Trump and the imaginary China deals, Republicans hunted, and more fun~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Standard Time Health Benefits, LED Skin Cancer Treatment, Optimus Functionality, Generic Biologics, Fusion Reactor Development, Democrat Word Thinking, Government Shutdown, Jessica Tarlov, President Trump, Asia Trade Deals, President Xi, China Tariffs Reduction, Arctic Frost, Democrats Hunted Republicans, Jack Smith, Whoopi Goldberg, National Priorities, Thomas Massie, JD Vance, President Obama, Pro-Censorship Obama, Government Fact Control, Mike Donilon, Bill Gates Nuclear Pivot, Jonathan Karl, Gavin Newsom's Appearance, Elise Stefanik, Gaza Security Deal, Fingerprinting Migrants, UK Civil War, Anti-Drone Laser, NG Rapid-Response Units, Scott Adams
We'll give you the show that you deserve today for the first time.
All right.
Well, I'm lost in the locals menus and cannot determine any way that I can see my own show.
Let's see.
I will close locals on that screen.
Reopen.
it should open right up to where i want 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 to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of mugger, a glass of tanker, chalicerstein, a canteen, juggerna flask, a vessel of any kind, filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
happens now.
If you're wondering why I'm using two hands for my cup, it's because my hands are semi-paralyzed at the moment.
Thanks to something that's going on with my body.
I told the local subscribers before I got on here.
I went to the emergency room yesterday on my doctor's orders because of the growing paralysis of my hands.
And the emergency room sent me home without the MRI because they said this is no emergency.
We're not allowed to use the MRI unless it's an emergency.
And I said, my doctor said me here.
She even emailed ahead to make sure you knew what you were going to do so that you would do it.
Yeah, but upper back, it's not an emergency.
I'm getting paralyzed.
I can barely move one hand.
Yeah, but you're not dying.
So guy with a snake bike came in.
He didn't do much better, but I think they saved his life.
Anyway, so today is the first day I get my radiation treatment.
It'll just be a spot treatment for the one place that's bothering me in my lower body.
It would not be a treatment for whatever's happening with my paralysis.
But the Blue Victor might help with that if I ever get a schedule.
So that's the update.
I like to start with a reframe to change your life.
As you know, the reframes in my book reframe your brain.
Change people's lives with one sentence.
Although each person is different, so the sentence that changes your life will be different than the one that changes somebody else's.
But maybe, maybe today's your day.
Let's see.
Here's a usual frame.
People tell you that you should compete against yourself.
Have you ever heard that?
They'll say, you know, no, no, no, you're not competing against other people.
You're just trying to do better than you do.
Have you ever heard that advice?
Very common advice.
Bad advice.
Here's some better advice.
I'm going to reframe it.
Instead of competing with yourself and trying to improve over time, which sounds like a good idea, you can do better.
Compete against other people.
You'll do better if you compete against other people.
But here's the trick.
Even if they're unaware that you're competing with them.
So, you don't have to tell them you're competing with them.
Could be a co-worker, could be, you know, classmate or something.
But you just tell yourself, okay, I'm going to beat that one.
That one I'm going to beat.
And then you've got a target, you've got something specific, and you're far more likely to accomplish something specific than something generic.
Everybody knows that, right?
So, if you say, I'm going to beat that person on that chemistry test, even if they don't know you're competing, it's going to help you compete.
So, that's your reframe of the day.
Good for young people, especially.
All right.
Let me make sure I get all your comments.
Yes, I do.
Well, according to somebody named Lara Weed, best last name I could ever imagine, Lara Weed.
Anyway, she's a circadian research lab person from Stanford, so she knows what she's talking about.
And there's a new study that says you shouldn't change the time.
You know, now we do this standard versus daylight time.
But here's the new wrinkle.
So, changing the time is bad for people's circadian rhythms, and they have health problems and other problems.
But it's bad no matter how you change it.
So, if you stuck with daylight versus standard time, it would still be better than if you changed it twice a year.
So, it's the change that's the problem.
But, on top of that, keeping things at standard time would be the least burden on your circadian rhythms.
So, at least according to one study, not that we trust science anymore, but something to talk about.
Keeping it on standard time would be the healthiest.
So, we don't know.
Well, according to Dr. Peter Diamandis, who I see at X, I follow on X, I guess chemo may be something that we won't need anymore for skin cancer because there's a new research, scientists say, they can kill 92% of skin cancer cells using an LED light without damaging healthy cells.
Hmm, that sounds pretty good.
What will Democrats say about the development of LED light to fight cancer?
What will they say?
Well, we already know what they'll say.
Democrats will say, Why would you use household disinfectants and bleach to kill cancer?
And then I would say, What?
Nobody said anything about bleach.
Yeah, you just said bleach will cure your cancer.
No, nobody even used the word.
Nobody even used the word.
No, we were talking about light from the beginning to end.
We're talking about light.
Yeah, were you because the news said that you said bleach would do it?
Do you all remember the drinking bleach hoax, which was exactly, it was done exactly the same way as the fine people hoax.
In both cases, the hoax was because you cut off the clarifier when Trump said, but I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis.
They should be condemned totally.
You take that off, and it reverses what he said.
With the drinking bleach thing, if you take off the beginning where Trump said he was talking about light, and then you take off the clarifier at the end, where he again emphasizes he was only talking about light, if you take those clarifiers off, it allowed the news to say that he was talking about household disinfectants or bleach because the other people had talked about it before.
It's the same hoax.
So it's funny to see that there's yet another light treats a disease.
We'll see and then report it as, why would you put bleach on your skin?
No, they won't because Trump didn't say it.
According to interesting engineering, now we can make, or we, like you and I can do it, somebody can make artificial neurons that replicate real brain chemistry.
And you would do that because it might be another way to get to AI.
How many times have I told you that our current big AI models, the large language models, will never get you to general intelligence?
They'll just sort of be able to do what they can do now, but maybe a little bit better.
They're not really going to get over the hump to be like a thinking conscious anything.
It doesn't have that potential, in my opinion.
But there are a whole bunch of other AI approaches that are being rapidly prototyped, at least, because I think people know that there's a limit to the large language models.
And so this neuron replicator was specifically so they can build a better AI with a completely different, you know, completely different method.
I think I've read several now, there are several different approaches that all have that same quality, which is they're not regular LLMs.
They're a completely different approach because they think that would get you to advance general intelligence.
So if I had to bet, I would bet that the LLMs are going to get leapfrogged by some smaller entity and then they'll get bought up pretty quickly.
But if some smaller entity could do that, you know, do the whole large language model without a trillion dollars, you know, if they could do it for $100, some trillion-dollar company is going to buy them pretty quickly.
So that'll happen.
As you know, Elon Musk has said, and I like repeating it because every time I hear it, it makes me happy.
The Optimus, the robots that Tesla is going to make and is making already, will cost less than a car, $20,000 to $30,000 eventually.
But here's the fun part.
Elon says it will be able to do anything you want.
Well, anything?
I don't know about anything.
But it could teach, maybe say your kids, walk your dog, mow your long, get groceries, serve drinks, or just be your friend.
Whatever you can think of, it will do.
I can think of a lot of things.
It's going to be awesome.
And I think this will be the biggest product ever of any kind.
Now, that's the exciting part, that we could be watching the greatest product innovation rollout trend of all time, of all history.
And we're going to get to watch it, I think.
But this would suggest that Elon Musk thinks that he has a version of AI that can get to something like general intelligence, because that's what he's describing here.
The LLMs would never get you to a robot that could do with that stuff.
It just isn't just the wrong technology.
But he uses visual training.
So he's doing a lot of visual training.
And I think some probably some artificial worlds training too.
So it looks like he thinks he has a path.
And if he says he has a path, I would not doubt him.
Did you know that in addition to drugs that are, what do you call them, generics?
So, you know, we have generic drugs, but the pharma would wish we didn't, because if there were no such thing as generics, then they could forever have a monopoly on their IP, their property.
But over time, their IP times out, and then there can be a generic for the drug.
But did you know there's a separate category of drugs?
And I'm not smart enough to know what's in the category, but the biologics, biologics.
So that's a category of drugs.
But apparently, according to RFK Jr., who just did an announcement about it, apparently the pharma was doing a great job of marketing and persuading Congress not to allow knockoffs of their biologics.
And the argument was that nobody would be able to make a proper copy.
That's sort of like magic and wizardry and more like making a fine wine.
And you couldn't let anybody knock off the biologics because it might be dangerous and ineffective.
And somehow they sold that, meaning that if you tried to make an imitation or copy of one of these biologics that had lost its copyright protection or whatever protection has, that you couldn't do it because they had put too many obstacles in the way.
But apparently there's going to be a rules change and President Trump's going to sign something that would allow companies to compete for this big category of biologics.
And that would be, in my opinion, a huge win for RFK Jr. because it's not the sort of thing that necessarily would have even come up had he not been running the show.
So not only did he identify a problem that has potentially enormous economic value to consumers, but it looks like he acted, identified the problem, acted, solved.
I mean, I'm sure nothing's that easily solved, but it looks like a win to me.
OANN is reporting on that.
Well, meanwhile, NASA is reportedly building, or it's well along the way, building a quiet supersonic jet.
So something that doesn't go bam when it crosses the sound barrier.
This one goes thud.
A more, let's say, acceptable noise in the atmosphere.
And they're already testing it.
It's already built and they're doing test flights.
And it works.
And if it works, and if it brings in a new era of air travel, it could reduce the time that you go across the country to, I don't know, maybe half.
So imagine flying from California to New York in three hours instead of six-ish.
That'd be a pretty big change.
Imagine, you know, I live in California.
Most of the Californians who have a little extra money like to go to Hawaii.
That's sort of the closest tropical looking place.
Imagine instead of six hours to Hawaii, it's three.
It completely changes the experience.
For me, any kind of travel, when I could travel, was all about the time you had to be in the plane.
If you can reduce the time when you're on the plane, I'm all in.
But if you're going to tell me I need to be on a plane for 14 hours to go to Bora Bora or something, I can't do 28 hours of sitting on a plane there and back.
But if you cut it in half, yeah, suddenly.
Suddenly it looks kind of practical.
All right, so we'll wait for that.
Supersonic flights.
Allegedly, according to Dr. Singularity, who's got some news on X, a number of the big AI companies have built an artificial simulated fusion reactor situation.
So allegedly, I'm a little skeptical about this one, but let me tell you what it is.
That we've been trying to get fusion energy, but it's really complicated and hard.
We know we can do it because it's now fusion as a technology is a proven technology, but not engineered to economic success yet.
So there's an economic iteration process that has to go through.
We don't need to prove it can work.
We're already past that.
We just need to engineer it so it does work and it's reliable and safe.
Fusion should be safer, if you do it right.
It should be safer than fission, except for the Gen 4.
And so NVIDIA and some other big companies have allegedly gotten together and built an artificial fusion situation so that they can iterate a bunch of different things within a virtual world, and then that will tell them what to do in the real world.
Now, do you believe that they can, do you believe that they can't build a fusion reactor yet that meets all the requirements, but that they could build an accurate AI simulation of it?
Does that sound like something people could do?
I'm going to say no.
Sorry.
I'm going to say no.
I don't think people could do that.
It might teach us something, or it might maybe pop up a possibility that we had not considered.
But I don't think it would accurately simulate it.
Do you?
And how would you know if it accurately simulated it?
Because we can't do it in the real world.
So what would you compare it to to know that it had accurately simulated it so you weren't wasting your time seeing what the simulation would do?
So let's just say, call me skeptical.
All right.
Have you heard of my book, Loser Think?
Let me grab it off the shelf.
Hold on.
There it is.
Sorry, I meant to be more prepared.
So my book, Loser Think, has many examples of how to poorly think so that you know not to do it.
One of the more important points in the book is what I call word thinking.
Have you heard me talk about that before?
Word thinking.
So word thinking is where you're trying to make an argument that really just forces the other person to accept your definition of a word as opposed to an argument.
So word thinking is the opposite of being rational and the opposite of making an argument.
It's just trying to browbeat somebody into accepting that the word you're using for a thing is the right word because that carries the argument with it if you buy the word.
For example, if they could sell you that Gaza was a genocide, then they don't need to make an argument.
If you accept the word, they're done, right?
But it's really more complicated than it is or is not a word.
There's a whole backstory, there's a context, there's everything.
So whenever you see somebody trying to force you to take their word as their definition, that's just propaganda.
That's just power.
That has nothing to do with what's right or wrong or logical.
Now, what do Democrats say about the government shutdown?
Well, Governor Newsom's press office says, quote, if you control all three branches of government, how are you not in charge?
So they're using the word control as the word that they want you to accept.
If you accept control, then you have accidentally accepted that the Republicans are the ones that can open the government all by themselves.
Right?
There's no argument there.
They just want you to accept control.
If you buy into the definition of who's in control, and they've defined it as, you know, who's got control of the three parts of the government, then you are in control, and therefore, logically, only you can open the government.
Now, everybody who pays attention to the news knows that the Democrats would have to vote for it also, in at least large enough numbers to get it passed, and then not.
So the Democrats have complete control because all they have to do is say yes, and the government opens, because the Republicans have already said yes to a continuing resolution, which would get it done.
Now, you may have seen Jessica Trowlov arguing on the five, the same point.
And what she does is she uses a word thinking substitution.
I think the word she used, if I remember, was incumbent.
She said that if you're the one who owns all, if you're in control of the three branches of government, as Republicans are, that it is incumbent upon you to negotiate with the minority, the Democrats, and give them something in return for them agreeing to open the government.
Now, do you see the word thinking there?
That's word thinking.
There's no argument there.
She's trying to replace an argument with a word, incumbent.
It's incumbent upon you.
But where is the connecting tissue?
Where's the logic that says that you've got two teams?
One team has already said yes to open the government.
The other team has not yet said yes.
Why would it be incumbent on the ones who have already said yes to give something away when they've already agreed to do the thing that's the thing, which is open the government and pay for it?
They've already agreed.
There's no incumbent anything.
Who wrote that rule?
Is there something in the Constitution about what makes you incumbent?
Now, I hope I'm using the right word.
Was incumbent the word she used on the five?
I didn't write it down, but from memory, I think that's what.
But if it's not incumbent, it's a word like that.
So it's the same point, even if it's a different word.
So how many of you recognize this now?
How many of you recognize that this was always word thinking, and that's all it ever was?
And that a great deal of the Democrat narratives and approaches are this.
They just try to get you to buy into a word.
What are some other words the Democrats are trying to get you accept?
Insurrection when they talk about January 6th.
They don't want to give an argument because the argument would go like this.
What did those people want to accomplish?
Oh, they thought the election was rigged and they were trying to pause it to make sure that we had a fair election.
That's what an actual argument would look like.
But if you can't win the argument, you try to do it with word thinking.
You say it's an insurrection.
Well, no, not really, because that was not the intention of any of the people who had attended.
It was an insurrection.
But it really wasn't.
So if you get into the arguing over what the word means, then they have a chance of at least a tie, because people who don't pay attention to the news will think, well, half of them say it's an insurrection, half of them say it's not.
Sort of a tie.
So I'll just go with my team that says it is.
It's not a tie.
It's not even close to a tie.
There probably wasn't one person there who thought that they could take over the government by walking around unarmed and trespassing.
Not one person, I'll bet, thought that that would take over the government.
Anyway, so that's what word thinking is when there's no argument, but they're trying to get you to accept their words.
Meanwhile, Trump's been over in Asia trying to making deals.
I guess he might have made a deal for some soybeans.
I can't tell if this is a good deal or a bad deal, but 25 million tons and 12 million tons immediately.
So Besant was announcing that, and also he rents land to farmers who do soybeans.
So Besent went over there and got a deal that was good for Besent.
Caroline.
Was it good for anybody else?
I have no context to know whether that would be good for anybody else, but certainly it would be good for the soy farming landlords.
Sorry, I just needed that extra sip.
All right, what else did he get?
But that's not all.
We've got reports of other deals that Trump made.
Let's see.
So he got the soybeans.
So that's good for the farmers.
What I wonder about, and I don't know if we'll ever find this out, did our farmers grow a bunch of soybeans and then have to throw them away because they didn't have any place to sell them?
Have they already wasted the soybeans that they grew?
Or do they have a bunch of stored up soybeans that are just ready to go and that this is just pure good news?
I don't know.
Because if they already lost the whole season, which they might have, right?
Isn't it possible that farmers lost the whole season?
That would put a lot of people out of business.
So I don't know how good or bad this is.
Does it save us?
And by us, I mean the soy farmers.
I don't know.
But I guess the president and President Xi, they met, but they did not talk about Taiwan or the deal for TikTok.
I think that was the right play because it's not like they were going to make a decision on Taiwan while they were there for an hour and a half.
And it's not like I don't think the TikTok deal needed any extra approvals, right?
He didn't need Xi to say yes, because they already said yes.
So it doesn't make sense that they would have talked about those.
Those were lower priority for the meeting, I think.
But they did talk about other stuff.
And Trump says he's going to drop the tariff by 10 basis points, 10%, because China promised to do more on fentanyl.
Does that sound like a win for the United States?
We lowered their tariff because the tariff had been put on because they weren't doing enough about fentanyl.
But Xi said he would try harder on fentanyl.
That's a nothing.
Unfortunately, that's a nothing.
Try harder?
No, he's not going to try harder.
That's a nothing.
But we did reduce their tariffs, so they got us something.
So China got us something, but it was also something artificial because Trump has simply made up the tariff.
So Xi got something that didn't have any actual value because it was just something that Trump made up.
I'll give you more, you know, I'll increase your tariff.
And then he took away the thing he made up.
So that's sort of a break-even.
We were not getting enough help with fentanyl.
We're still not going to get enough help with fentanyl.
That's a nothing.
So apparently this deal of tariffs reduced for fentanyl help, to me, it looks a little more like we gave them nothing in return for nothing.
To me, that's just nothing.
Love to be wrong.
I would love to be wrong about that.
And then apparently China is not going to bother us on the rare earth minerals.
They're going to be somewhat unrestricted, but they can change that on a dime, right?
China can change their mind on the rare earth minerals five minutes.
So does it really mean anything when they say they're not going to try to restrict our rare earth minerals?
To me, it looks more like they want to make sure that they can corner that market and not encourage us to create alternative sources.
Because I think they know that they would have more power if we believed that we had a secure supply of rare earth from them only, or if they're the biggest source.
So I got a feeling that's strategic than being a good friend.
You know, they're like, we'd rather maintain our total power over your rare earth.
So for now, we're going to sell you all you want.
Sort of like a drug dealer.
So I don't know.
It's better that they're not restricting it at the moment, as long as we don't pull back from our effort to diversify our sources.
I don't think we are.
All right, what else do they agree on?
That China is going to, quote, discuss trip rest, the microchip restrictions with NVIDIA.
Is that anything?
So they agreed that somebody's going to talk to somebody.
So China's going to talk to NVIDIA.
But NVIDIA doesn't get to approve or not approve the chip sales.
That's the government.
So the people who can't make the decision are going to talk about it.
That's a nothing.
Again, it's a nothing.
But maybe it looks good on paper.
And then according to the Kobeesi letter on X, I didn't see it anywhere else, but allegedly one of the agreements is that China and the U.S. will, quote, collaborate on Ukraine.
Do you think the U.S. and China are going to collaborate on Ukraine?
No.
No.
That's a nothing.
That couldn't possibly be a thing.
No, that's not going to happen.
And that there's talk that a real trade deal, a more comprehensive trade deal might be coming.
Maybe.
I don't see it.
So it could be that the only real thing on this list of accomplishments, and you know, you've been with me long enough, you know, I'm totally pro-Trump, right?
You know, I'm totally pro-America, pro-Trump.
I don't think he got anything.
Is that okay?
Everybody okay with that take?
I don't think he got anything.
But he didn't lose anything.
I don't think he lost anything.
Did you see the body language when they were doing the extended handshake?
God, that looked awkward, didn't it?
We've seen Trump shake hands with every kind of leader in the world, and it always looks like he has some kind of physical dominant advantage over them.
Well, President Xi, obviously, you know, he's operating at a high level, and he knows what the handshake means, and he knows what it looks like, and he's a big guy.
He's physically a big guy.
So Xi held tight, and he just kept his President Xi face.
He didn't get pulled in by the charisma.
He was absolutely charisma-resistant.
And I didn't see any other leader who ever even tried that.
So if you were going to grade them on their body language, it was a tie.
And maybe Xi won because he was not affected in any way by the handshake.
And you're looking for him to be affected.
So it looked very awkward.
They looked very uncomfortable.
There was no point where they looked like buddies, but Trump's trying to sell it as their best friends and they could work together, which is good, by the way.
Trump should be acting like, you're my friend.
We're going to do great.
China and the U.S. can grow together.
Those are all the right messages.
So he's doing the right messaging.
But no, Xi is very clearly holding his cards close to his chest.
He's not giving up anything.
And Trump did a good job of complimenting him, saying he was a great leader of a great country.
And I think those are both true statements.
He's a strong leader of a great country.
So saying that is smart and good, good politics.
All right.
What else?
And also, Secretary Besson says that Trump's coming back with $2 trillion in added investments.
That's not from China.
That's from the other countries, Japan, South Korea, et cetera.
And that's pretty good.
I don't think any president has done as well as Trump in bringing business to the United States.
Nobody's even close, right?
Is it fair to say that nobody's even tried this hard to make the U.S. the dominant place you do business?
Well, it's a little out of order, but I was going to talk about Trump was giving a speech somewhere over there, and he was talking about making America the easiest place to do business.
And That is the smartest thing you'll ever see for the US.
Because the contrast, he didn't have to say it out loud.
The contrast is that it's dangerous to do business in China, right?
Did any of you catch that?
When he was giving his speech, it looked like he was just talking about the US.
We're going to make the U.S. the easiest place to get a permit, the easiest place to get approved, the best systems, presumably the best court systems, et cetera.
That's important.
He didn't say that, but that's important.
So he's consciously saying, I'm going to brand the United States as the best place to do business.
That would be worth the whole trip.
That reframe of America is the best place to do business in the context of all of us knowing, but we don't have to say it out loud anymore, that China is the worst place to do business because it's going to be hard to get permits.
If you get things approved, it might be yanked back.
They're going to spy on you, steal your IP, put every obstacle in the way, and then eventually steal your entire business if they can.
Comparing America, you can be free, you can get here, you can set up shop, you can get a permit, you'll get approved, the legal system will treat you right.
That's no competition.
That is just no competition.
And Trump knows a winning play.
So by making it a big deal to brand the U.S. as the best place to do business, he's sort of bringing together a bunch of things that we know to be true or could be true, which is the easy to get a permit.
It's not true yet.
He has to make that true, but he can do it.
This is one of the strongest, best plays you'll ever see an American president do.
It would be hard to top that as the smartest, best, most capable thing you could do if you're president.
Really, I'm just blown away by how smart that is.
It seems only a simple thing, but other people could have done it, right?
If you say to yourself, but Scott, that's just a simple thing.
It's just a thing he's saying in a speech.
Anybody could have said that before, right?
But they didn't.
It's the saying that matters.
The saying matters.
Well, are you following the story of Arctic Frost?
That was the legal project that Jack Smith was going after the Republicans, going after Trump.
But what we know now is that part of that effort, Ted Cruz is telling us about it, is that the Department of Justice under Biden issued 197 subpoenas for 430 Republican entities and individuals.
The Democrats, once Biden was elected, were literally hunting Republicans.
Do you remember when Bill Maher mocked me last week for saying that Republicans would be hunted if Biden got elected?
I said that back in 2020 on X. He mocked me for that.
He mocked me for saying they would be hunted, while at the same time, one of the biggest stories in the country is that Republicans were being hunted.
Now, maybe he thought I meant with a gun, and in some cases, that too.
But I didn't mean that necessarily with a gun, just that they would be hunted, you know, hunted by people who wanted them harm.
This is hunted by people who wanted them harm people.
I could not have been more right about this.
And that's not even counting the January 6th, you know, just the civilians.
This is the elected Republicans.
My God.
Oh, my God.
Now it's being called, of course, worse than Watergate.
And, you know, I'm totally biased on this topic, but isn't it worse than Watergate?
It looks like it to me.
Watergate was a tiny little thing when you look at it in the rearview mirror, especially.
You know, it seemed bigger then, of course, because the news told you it was bigger.
But in the rearview mirror, this looks a lot bigger, a lot bigger, and like 100 times bigger.
So we'll see where this goes.
Probably nowhere.
Eric Doherty, as opposed to an X, he was noticing on the View that Whoopi Goldberg was being especially stupid.
I think he called her ironic.
And she was talking about the Biden AutoPen.
So this is Whoopee Goldberg on the View.
And she says she wants the Biden administration, I'm sorry, the Trump administration to, quote, stop investigating a man who is no longer in office.
This is Whoopi on the View.
Stop investigating a man who is no longer in office, meaning Biden.
Now, did I mention that this is the same time as the Arctic Frost story is one of the biggest stories in the country?
You know, the part where the Biden administration couldn't stop investigating Trump after he was out of office.
At the same time, the same time it's one of the biggest stories.
And she's saying, stop investigating a man who's no longer in office.
And here's what Whoopee said that they should be talking about and worrying about.
Are you ready for her priorities?
All right, so it's 2025.
And these are Whoopi's priorities.
Soybeans, solved.
Epstein files don't really exist.
And those narco boats, she wants to make sure that we've identified them as actual criminals, not just kill them.
So those are her three priorities.
Soybeans, solved.
Epstein, probably imaginary.
I doubt there's any files.
And narco boats that probably the government is doing exactly what they should be doing.
We just don't know the details.
What's missing?
Do you see anything missing from the list?
How about crushing national debt?
Missing.
How about their biggest concern used to be, say it, climate change?
Yeah, we'll talk about climate change a little bit too.
So what happened to climate change?
Suddenly that's not a big deal.
It's all about the soybeans and the Epstein file and the narco boats.
I would like to make my own list of the least important things to me.
The least important things.
Soybeans, Epstein files, and narco boats.
I'm kind of interested in all of them.
They're interesting in their own little way, but they're the smallest problems I have in the world.
But whoopie, she's got to get those soybeans and Epstein files solved.
Climate change, not so much.
Let's talk about Thomas Massey and the many dust-ups with President Trump.
So J.D. Vance was asked at one of the turning point USA events recently.
He was asked why Trump is going after Thomas Massey, which he is, trying to primary him.
And here's JD's explanation.
And then I'll give you my take on this.
He says, it's one thing to disagree with the party on an issue.
Voting against the party on every single issue, every time we've needed Thomas for a vote, he's been completely unwilling to provide it.
That's why Trump turned his ire on Massey.
We could never count on him for some of the most difficult votes.
I say that as someone who knew Thomas well before I got into politics.
All right.
Here's my take on Thomas Massey.
What JD is leaving out of his explanation is why he does it.
Why would you leave out why he doesn't?
Now, I'm not like an expert on every single thing that Thomas Massey has ever done, but can you answer this question for me?
Is it not true that his resistance to Republican things is always based on the Constitution and always based on an accurate reading of the Constitution?
Am I wrong about that?
Our problem with him is that he can accurately read our own Constitution and then he acts upon it.
There may be some exceptions where there's just something he knew more about than the government.
He's into allowing farmers to sell things directly.
I think that's one of his issues.
I don't know if the rest of the government or the Republicans disagree with that or not.
I mean, he has some other issues.
But I think JD, if you wanted to be fair about this, and to be fair, his job is to support the president.
His job is not to be completely transparent.
He's a supporter of the president, and that's his right role.
So within his role as vice president, this is totally acceptable the way he framed it.
But as a consumer and as a fan of Massey, I just need to say I like one person who's supporting the Constitution, even if he's a pain in the ass.
I will accept his pain in the ass-ness because it doesn't seem to affect too many votes.
How many times has he been the one, the only one, who determined which way the vote went?
Has that ever happened?
Or is he just reliably not in their column?
Because if he'd actually changed the outcome of things that I cared about, maybe I'd reassess.
But I don't think he actually changed any outcomes.
I think he's just not reliably on their vote.
So anyway, I'm pro-Massey.
I completely understand the argument that winning is more important than maybe some niceties.
But I like my Constitution, and I like that there's one person who will risk everything to remind us what's in it.
Well, Obama is talking.
He was at some event and said some scary Obama-sounding things that I'll criticize in a moment.
He said, quote, part of what we're going to have to do, who is we?
The government, the Democrats?
Part of what we're going to have to do is to start experimenting with new forms of journalism.
Uh-oh.
Already there's a problem.
And how we use social media.
Uh-oh.
In ways that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion.
We want diversity of opinion.
No, you don't, you liar.
We don't want diversity of facts.
That, I think, is one of the big tasks of social media.
By the way, it will require some government regulatory constraints.
There it is.
There it is.
He wants some government regulatory constraints.
Now, the way I read this is he wants the government to be in charge of telling you what's real and what isn't real.
Is it a fact or not a fact?
Well, the government, the government will help you with that.
What's that called?
It's called censorship.
It's the dumbest thing.
But here's my take: Doesn't it feel like old thinking to imagine that we know what facts are true?
Can you tell me which domain we're confident that we know the facts are true?
What about those employment numbers?
What about our food pyramid?
What about all the pandemic data?
What about our GDP?
What about the inflation numbers?
There's not a fucking true number in the country, people.
There is no real, reliable fact that any of us will ever agree on.
So, what makes this seem like an opinion from the 70s?
It just feels old.
It's like Obama hasn't noticed that everything from climate change to everything is fake.
It's all fake.
Once you realize that all of the facts are fake and always will be, it's just an idiot idea to follow the facts.
There was a time when we all thought that made sense, right?
If 10 years ago, maybe more, let's say 20 years ago, if 20 years ago he had said exactly this, we have to make sure that people are following facts, because if they're not following the facts, we're all in trouble, and the government will be helpful in helping you know what the facts are.
20 years ago, I would have actually thought that was a thing.
And I would have given that a serious consideration, knowing that there's a censorship risk there.
But I would have given that a serious consideration because I would have thought, well, we're definitely better if we follow the facts, right?
Wouldn't you say that?
Following the facts has got to be better than not following the facts.
And then fast forward 20 years to 2025 and you learn the brutal truth of life.
There are no facts.
There are no facts.
There are only narratives.
There are claims.
There are lies.
There are lucky guesses.
But there are no facts, people.
There are no facts.
So this is all bad.
This is really just Obama saying, we want to control what you think is true.
That's what this is.
We don't want that.
Saw a video yesterday of, I guess, one of Joe Biden's closest advisors, a guy named Mike Donnellin, had been, I guess he was being interviewed about his Biden experience.
And they made him admit that he had millions of dollars on the line for keeping Biden in the race.
Now you know what the problem was, right?
Didn't you know that there had to be some financial thing going on, that Biden's advisors were keeping him in the race?
It always seemed to me that there would be this big class of professionals who literally would have millions of dollars apiece that were on the line if he got elected, right?
Not only would they get paid for helping him get elected, as this Mike Donnellin said he would get up to $4 million if Biden became president again, $4 million.
And coincidentally, Mike Donnelly did not think that he should pull out of the race.
Right.
So, we all watched Biden looking, you know, like a vegetable, but the guy closest to him, who obviously knew what the situation was, had millions of dollars on the line if he lied to us and said he's fine.
Now, I'm not sure that he lied because I can't read his mind, but I certainly wouldn't trust the guy who's got millions of dollars at stake.
There's a video, Libs of TikTok has a video that I don't know exactly who his group is.
It was a group of Democrats, I guess, who are planning to surround the Capitol on November 5th, which they call one year since the fascists got into office.
And they're going to try to increase their number of people around the Capitol until the current administration resigns.
So, they're literally planning an insurrection.
No exaggeration and no word thinking.
So, it would be word thinking if it were not an actual insurrection they were planning, but they even talk about it as removing the government before the term is over.
So, if you're trying to use a protest to remove the government before the government would normally be done, that's an insurrection, right?
I mean, what else would he call that?
So, I'm not doing word thinking, that's just what they say they're doing.
I don't know who this group is, looks like a small group in the room.
I don't know if we have to worry about them yet, but the fact that they're even talking about that is just wow.
So, as you know, Bill Gates made some news by saying that maybe climate change is not the crisis that people thought, and maybe we should spend our money on feeding people and taking care of our other biggest problems.
And people like me made a lot of noise about that.
What's interesting, there's a lot interesting about this.
We'll talk about it.
What's interesting is that we're all trying to read his mind and trying to figure out what was Bill Gates thinking before, and what's he really thinking now?
And why did he make this pivot?
Well, I don't know.
So, I always warn you that you can't read his mind.
I saw that Mike Cernovich is going hard at him reasonably and calling people naive.
I think he used the word naive if you think that all he did was look at the facts and adjust to the new facts.
And I would agree with Mike that although I can't read Bill Gates' mind, I doubt it had anything to do with facts.
It might have to do with the fact that he has now got approval for his Gen 4 nuclear power plant that he's invested in.
Because if that works out, there's going to be he's going to make more money from nuclear power than he's ever made before in any other thing.
I mean, he could be the richest person in the world just because of Gen 4 nuclear power.
I mean, that would be enough.
So, when somebody has a big financial incentive to say, yeah, let's go strong on energy and don't waste our money so much on these other things.
We'll put it all in this area.
It might be just financial.
But again, I can't read his mind, so I don't know.
But according to Harry Enton, who did a survey on or looked at the numbers on CNN, he's their data guy in CNN.
He says that the climate change message has not worked for 36 years.
So back in the year 2000, 40% of the public, I guess, were alarmed about climate, 40%.
That was in the year 2000.
By the year 2020, it had gone up to 46% were concerned.
And then after 2020, it dropped.
So by 2025, only 40% back to where it was in 2000.
So from 25 years of climate alarmism, didn't move the needle at all.
25 years of massive propaganda in one direction didn't move it at all.
Where was Trump the whole time?
Trump was saying that climate change was a hoax the whole time.
Not necessarily the warming part, but the way it was treated as a crisis was a hoax.
And he, of course, couldn't help himself.
So he posted today, We won the war on climate change hoax.
And he said that this is what Trump said on X. Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely wrong on the issue.
It took courage to do so.
And for that, we're all grateful.
MAGA.
So Trump got one of the biggest wins of all time.
Imagine how he feels.
Is there anything that Trump has been more mocked for besides his haircut than the fact that he called climate change a hoax?
I think that was always, besides the trivial stuff like hair and girlfriends and stuff, I think that was like the biggest knock against him, right?
That he was anti-science and he didn't understand what all the smart people did, that we were all going to die in a climate crisis.
Well, people, fast forward, he was right.
He was right.
So what happened between the years 2020 and 2025 that would have caused people to have less belief in climate change?
Is there anybody who got involved in that conversation around 2015?
Well, you can do the math.
All right.
ABC's Jonathan Carl was interviewing Gavin Newsom.
This is funny.
So you would think that ABC might be sort of pro-Democrat, especially in their news division.
But here's what Jonathan Carl actually did in a recorded podcast with Gavin Newsom.
This is almost hard to believe.
This is a real thing.
He held up a picture of the character from the movie American Psycho and held it next to a picture of Gavin Newsom and told him that even his supporters note that he looks like a comic book villain from Central Casting.
Imagine being in an interview with a legitimate news source and the legitimate news guy holds up a picture of you as a character in a movie who's literally a psychopath and it has no news value whatsoever except to point out that he looks like a psychopath.
Now that's funny.
That's just funny.
However, I have to support Jonathan Carl on this.
The way people look totally matters, right?
That's something I can say because I'm just a guy in a podcast.
But you can't say that if you're legitimate news, but he did.
I mean, in his own way, he's saying it as a legitimate news guy.
The way you look matters a lot.
AOC's look.
Do you think that makes a difference?
Of course it does.
President Trump's height, does that make a difference?
Of course it does.
Of course it does.
Yeah, the way people look is hugely influential.
And I do believe, I agree, that Newsom does look like a movie or a comic book villain.
He looks exactly like the Joker, doesn't he?
He's even got the Joker's haircut.
He could walk into a role as the Joker on a Batman movie with almost no makeup.
I'm not wrong about that.
So if people can't notice that, I don't know.
Meanwhile, here's a shock, according to the National Pulse.
I guess Elaine Stefanik, a Republican, just polled the highest for a potential future governor of New York.
And they haven't had a Republican governor in New York in 20 years.
So I don't know if that's real.
That's just one poll.
You can't really believe one poll.
But his new poll from the Manhattan Institute shows Elise Stefanik, Republican, leading both the current governor, Hockle, and Lieutenant Governor of New York, too, who's also a Democrat.
So hypothetically, if they ever ran, she would win.
That would be amazing.
Wouldn't expect that.
Meanwhile, over in Gaza, trying to figure out how to get that all settled down.
Axios is reporting that there's lots of conversations and progress, I think, has been made figuring out who's going to run that place in terms of physical security.
And at the moment, it looks like the idea, I don't know if this is going to work, but the idea is that the U.S., Egypt, and Jordan, alongside some other, Axios is reporting on this, along with some other Arab and Muslim countries that might include Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Turkey, might be all part of this security deal.
But it sounds like if they're talking about maybe this country, maybe that country, that sounds a lot like they're not that close to getting any kind of a thing going.
But here's the most interesting thing that happened.
Well, let me just say this.
I'm sure they'll get it.
So I don't think there's any risk that they won't be able to figure out how to get some countries that want to do security there.
It's just going to take some grinding.
It just looks like it's going to be hard, but totally doable.
So they'll get there.
But as you know, there have been some breaks in the ceasefire, which everybody expects.
There are always going to be minor breaks in the ceasefire.
But so far it's holding.
And even though there are breaks, it gets back on plan when it does.
But I didn't know this, but apparently Israel had planned as sort of a retaliation for the ceasefire break that they say Hamas did, they were going to retake some part of Gaza and reoccupy it.
And the reporting is that Trump said, no, you're not.
You are not going to take more of Gaza.
Stay where you are.
We're just going to sort of just tap this along and act like the break of the ceasefire wasn't the biggest deal in the world so that we can get to the phase two.
Whereas Israel might want to grab some land or just move the IDF into more occupying of Gaza than they're occupying right now, which would have just caused a giant problem and maybe derailed the entire thing.
And the reporting is that Trump said nope.
And he said, no, you're not.
You're not going to redeploy and take over that space, even though you have a good argument for it.
You're not going to do it.
Now, here's my question to you.
Did that really happen?
Because, you know, it's the news.
You never know if it really happened.
Did Trump really tell them not to do it?
And is that really the only reason they didn't do it?
Because if the reporting is accurate, it's kind of a blow to the Israel controls the U.S. narrative, isn't it?
Kind of a big blow.
Does it not seem to you that at least with our current president, while it will always be true that Israel does an amazingly good job of influencing the U.S. for their own national purposes, which is their job?
If you're an Israeli government, well, even if you're just a citizen, it's sort of your job to make sure that your country does well.
Does Israel do a good job of making sure their country does well?
Yeah, a really good job.
Very good job.
Do we like it all the time?
Not if we think that it included manipulating or pushing the U.S. around.
We don't like that part.
But so far, we've heard several anecdotes that seem to suggest that at least Netanyahu is going to, I don't want to say bow to Trump, but he's definitely going to take very seriously what Trump wants to the point of maybe just doing what he wants.
So are we watching any kind of great reversal where the power influence structure is changing?
Or has it always been this way, but we're maybe less aware of it?
Because, you know, I've described in the past the U.S. and Israel relationship.
To me, it looks less like Israel controlling everything in America and more like a sibling situation, which is that we have this love for them as siblings.
You could argue whether we should or should not, but we do.
Israel is kind of special to a lot of people in the U.S. Not everybody, obviously.
But I think we influence each other.
When it matters more to the U.S. than we push.
When it matters more to them, maybe they push harder than we push back.
Sometimes they win, sometimes we win.
But if it's true, and I'll put a big if, because if you wanted to argue with the if, I wouldn't have a response to that.
If it's true that Trump is telling them what to do in some of these situations and they're just doing it, that would look very different, wouldn't it?
That would look very much more sibling-like.
Sometimes your brother wins, sometimes your sister wins, but it's not really winning.
It's more like just working with each other.
That's what it looks like.
I'm not close enough to the situation to know what it really is like, but it looks like that.
Let's see.
Homeland Security, according to News Nation, is rolling out new rules requiring photographs and in some cases fingerprints of all non-U.S.
Citizens entering the U.S., to which I say, wait, what?
We're only now requiring fingerprints and photographs for coming into the country?
We weren't already doing that.
That's one of those stories where you go, what?
I thought we always did that.
All right.
Let's see what's happening overseas just for a minute.
Over in Germany, the right-wing party has got now 40% support, which is actually more than all any of the other individual parties.
So the dominant party, only by little, 40 to 38%, is anti-immigration.
So does that mean that Germany will start deporting people and closing their border if the biggest political entity, only biggest by a little bit, but they're the biggest, is against it?
Do you think that Germany has time to roll back their immigration standards to save Germany as whatever they want Germany to look like?
Probably not.
Yeah, I'm seeing in the comments too late.
Feels too late, doesn't it?
Feels too late.
But speaking of that, Elon Musk says in his provocative way, Elon said that civil war in Britain is inevitable.
I think he said that on X, of course.
Do you think so?
Do you think that a civil war in Britain is inevitable?
What he's talking about is the native-born versus the immigrant population, I think.
Maybe he's talking about the Islamic immigrant population specifically.
He's not being specific.
But do you think there's going to be a civil war in Britain?
I'm going to say no, because what would that look like?
They don't have guns.
What would a civil war even look like?
They're completely neutered.
Who would they fight?
What are they going to go out with butter knives and butter knives and baseball bats and have a civil war?
I don't think there's going to be a civil war.
I think that whatever it is they wanted to preserve, they already lost.
And for them, it's probably a major tragedy.
But I don't think they can civil war their way out of it.
I don't see that happening.
And I guess Trump's also going to end the Biden policy of automatically extending work permits.
Breitbart News is reporting on this, John Binder.
And that makes sense.
They're just going to make sure that the people who are working here have been vetted properly.
They won't like it.
Meanwhile, also in Germany, they've developed a 20-kilowatt laser for shooting down drones.
Now, this would be like the 20th time I've told you a story that there's a brand new device laser for shooting down drones or other things.
But what I want to add to this is that apparently, if this works, and they're already testing it, and it does work, so it's a real thing, that it will lower the cost of defending against drones dramatically.
And when I'm looking at war zones, because I have an economics background, I tend to look at the economics of it to predict what's going.
The best economy almost always wins in war.
I don't know if you knew that, but the strongest economy usually can afford the best weapons.
Over time, the best economy usually wins a war.
But related to that would be the cost of their weapons.
You know, if you're the smaller economy, but you can figure out how to do your weapons really cheap, you effectively can punch above your weight.
So, if it turns out that our adversaries are really good at building drones, but we get even better at anti-drone lasers and shooting them out of the sky for 20 cents a drone instead of a million dollars to take out a drone, we win.
So, it could be that the economic race to have the cheapest anti-drone defenses and also the cheapest drones, just the economics of that, that might determine who wins everything.
And Germany's got a nice little device there that might make a difference.
Well, here's something for the Democrats to talk about for the next few weeks.
According to the Guardian, the Pentagon is telling the National Guard to organize quick reaction forces for all the major parts of the U.S. So there'd be 20,000 National Guard who would be trained, but no more than, say, 500 for any one location.
So, it's not, you're not going to see 20,000 people in the same place, but 500 apiece for various places, and they would be a quick reaction force for if there's social unrest.
So, if there's something that you quickly need to quell, like a riot, there will always be somewhere reasonably close in every state, you'd have 500 well-trained anti-riot people.
Now, what do you think the Democrats are going to say about that?
This is weeks of content for the anti-authoritarian people.
Oh, there it is.
Told you.
Told you.
He's organizing his private army now.
If we protest, he's going to come and get us with his 500 National Guard people.
So, they'll have something to talk about for a few weeks.
We don't want them to be bored.
All right, that's all I have for today.
I'm going to talk to the local subscribers, my beloved local subscribers, a little special.
By the way, if you were a member of Locals, you would have watching me draw Dilbert live every night.
I can't promise I'll do it every night.
Actually, my ability to draw could be done this week.
This might be the last time I draw because my hand is increasingly paralyzed from whatever's going on medically with me.
So, at the moment, my two fingers and thumb on my left hand still work.
So, I've been doing live drawing demonstrations so you can see how I use the computer to draw, etc.
I teach you my little tricks as I'm going.
Sometimes we write, sometimes I'll write live.
But that's on locals.
So, if you want to just Google me, Google my name and locals, you'll find out where to sign up if you want to.
But I can't promise you I can keep doing it, the drawing.
So, I might have to retire from drawing maybe this week.
I don't know.
It just depends if my hand keeps working.
If these three fingers keep working, I can actually draw better than I've ever drawn before.
So, there's no degradation whatsoever at the moment, but it's right on the edge.
It's right on the edge where I'm going to lose this ability completely.
I already can't type.
So, since these fingers don't work, I can't type because I can't feel the keyboard.
But today I'll go in and get a get my radiation treatment for at least one part of my body, which won't affect this, by the way.
