Election day fun, Trump plays the strong card, lots more craziness~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Insults Reframe, Zohran Mamdani Policies, Pluvicto Treatment, AI Health Medical Advice, AI Functionality, James Comey Paper Trail, Government Shutdown, Fleeing NY Tariffs, Biden Autopen, Bill Maher, President Trump, Trump's Problem Solving, Trump's Pardon, 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.
And if I can get my computer, my second computer to come on, then I will be able to see you.
A little refresh there and see all of your comments.
Everybody good today?
Feeling good?
Come on in.
Comments.
There we go.
There's your comments.
I've already printed my notes.
Because I'm a prepared guy.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to experience an elevation of your mood that your tiny, shiny brain can't even imagine, all you need for that is a copper mugger glass, a tanker, chelstein, a canteen, sugar 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go you out of coffee?
Emergency.
Emergency.
Well, I know you like to start the day with a reframe from my book, Reframe Your Brain.
The most important book in the United States, possibly the world.
All right, let's see.
We're all the way up to the mental health reframes from the book.
I'll do at least one a day if I remember.
We did a bunch of them yesterday.
But let me get to the one I haven't got to yet.
This one.
Yeah.
How about this one?
The usual frame.
If somebody insults you, you think to yourself, ah, that insult is damaging my brain.
That insult hurts me.
It's causing me damage.
Right?
We act like an insult hurts us.
Well, it does, actually.
You know, anything that you perceive becomes a part of your memory, part of your brain.
So yeah, somebody insults you, it might hang around and cause a problem.
So the old way is that an insult is damaging to your mental health.
Here's a reframe that you might take advantage of.
The reframe is that an insult is a confession from the other person.
An insult is a confession that your accuser can't refute your opinion or has personal problems of some sort.
Typically, when somebody's criticizing you, they're not the best people and they're not in the best place in life.
And once you realize, wait a minute, these are not the best people and they're not having a great life.
If the thing that was the best thing they could do today was criticize me, that's not very good.
I feel sorry for my accuser.
Anyway, so an insult is a confession that they don't have a good argument.
Do you know what people do when they have a good argument?
I say this all the time, but the more often you hear it, the better.
When people have a good argument, you know what they do?
They use it.
They use a good argument.
When people don't have an argument, what do they do?
They call you a communist.
Or they call you a fascist or something.
No, an insult is just a confession.
So once you see it that way, the insults don't bother you anymore.
Anyway, how about some science?
There's a new study that says helping other people can slow your cognitive decline by up to 20%.
University of Texas said awesome.
Now, how many of you knew that?
This refers to helping or volunteering outside the home.
I don't know why they said outside the home.
It seems like helping anywhere would be good.
But does that make sense to you?
That if you become a helpful person, that it would be good for your own brain.
Here's why that makes sense to me.
I have to admit, I didn't know that.
So if you'd asked me, I'd say, it feels reasonable to expect it, but I didn't know it.
And the reason I would have expected it is you've heard me talk about how people are healthiest when they're pursuing whatever is closest to their biological evolutionary reality.
So I believe that people stay healthier.
That's just a hypothesis, but I think it's true.
That if the closer you are to the mating process, the single most important thing the human can do, because mating is sort of, it's organized our entire evolutionary path from a million years ago.
So if you're any part of the mating, producing children, taking care of children process, probably your body probably stays healthier.
I'll bet if you did a study of that, you'd find that to be true.
So it doesn't surprise me that if you're being helpful, which is really another way to protect the tribe, which is really another way to protect the mating instinct or the mating process of the tribe, because you're just helping other people.
And maybe they're having the babies, maybe you are.
But it's got to be built into your DNA, right?
So something tells me that when you orient your mind toward helping the tribe, I think you stay healthier.
That doesn't surprise me a bit.
Did you know that eating cheese once a week is linked to a 24% lower dementia risk?
Okay.
So what I'd recommend, and this is from Natural News, Cassie B is writing about it.
I recommend helping other people while eating cheese because cheeses saves.
Cheeses saves.
No?
Cheeses saves?
Nothing?
All right.
Well, according to a, I think this is, is it Rasmussen or somebody else?
I don't think there was a source on this, but there's a new, there's a new poll that said that 71% of the U.S. people surveyed were in support of the Trump administration destroying the narco drug boats.
So it turns out it's a 70-30 issue in favor of destroying the drug boats.
Now, given that it's a 70-30 issue, of course Trump is doing it.
You don't have to wonder if it's 70-30.
If it's 70-30, yeah, he's totally doing that because why wouldn't you?
Sometimes he does it while he's eating cheese.
So he's actually protecting his brain while protecting the country.
Yeah, that's how it works.
Even 56% of Democrats are in support of blowing up those drug boats.
All right, I'll make my here's my confession: I'm not claiming to be such a good person, I'm going to confess.
As you know, in 2018, most of you know this, I lost my stepson to fentanyl, fentanyl overdose.
And I can watch narco-drug boats get blown up all day long and still want to see another one.
Now, I know I'm in the extreme because you know, my personal experience, but finding out that 70% of the public sort of agrees with me that watching these blow up is more good than bad, I don't feel so bad.
So, thank you.
Well, it's election day for some special case situations, such as New York City's mayor, and what is it, New Jersey governor, and somebody else I don't care about.
So, the Wall Street Journal says that today will be a day that we'll test Trump's low economics rating and see if that helps the Democrats get elected.
Why in the world does Trump have a low economic rating?
Does it make sense with the data that we have?
You know, all data is questionable, of course, but does it make sense with the data that we do have that he would have a low economic rating?
Because it seems to me that almost everything he's tried has worked.
You know, maybe he, and the Democrats are trying to hold him responsible to his hyperbole, as in he'll get rid of inflation on day one.
And the Democrats are actually criticizing him because he didn't get rid of, he didn't lower prices, he didn't lower prices on day one.
Really?
You really expected him to lower prices on day one.
Now, he did lower subprices, he got your eggs down, he got your gas down, beef's too high.
He has a plan, but I don't know if that's going to work.
But really, you're going to compare him to the hyperbole, not to anything in the real world.
Do you know what hyperbole is?
It's imaginary, right?
Hyperbole is, by definition, the thing that doesn't match reality.
It's some extended imaginary version of reality.
What is the most consistent thing that Democrats do?
I think you know the answer.
They lean into the imaginary.
So, their entire economic everything is literally based on imaginary stuff, and they do it right in front of us.
And we even call it imaginary and we see it as imaginary.
It still works, it still convinces their base.
So, the base thinks there was some way that a human being could have lowered prices on day one of the presidency.
Okay, all right, it's pretty imaginary.
Um, and have you noticed that the Democrats have words about how they want to lower prices, such as Mom Dani in New York.
Assuming he wins, he wants to give away a bunch of stuff, which he wants to pay for with taxes on rich people, many of whom want to leave if Mom Dani gets elected.
Now, do you think that the math works?
Of course not.
Of course, the math doesn't work.
Which means that his plan for lowering costs, and by the way, how much control does he have over a lot of this stuff?
The mayor doesn't have a lot of control over much of that stuff.
So is their economic plan imaginary?
Yes, it is.
Now, is Trump's plan imaginary?
Well, so far, whatever he wants to do with beef is unstated, but I doubt it would be imaginary.
I mean, I'm sure he's looking into real things.
So, imaginary versus not.
Anyway, Mike Cerovich is pointing out how the latest New York City poll shows how loony voters are.
Crime is listed as the residents of New York City's greatest issue.
It's their biggest issue.
And while crime is the biggest issue, the person that they want to elect is the one who would be softest on crime.
Now, can you explain that?
How could it be that crime is the biggest issue?
But by a big factor, they're still willing to elect the guy who's the softest on crime, their biggest issue.
Well, there is a reason.
It's called follow the money.
Because if they believe that they can get free stuff from Mom Dani and they don't have another mechanism for getting stuff, I mean, if you were poor, you'd think, well, I'm poor and it's not going to change.
Might as well get some free stuff.
And then I would say, but what about crime?
And then you would say, what about eating?
What about eating?
So eating is a little bigger than crime.
So while it looks crazy that the people who say their biggest issue is crime are going to vote for exactly the opposite of a solution, if you imagine that their real problem is always affording to eat, maybe they don't say it or maybe they don't list it because maybe they just think crime is the right answer to the question.
But people will follow their money.
They won't even follow danger because the danger seems a little theoretical.
Like if you stay away from this part of town, it won't be much of a problem.
But what are you going to do about eating?
So it's probably about affordability.
Or they're experiencing suicidal empathy or there's a bubble where they just don't see the world the same as you.
All right.
There's allegedly, New York Post says, I don't believe any of this, but nearly a million New Yorkers are ready to flee New York City if Mom Dami is mayor, really.
Do you believe that 765,000 people must have been a poll, which is, you know, you could argue that's a million, 765?
That's a lot of rounding.
It's a little too much rounding to go from 765,000 to a million.
Well, it's almost a million.
It's close to three-quarters of a million, let's say.
That would be 9% of New Yorkers.
And apparently, these are people who say they would definitely leave.
This is a sort of poll where people are answering in the way they think they can influence reality.
It's not exactly necessarily their opinion or what they're going to do.
It might be the message they want to send.
And they want you to know if you elect this over-taxing, under-criminal fighting guy, that they'd rather live somewhere else than here.
But would they actually move when they look at all the pain in the asset moving and where they work and where their family is and all that?
A million, 9%?
That seems a little high, but maybe it's just to influence the election.
Well, today is a big day for me.
Right after this show, I'm going to go over to a medical facility at Kaiser and get the Pluficto, which is a promising cancer drug.
About one-third of the people get a really good response, as in their tumors just sort of melt away, which is remarkable.
It's not a cure, but you can really make a difference in your life.
About one-third get some kind of improvement, but it's not melting the tumors away.
So I'd still be happy with some amount of improvement.
But one-third of the people might end up worse off.
So two out of three chance I'll be happier.
One out of three chance I'll be less happy.
We'll see.
I like the odds.
On top of that, I've connected with Dr. Patrick Sun Shio, if I'm pronouncing it right.
I'm always so worried I'm pronouncing his last name wrong.
And you might have seen him on Dr. Drew's show.
You may have seen him on Tucker's show.
He's been on a few podcasts.
And I didn't know too much about him until recently when I was connected with him through the Trump administration.
And yeah, he has a product called BioShield.
He has 850 patents.
Let me say that again.
He has 850 patents.
And his resume is so impressive that I was going to tell you a little bit about where he's worked and what he's accomplished.
It's so impressive that you can't even start.
It's like the most impressive resume you've ever heard in your life.
And I got to talk to some people who know some people who know him and by reputation, et cetera.
So he has the highest credibility, best reputation you'll ever see in your life.
But he's impossible to summarize.
So he owns the LA Times, but he's not a newspaper guy.
He's a doctor, but he's specializing in creating drugs.
And he's created a well, how would I say this?
He's come up with a process, which so far seems to be very promising.
Very promising, as in, you know, every single day people send me stories of somebody who thinks they can cure cancer with, I don't know, pumpkin seeds or some damn thing.
But this is the first time that I've looked into it and thought, whoa, this is actually credible.
So in my opinion, not as a doctor, right?
Remember, this is not medical advice.
So there's no medical advice that's going to follow.
But in my opinion, as a patient, I am now about to embark on the two most promising ways to treat my specific situation.
Some people complained and they said, wait a minute, why is this rich guy getting this special Trump administration treatment?
And would regular people get this treatment?
And the answer is, I'm doing this for everyone.
Now, obviously, it's mostly to keep myself alive, but you don't think if I fix this problem, the problem being fixing the distribution of this promising drug, you don't think if I fix at least the communication with the patients and Raise the awareness of this drug.
You don't think that helps other people?
The whole theory here is that if I can fix it for myself, then it gets fixed.
It's not just fixed for me.
It would be primarily for anybody who had the same problem and didn't have the, you know, didn't have the good fortune to have, apparently, some of the best friends in the world.
Some of them I didn't even know about.
But boy, am I appreciative?
And I promise you that if I get a good result, everybody's going to know.
That's part of the play.
Part of the play is that first I escape from the jail, but then I go back and I free the other prisoners.
In this case, the prisoners would be people who have cancer, the kind I have.
And if I can, I'll burn down the prison and take the warden as a hostage.
So this is always a bigger play.
It's not about me specifically, but I understand the criticism.
I could understand why people would see that.
Yesterday, even Elon Musk weighed in, used Grok to show me that there were some cancer treatment alternatives if the ones I'm trying don't work.
So, yes, my medical treatment involved Trump, the administration, Elon Musk, Kaiser.
And by the way, Kaiser is doing a great job at the moment.
They're doing a great job of communicating and getting me in where I need to get.
So A for Kaiser for making the adjustment.
You know how I judge people, right?
I've told you my, this is a reframe as well.
The best reframe for judging people or processes is not what they did, although it seems obvious that that should be the way, right?
It's how they respond to what they did.
How they're responding is excellent.
And that's how I will evaluate them.
I'll evaluate them based on the response.
So A, you might remember, I brag about this too often, that I am the only non-AI expert, I think.
No, that's not true.
There must be lots of others.
But I'm one of the public figures who's been saying since the early days of AI that, hey, I don't think this large language model thing that keeps hallucinating could possibly be useful for anything except, you know, fun little chats.
Like you'd never be able to use it for anything.
Because when AI was new, you knew that I tried to use it for something.
And what I tried to use it for was what I thought was literally the easiest thing it could do, which is look at a file I'd created and tell me what's in the file.
Like, what could be easier than that if you're AI?
It can't do that.
And if it can't look at a file and accurately tell you what's in it, and I know you think it can, and you think, oh, I built this special file, it's called a rag, then it does.
No, it can't.
No.
But here's what the New Yorker says: that there's an MIT study that found that 95% of companies that invested in AI tools, these are not the companies producing AI, but the ones using them, were seeing zero returns.
And they say it jibes with the emerging idea that generative AI, quote, in its current incarnation, simply isn't all it's cracked up to be.
John Cassidy's writing about that in the New Yorker.
Now, does that sound like me two years ago?
It does, right?
Was I not two years ahead of that?
If you use it for five minutes, you can see that it could just didn't have the right tool.
Just wasn't ready.
And it didn't look like it could possibly be ready, which is what I think is different in my case.
A lot of people said it's not ready.
But other people said if you just keep feeding it words, it'll become smarter.
No, I said if you keep feeding it words, it'll become more like people.
It won't get smarter, if you know what I mean.
So Axios is writing also that the layoffs, the layoffs might be going up, and the companies are only using AI as an excuse for their public explanation of why they're laying off people.
Who was the first one to tell you that the companies would lie that AI was the reason they were laying off people?
Because then they could get a twofer.
The twofer is, oh, you reduced expenses by laying off people?
Yay.
Oh, you're also a pioneer in AI and you've made it work so quickly that you could lay off people.
God, you're amazing.
I told you that the most likely Dilbert future was that companies would lie and say that AI is why they were laying off people.
And here it is.
Axios is reporting.
Companies are lying.
They're calling it the layoff boomerang.
Meaning that they lay them off, but you're going to have to hire them back eventually when the AI doesn't work.
That's a pretty big deal.
And one last thing on that same point.
Actually, two last things.
Chat GPT has announced that ChatGPT will no longer give health or legal advice.
What do you use AI for?
Mostly health and legal advice.
Those are the two categories I use it the most.
Now, I was aware that I would still have to check my work, but it is what I use it the most for.
I mean, there are all kinds of legal, if you count tax and insurance and all that within the legal domain, all the time.
Now, let me ask you this, for those who have been watching me.
Did I or did I not tell you at the birth of this AI bubble, did I not tell you that AI would be limited by these special interest human groups who didn't want to be replaced?
Is that what's happening?
Or is ChatGPT just independently thinking they're going to get in trouble if they accidentally give bad legal advice or accidentally give bad health advice, both of which are guaranteed if you have a hallucinating AI?
Right now, did anybody else tell you that humans will block AI from doing what AI does?
Even if it could do perfect legal advice, even if it could do perfect health advice, I told you the humans would block it because they don't want to lose the power of being the gatekeeper to what is true about your health or what is true about your legal situation.
Now, that was a pretty damn good prediction, wasn't it?
I feel like I can take credit for that.
And then it gets better.
There's a new study, according to Medium, Lewis Callow is writing about this, that finds that AI models write code.
Oh, okay.
Well, here's the one thing that AI can do well, right?
The one thing that people say, well, AI can help you write code faster.
And, you know, that did the filibuster just then?
I just saw something in the notes.
Let me get back to that.
But apparently, there's a study that said that AI models write code, and that's good.
But 18 to 50% of the time, it writes code with security flaws.
Do you think the human's going to catch all the security flaws by looking carefully at every line of code written by the AI?
Or do you think that a normal human being would say, oh, AI, write this part of the bit of code, slap it in their program, and then write the part that they write, and then slap in some more AI code?
Which do you think sounds more reasonable?
That the human would, you know, in great detail, check every line of code the AI wrote just to make sure it didn't have these security flaws?
No!
No!
No, they're just going to put them in the program, unless they're like gaping and obvious, I guess.
So let's see, it can't do coding, it can't do legal, it can't do health, and it can't help you in any productivity way by doing tasks.
It's called AI, people.
It might be a bubble.
But I will, let me give you some comfort to those of you who are complaining in your head right now.
I do understand that we're at the beginning of AI, not the end.
Can you give me that?
I do understand that somebody might figure out how to solve all these problems.
I understand.
But at the moment, it's right on my prediction, which doesn't mean it will always be so.
So I do accept the inevitability of a superior AI intellect, but we're just not close.
It would be some entirely different technology.
And there are people working on entirely different technologies.
So it's not like it's not going to happen.
It just isn't happening yet.
That's my only point.
All right.
Apparently, there's some new news about Comey.
So, you know, Comey's in trouble.
You know, I hate all these legal stories, but as best I remember, Comey had his friend leak some stuff.
And then he lied to Congress about leaking stuff.
And now the lie is the issue, that he might be jailed for the lie.
Well, apparently, some more documents were discovered from Comey in that time.
And he said, among other things, well done, my friend.
Who knew this would be so much fun?
Talking about an email after his special government employee, this guy named Dan Richmond, had leaked to the New York Times, allegedly.
So this is all alleged.
But apparently, there's some pretty clear paper trail now that he did exactly what he's accused of.
And I saw some writing on this.
And yeah, John Solomon.
Let's say John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavey, who write for Just the News.
So Just the News is the one that seems to be carrying the details of this, if you want to catch up on that.
John Solomon's doing a great job.
Yeah, every time I listen to John Solomon on Fox News, I say to myself, my God, he's, you know, he and others totally have the goods now, and there's no way this isn't going to result in jail time.
Oh, God damn it.
My.
Sorry.
I just had a computer problem because why?
Why?
All right.
Solved.
Solved so I can see your comments again.
All right, all good.
Anyway, this is also a Mike Cernovich post.
He said that the court exhibits filed in the Kobe case are damning.
Usually you don't see such evidence until trial.
Remember, Cernos also went to law school.
I don't know what his status is, but he's speaking as somebody who knows what he's talking about.
But since there was a pending motion to dismiss, they're made public.
And Mike says this is an open and shut case, although the judge will try to rig it and the jury nullification risk too.
Man, that feels like what's going to happen, doesn't it?
Doesn't it feel like it's a real thing and there's a real crime and we have absolute proof that the crime happened, it would be easy to prove.
And still, and still there will be no justice, if you will.
I think I agree with that.
The odds of no justice are higher than the odds of justice.
One way or the other.
That's what it feels like.
I think I skipped something I was going to talk about.
So have you noticed that there's what's being called some kind of internal fight among Republicans and MAGA people?
So here are the names.
You'll recognize this.
A lot of this is over Israel.
But on one side, and that's really the wrong phrase, they're not really on a side.
But people are trying to make this into sides.
And they would say that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, and they'd throw in Marjorie Taylor Greene and even Charlie Kirk at this point.
And they would say they're anti-Israel.
Maybe some of them or all of them were anti-Semitic.
So that's the internal battle that's going on.
And then the other side, those people would be not too happy with Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin and Ted Cruz and Laura Loomer.
And I'm forgetting some names.
So roughly speaking, the press, I think the press more than anything, and also maybe some board podcasters, are trying to make it that there's some, you know, there's some split in the MAGA or Republican world or conservative world.
Now, because I think in reframes, and I think differently, I think, when I see that the Republicans are fighting each other, do you know what that means?
The first thing I think about that, the first thing I think is you only fight with each other when you've won everything else.
The Republicans have so won against Democrats, and the Democrats are no fun to fight against anymore, but everybody's always up for a fight.
I mean, it's sort of a fighty kind of domain, that it's such a luxury to be able to turn on your own team.
It's just a luxury.
It's like, hey, we took care of the enemy.
Let's fight with each other now.
It's like my cats fighting.
If my cats saw some wild animal come in the garage, they might gang up and say, all right, it's cats against squirrel.
You take him on the left.
I'll take him on the right.
But if you take the squirrel out of the garage, then the cats fight with each other because that's who's around.
So when I watch this, I just, I'm having trouble getting fully engaged because the bigger picture is that you won.
The bigger picture is you won.
You don't get to even have this conversation unless you've taken care of the important stuff.
And then you get to fight about this.
But I'll give you my overall opinion of who's an anti-Semite and who's just America first, because it's terribly important that you know my opinion on this completely unimportant topic.
And it goes like this.
If I were Jewish, I would think half the people I named are anti-Semitic.
That's it.
That's my opinion.
If I were Jewish, then I would have a different filter on life, right?
Of course, you'd have a different filter.
You'd be a little more sensitive to, wait a minute, you didn't say directly, but you sure walked up to that line.
And then if somebody walks up to that line more than once, then I change my view and I go, you went up to that line a lot of times.
Why are you so interested in walking up to that line?
Why is it important to you that you're going to talk about this topic, like I am right now, so much?
Huh, a little suspicious.
So in just the way, if you're a MA-loving person and Democrats say something, you automatically think they're lying, right?
And vice versa.
When I got canceled, pretty much all of Black America, at least the ones that lean left, thought, my God, that's so racist.
Do you know how many MAGA people thought it was racist, as opposed to a common statement about protecting yourself?
Almost none.
So was it racist or not racist?
It depended who you were.
It just depended who you are.
So let me say clearly, if I were Jewish, I'd be pretty worried about some of these cats.
I don't need to name names.
You know who I'm talking about.
But if you're not Jewish, you'd hear exactly the same messages if you're paying attention, if you cared.
And you'd say to yourself, huh, that's close to being anti-Semitic, but really it's just free speech.
And it's just America first.
Which one of those is true?
Well, if I've taught you anything, it's two movies on one screen.
Truth, I don't know if we have access to that.
But prediction we do.
So I would say that if you can make a prediction that holds based on your view of these people and their opinions, then you might have something.
You might have something.
But if it doesn't predict, as in, you know, I'll give you an example.
If the next thing that Tucker Carlson does is unambiguously, I don't know, pro-Jewish or pro-American or pro-Israel, would you say to yourself, oh, okay, that looks different?
No, I don't think he's going to do that necessarily.
But I'm saying that if you can't predict, you have to check your, you know, check your worldview.
I've got more on that coming.
Well, Speaker Johnson said he's trying to reframe the government shutdown as the Democrats want to cut $50 billion from the rural hospital fund so that basically they're ransoming the government.
Here's what I think about this whole who's to blame for closing the or not opening.
Even CNN is going hard at the Democrats.
Have you noticed that?
The CNN hosts are doing an absolutely completely respectable job.
And I just have to call that out.
So everybody from Jake Tapper to, I don't know, the other hosts, they say directly to their Democrat friends, how is this the Republicans' fault if you can just vote it to be open?
which is, you know, the ideal question.
How is it their fault if you could open it anytime you want?
Then they're like, well, well, it's only a leverage, but we're trying to feed the, they don't want to feed the.
Okay, but everybody would get everything if you just voted yes.
Well, yeah, the word salad.
So I don't think there's any question that the Democrats are acting like turds that they're acting like such turds.
I think it's even embarrassing to CNN, like actually embarrassing, you know, because they feel associated, I would guess.
I would guess if you work for CNN, people assume you're a Democrat.
And then they see even CNN saying, okay, this is just bullshit.
This is total bullshit.
All you have to do is vote and you can have everything that you wanted for seven weeks and then negotiate the rest.
Exactly what the Republicans are telling you.
So, but I noticed that when Trump was on 60 Minutes and the topic came up, did you notice that before the question was finished, he said it was the Democrats' fault?
Did anybody catch that?
So it was Nora O'Donnell on 60 Minutes and she starts to queue up the question.
Before she was done asking the question, he goes, this is the Democrats' fault.
Now, what have I taught you about the primary tool of persuasion?
The primary tool of persuasion is repetition.
Whoever repeats the most wins.
So he makes sure that he said it before she even finished the question.
Now, that's good technique because that gets in your head first.
He needed to get that in the head first so that she would respond to him instead of he was responding to her.
Do you see how clever that was?
That was super clever that he talked over her and gave her the answer before she asked the question.
If she had been able to ask the question, it would have been framed as, why won't you Republicans open up the government?
But because he front ran her, he front ran her while she was still talking all the way to, it's the Democrats' fault, that he framed it before she got to it.
Now, sometimes you don't notice the little things that he does that are just perfect.
That you would have to be so experienced in public life to know that getting there before she finished the sentence was going to give you an advantage.
I mean, it's just brilliant, persuasion-wise.
This is what I noticed in him on day one of his running in 2015.
I was like, wow, he's different.
He seems to understand things like other people don't understand them.
This would be one.
Now, apparently, did you know the Texas Governor Abbott said that he's going to, this can't possibly be true.
But he says, if any New Yorkers try to flee New York after Mamdami's win, they'll be slapped with 100% tariff.
That couldn't be true, could it?
How would you even do that?
You're going to slap a million people, a tariff on a million people who came from New York.
Okay, the Daily Mail is reporting that.
Stefan Lepore.
All right, I'm going to put that in the category of, I doubt it.
Let's see, what else we got going on here?
There's a claim from Whistleblower.
Hmm.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
I saw this on Breaking 911, which is on X, that the BBC completely doctored some Trump quotes to make it look like he had sort of organized the January 6th, quote, insurrection, as they would call it.
But so I saw a video on it and saw a way for more credibility on this story.
But what it looked like is the worst edit I've ever seen, meaning totally illegal.
You know, I'm not talking about, you remember when CBS did their little edit of, what's her name?
I've already forgotten her.
Kamala Harris.
I believe she was vice president.
Yeah.
So when 60 Minutes did their edit of her, I actually semi-defended her and them by saying that it's not unusual for a big media thing to edit for clarity.
And it wasn't too far off from clarity, but it was enough that they settled in a court and they didn't admit any wrongdoing, but they needed to settle.
So I don't mind editing for clarity, but whatever the BBC is accused of, according to at least one video I saw, was not clarity.
It was literally just changing what he said to what they wanted him to say because they could piece two unrelated sentences together that were 54 minutes apart or seconds or something.
But they were pretty far apart.
So if this is true, the BBC is going to owe Trump a lot of money.
So wait for, if you're looking for whether this is credible, I'd look for the lawsuit.
If the lawsuit drops today.
Yes, the BBC edited him.
Rasmussen poll, according to Newsmax, says that a majority of voters, 52%, they want anybody who used the auto pen under Biden, and they did it without proper authorization, wants them prosecuted.
So only if they used it without authorization, which seems reasonable.
Wouldn't everybody agree with that?
It's hard to imagine there's anybody who disagrees with the question, if they use the auto pen inappropriately, should they be punished?
Yes.
Yeah, if they use it inappropriately, of course.
Anyway, there's always a new Bill Maher quote he was in his club random, talking to somebody I didn't care about.
And what he said was, this is just a pure compliment to Trump.
It's one of the best compliments I've ever seen Trump get.
And it's coming from Bill Maher.
Now, to his credit, once Bill met Trump in person, he did drop all of his criticisms about his crazy personality, because that wasn't demonstrated at all in person.
But he still maintained a strong preference for the other side.
Still thinks that Trump tried to do an insurrection on January 6th, which is Bill's personal tentpole hoax.
He can't get past that hoax.
But so he has complimented Trump just for being willing to talk to the other side and getting some stuff done like the border, but never this much.
This is a new level of compliment.
And I don't know if it means anything.
I don't expect Bill Maher to become a Republican too far.
But look at the evolution of his thinking from these little compliments to now this one.
So he said a club random quote about Trump.
He didn't play the silly game that the other presidents do, like, well, we have to be even Stephen.
He's talking about the Middle East now.
He says, who knows who's right?
The people who treasure life or the people who treasure death, Bill says rhetorically.
And then he goes, he said, no, I'm with Israel.
Let's see how this works out.
I'm with Western values.
I think democracy is better than theocracy.
And so then Bill closes with the keeper.
He goes, the Jews love him more than any president ever.
And the Arabs do too.
That's quite a hat-trick.
You got to give it up for that one.
Yeah, I got to give it up for that one.
Who else could make the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East both think he was the best president?
I mean, maybe Hamas has a problem, but not Saudi Arabia.
Is that one of the best compliments you've ever heard of any politician of any time?
That's got to be right at the top of the best thing you could ever say about a president, that he made the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East think he was the best president.
And I think he did that.
That's actually real.
I think he actually did that.
I never thought of it that way.
So here's what I mean by the evolution of Bill's thinking.
He's clearly now embraced that Trump is not crazy.
And by this, I would say he's clearly embraced that Trump brings tools to the game that other people just didn't have.
They just didn't have those tools.
Now, he still prefers other policies.
Perfectly reasonable thing.
But this is one hell of an evolution into the light because he's 100% right about this, right?
This stuff is 100% right.
And if I can get him to break the 10-pole hoax about somehow all those Republicans thought they could take over the country by wandering around in one building without weapons, which is what he believes.
If we can make that 10-pole hoax go away, it's going to look really different.
His world will look really different.
Anyway, so remember I told you that if your worldview does not predict, you should look at it again, right?
So Bill Maher is now squarely moved into a worldview that will predict.
Because now that he understands that Trump just has powers that other politicians just don't have, they just can't do some things like maybe get the hostages back, maybe only him.
Like solve eight military conflicts in eight months or whatever it was.
Maybe that's only him.
I mean, there's a close the border.
Maybe he's the only one who could be enough of a bastard and take enough of the heat that he could actually close the border.
I've told you before that if you were to summarize why it was that I supported Trump from earlier days, here's my reasoning.
I don't know if I've ever said this explicitly.
But when I looked at him, I said, we've never seen that toolbox before.
He could solve problems that a president can't solve, a normal president.
You know, a modern president might.
But it was just obvious to me from almost day one that he was a solver with a set of tools that was unlike anything we'd ever seen.
And every now and then, you don't want a normie president.
You can't have a normal president throughout all time because they won't get it done.
There'll always be these little pockets of things, such as the border, that they act like they can't solve.
Sometimes you need to bring in the big wizard to solve the things that nobody can solve.
Trump is taking on all the hardest problems, like the really hard ones, like the super hard problems.
And he's just checking them off.
Check, check, check, Middle East piece, check, check.
I mean, it's crazy.
So when I watch him solve the unsolvable, I say, that's it.
That's the thing.
That's the reason I support him.
Is it because he says insults to people?
I kind of enjoy that, but no, that's not why I support him.
I don't support him because of the insults.
So when I say that if your worldview predicts, it might be accurate.
So I'm going to give you, do you remember a prediction I made?
I made a prediction that Trump will always take the strongest position on every policy, even if he knows that the strongest position could never get done.
Maybe because it's too hard, too expensive, Democrats hate it too much, unconstitutional, the courts will stop it.
And I told you that he'll always take the strongest position and that in the long run, that's a winning strategy.
No matter how many times he gets shot down from being able to do the strongest thing, it's still smart to say the strongest thing.
And here's the best example.
On the 60 minutes interview with O'Donnell, he was asked, do you think all these anecdotal situations with ICE allegedly doing rough tactics with individuals?
She goes, do you think, you know, I forget the exact question, but do you think it went too far?
Now, when she, Nora, so when Nora asked that, it was about individual cases, which she mentioned, you know, this case, this case, this case.
She goes, do you think it went too far?
ICE.
What do you think Trump said?
What would my prediction be?
My prediction would be, if he always takes the strongest stance, that he's not only going to say it didn't go too far, but that it should go farther.
And that's what he did.
But he changed the context.
And then CBS, of course, and the pundits will pretend he didn't.
But he changed the context away from these individual cases, which nobody could really defend because you don't know what happened, really.
He changed it to the question of immigration.
So he was saying, we haven't done enough for immigration.
But she was asking about these specific cases.
So he found a way to make it, yes, we should even do more.
It was the way to do it.
It was exactly right from a persuasion point of view.
Again, only Trump.
Don't you think that a normal politician would have said something like, oh, we need to look into those cases.
Those specific cases sound very bad.
We'd better look into those right away.
Thank you very much for bringing that up to my attention.
Nope.
Trump says, no, we shouldn't go harder.
But he changes it to the general topic, not to the individuals.
What about Trump saying that he wants to resume nuclear detonation testing, which, by the way, Secretary Wright says that's not what we're talking about?
According to Secretary Wright, we're talking about testing the non-critical explosions.
So, all of the process up to, but not including, the actual nuclear bang.
So, there is some question whether Trump ever meant that they would test the bang or whether he meant we would do what other countries do, which is test everything that goes up to the bang but stops there.
Now, he also said that China and Russia have been testing with actual detonations for years.
Have they?
I don't know.
It would be top secret if somebody knew that.
But he teased it like our Intel people know that China and Russia have been continuously testing up to now.
I don't know that that's true.
But what would be the strongest thing?
Remember, we're talking about prediction.
What would be the strongest thing that Trump could say in this domain?
The strongest thing he could say is, we're going to test.
We're going to test detonations.
Now, it doesn't have to be true because it's also part of a negotiation which he's queuing up.
So, he would like both Russia and China to think, oh, there's something that we need to get them to stop doing.
And then he's invented an asset.
So, he's invented an asset, as he always does before a big negotiation.
And the asset is, hey, we're going to do this blast testing of nuclear.
You surely don't want us to be doing this.
So, why don't we negotiate all of our nuclear dangers at the same time?
So, it makes sense that he would go for the strongest position right before negotiation.
But do you see how well my prediction holds?
If you simply said, what's the domain?
What's the strongest thing a president could say?
And then you predicted that he would say that, you'd be right most of the time.
So, I believe that my theory about him always taking the strongest position seems like reality because it predicts.
And it predicted twice yesterday.
I mean, it worked twice yesterday.
That's a pretty good prediction.
So, there's a question also in 60 Minutes and other places.
Trump was asked about his pardon for one of the founders of Binance, I guess, crypto site.
And he said weirdly that he doesn't even know who that is, but maybe he was trying to say he doesn't know him personally or hasn't done business with him personally.
But he obviously, at one point, I don't think he said it yesterday, maybe or Sunday, but maybe he did.
He thought that the reason for pardoning him was that somebody told him that Biden was going after him.
So it's because Biden was going after him.
Oh, I got to run in one minute.
All right, we got one minute here.
So, yeah, there's a question about the two sons are in crypto, but I don't think anybody said anything illegal is happening.
Forget about that one.
Trump is reportedly planning to send U.S. troops and intelligence offices into Mexico to combat the drug cartels.
What would you call that?
That would be the strongest position.
Again, predictable three times in a row.
All right.
The rest is some scientific stuff about bacteria that eats battery waste.
That's cool.
Atlantis may have been discovered.
That's cool.
And Ukraine may or may not have been responsible for some Hungarian explosions.
