believe the Republican argument is the correct one, that there is money that's being used for those purposes.
But why can't they explain it in a way that sounds like a counterpoint to it's illegal, so we don't do it?
It's kind of confusing, bad messaging by Republicans.
Do better.
I'd help, but I don't understand.
I don't even understand what they're trying to say.
I can't fix their messaging because I don't even know what it is.
I don't know what they're trying to say, much less what they're saying.
So there's a Bill Gates, I've mentioned this before now, but they're really close to approval.
TerraPower is a Gen 4 nuclear power plant that uses that molten salt, and it's safe and cheaper, and they'll make it modular and it'll be the greatest thing.
Apparently, they got through their environmental approvals, which is one of the hardest things to do if you're a new nuclear power company.
And now they have to get a safety so the environment will be fine, but they need a general safety check.
So they have to go for that approval.
But the thing that was interesting about this, because you've heard about this before, is I wondered when did Bill Gates get first involved in funding this?
Because I wondered how long it took.
And the answer was 2006, according to Grok.
So Bill Gates started funding this highly speculative Generation 4 nuclear power with who knows what the odds of this succeeding were.
But in 2006, or was it nine?
Where was it?
2006.
Yeah, that's when the company was founded and Gates got into it.
So I mentioned that only so that you can know how long it takes to develop a new nuclear technology, but also to remind you of the value of our billionaires.
Don't you think that if Bill Gates had not invested a shit ton of money in 2006 on something that was very much not proven, that we would not be here today?
And this might be one of the biggest things that ever happened in the world.
If we get the Gen 6 nuclear power plants commoditized so we can just pound them out and they're safe, that changes everything.
So I wonder how much credit you would be willing to give him.
I know you think he's the devil for other reasons, vaccinations and stuff.
I'm not going to change your mind about him in general.
I'm just saying, would you acknowledge that the United States has this billionaire asset where our billionaires will take a risk on something for 20 freaking years and still take a flyer on it?
Do you know how long ago Elon Musk got into robots and AI?
It was about the same time.
And it's only just now starting to pay off.
Some of our billionaires are serious long-term thinkers with serious risk reward nuts to do things that nobody else would do and nobody else could do, really.
So you can be mad at Bill Gates for all of your other reasons, but he's the guy developing the clean water for Africa and toilets for Africa and nuclear power that's safe.
And not everything he's doing is the devil.
Not everything.
Anyway, the Army is also going to bring nuclear microreactors to their bases by 2028.
I don't know if those nuclear mini reactors will be molten salt or not, but there's a greater chance that they will be now.
Stephen Miller is suggesting that Illinois Governor Pritzer could be arrested on seditious conspiracy charges if they block ICE deportations.
Cassandra McDonald's writing about this in the Gateway Pundit.
What do you think of that?
As a threat, it's probably pretty good.
But would you want to see Pritzker perp walked with handcuffs because he tried to stop ICE deportations?
Would you be okay with that?
I would not be okay with that.
That would be a case of, I get that it would be a real crime, and I get that it could happen.
I wouldn't be happy with it.
I am happy when I see Trump going after the people who lawfared him.
If they lawfared him, yeah, do what you need to do.
If the only thing they did is continually say bad things about him, which I think is Pritzker's situation, he's more like a perpetual critic.
I don't think you perp walk the perpetual critics, even though there's a real crime, potentially.
The hypothetical is that there's a real crime involved.
I don't know how you ignore a real crime.
Again, it's hypothetical.
But if he did commit a real crime and it really got to safety of the population, which it would, I can see why they do it, but I wouldn't love it.
I wouldn't love it.
Anyway, Candace Owens has some new claims.
She's claiming that Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Peter Thiel, they have sort of a non-human vibe, and she wonders if they're alien hybrids.
So that's happening.
I remind you again that I'm a big fan of Candace.
And somebody reminded me today on X that she had come out very favorably with some comments about me in May of May of last year, maybe.
I can't remember if it was after I got canceled or after I came out with my health problems.
But Candace, without any prompting, just one day decided to say very kind things about me and the value of my work.
And so I'm completely biased in her favor.
And I've told you I've met her and she's a very warm person in person, very warm, and very talented, one of the most talented people in the game.
So I'm just pro-Candace, front to back, top to bottom.
I'm just pro-Candice.
So, and you all know that doesn't mean I have to agree with all the takes, right?
That's the way it works.
But love her to death.
All right.
There's at least one scientist, Harvard scientist, who's teasing us about this giant comet that's heading through our solar system.
And apparently it changed.
It grew a tail.
It didn't have a comet tail, but now it does.
And so one scientist is teasing that it might be an alien craft and that that's a sign of its maneuvering.
That's basically firing thrusters in the different directions of maneuver.
I don't think that there are any other scientists who are agreeing with that take, but I love that plucky scientist who says it might be.
It might be full of aliens.
What we don't know is if that's the alien Uber that's coming to pick up Elon and Sam and Phil.
So if Candace is right, that big comet's going to land somewhere in Silicon Valley and a big door will open, and then our billionaires will all get back on board and go back to their home planet.
No, they're not aliens, I don't think.
Probably.
Good chance they're not.
At least 50% chance they're not aliens.
All right.
Speaking of aliens, Daily Mail has a story, Chris Mallor, about allegedly evidence of non-human intelligence near U.S. nuclear sites.
So apparently, since the 40s, we've been observing that there are some things that get extra bright in the sky if it's over a nuclear test before the nuclear test.
And the thinking is that we've been observed for all these many years by aliens who seem to know when we're going to do a nuclear test.
And so they put assets around and you can see the assets in the air above the site.
It'd be sort of extra glowing something, somethings.
Well, that's the claim.
Do you believe any of that?
I'm going to go with no.
I'm going to go with no.
There are no aliens watching our nuclear tests.
Might be.
I mean, I can't rule it out, but I'm going to go with no.
I saw a Democrat Ram Emmanuel with a really good turn of a phrase that I liked so much I wanted to share it.
He was talking about what the Democrats did wrong in 2024, and he used this phrase.
He said, Democrats allowed themselves to be framed in a cultural cul-de-sac.
To which I said, damn, that's good.
That's really good.
It's good writing.
It's not really great persuasion, but it's really good writing.
A cultural cul-de-sac.
Sort of perfect.
He's very smart, Ram Emanuel is.
Somebody said in the comments that he's got the right message, but he's the wrong messenger.
I think that's true.
He's another older white guy.
I just don't know that the Democrat Party has patience for another older white guy.
And he's more famous for being tough than for charisma.
So being tough, I think, works a little bit better as a mayor.
He's been a mayor.
He's been a diplomat.
I don't know that he's got the presidential vibe, though.
He doesn't have the Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or the Bush vibe.
There's like an extra, there's an extra thing that all those guys had.
Even Hillary.
Hillary had the thing.
But he doesn't have the thing.
He just doesn't have the thing, whatever that is that makes you look like a president.
Kamala did.
Kamala had the thing.
She didn't act like a president, but she had sort of the, I don't know, the charisma or the vibe or, you know, just the feel of it.
Doesn't.
But he has lots of good points about what the Democrats should have done.
They should have listened to him.
Speaking of old white Democrats, Carville is James Carville's off the reservations again.
And he says that Trump, what he calls collaborators, and I have to wonder if I'm one of them.
Would he consider me a Trump collaborator?
I mean, I think Bill Maher considers me on the collaborator team.
He doesn't use that word, but would Carville consider me a collaborator?
Because he said the collaborators should have their heads shaved.
Okay, I do need to get my head shaved.
Put in orange pajamas.
Okay, I like orange, and I do like wearing pajamas.
So it's not so bad so far.
Basically, it's my normal day wearing pajamas and having it shaved head.
And then march down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Well, I like taking walks.
I like exercises.
Well, so far, this is good.
I'm getting exercises in my pajamas, and then somebody shaved my head for free.
Okay, where's the downside?
There's got to be a downside to this.
Oh, here it is.
It's well, the public spits on them.
Well, that's not good.
That's after Trump leaves office.
Well, what I would do is I would declare, if I were in this situation, I would declare a COVID emergency and I would demand all the Democrats wear masks so that they were only spitting on the inside of their own mask.
Well, I got some exercise taking a walk in my pajamas and somebody shaved my head for free.
That's how I play it.
So now, if I were to assume that Carville includes people like me on his collaborator list, what would be my incentive for arguing that Trump should not have a third term?
He just gave me a reason to argue for Trump's third term because he's basically saying, it looks pretty direct, that I will personally be punished if I'm alive, and Trump gets out of office.
I'll be punished for being a collaborator.
Now, unless he wants to define this collaborator thing a lot more narrowly, wouldn't you think that podcasters who reliably support him would be called collaborators?
If this were Nazi Germany, I'd be a collaborator, right?
Just because I'm on a team.
Well, maybe it could be that Steve Bannon's trying to stay in a jail for a second time and that he knows the only way to do it is if Trump stays in office.
Because I do believe that the so-called collaborators, and Bannon would certainly be on that list, even if I'm not, they would be in for some trouble.
And it could be real-life trouble, as in go to jail, as in lose everything you have, as in lose your family.
Is that what we're looking at?
Because James Carville, if that's what you're really promising us, if you're promising us that you and your you and your Klan are going to come after Trump collaborators and you're not going to define in advance what a collaborator is, well, you just flipped me to a third term.
I'm going to make the change right now.
As long as this fucking asshole is talking like this, I'm in favor of a third term.
If you can calm down this bullshit, I'll be on your side.
No third terms for anybody.
That's where I was 10 minutes ago.
Now I'm looking at this and I'm saying, fuck you.
Fuck you.
If you're going to give this vague threat that when Trump leaves, people like me are going to be victimized.
Yeah, we're going to go for a third term.
And that's on you, asshole.
That's all on you, asshole, because I was absolutely 100% against a third term until right fucking now.
And the longer I look at this, the madder I get.
Yeah, third term.
Or shut the fuck up about this collaborator getting spit on shit.
You need to take that back right away.
And until he takes it back, I'm all down on third term.
So you got to put it at stake now.
All right.
Apparently, the heist at the Louvre where the French jewels got stolen looks like it was an inside job, of course.
Don't you always assume it's an inside job when somebody pulls off an impressive theft?
Yeah, so they think one of the insiders told them about the security problem and that that's how it all got done.
Moscow successfully tested some new nuclear-powered cruise missile.
I guess because it's nuclear-powered, it can fly around all day.
And it did.
So that's scary.
We know who the donor was who gave the $130 million to pay the soldiers during the government shutdown.
It was billionaire businessman Timothy Mellon, according to the New York Post, Jeff Earl.
I guess he's a billionaire whose family is worth $43 billion or something.
He's part of the Mellon Bank heirs.
And he just wanted to pay that.
So I guess he did.
But the part that's not being reported is that the Pentagon can't spend it.
Apparently, there's some other regulation that would not allow them to use that money.
So he gave the money, but it's not clear that the money can be spent.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is everything I wanted to tell you today.
Not bad for a Sunday.
I stretched that lack of news all the way to the top of the hour.
But I'm going to say a few words privately to the beloved local subscribers who get a little bit extra.
Last night we did another drawing session in the man cave where I do some writing and some drawing.
So I'm loving my new device.
It's a necklace that holds my phone, so I can show you what my hands are doing when I'm drawing.
People seem to love it because it's some kind of calming vibe.
So it's got some kind of ASMR quality to it.
Most of the time I'm not talking, but when I do, I'm telling you what I'm doing with the drawing.
So I'll say things like, well, I'll flip this around and turn this backwards.
This still burst a little bit too big.
I'll shrink them down.
So it's sort of a Bob Ross situation.
Anyway, it's very popular, but we don't have a lot of people who watch it.
And they mostly hang out with each other.
They chat with each other while they're watching me draw.
Yep, it's a Scott Adams POV.
Exactly.
Add a happy little PHP over here.
All right.
So just so you know that that's happening.
All right, locals, I'm going to come at you privately.
