Trump shakes the Epstein box, and lots more fun~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Alexander Vindman, AI Provider Truth Control, Elon Musk, Space Electricity Generation, Economy Distrust Poll, Speaker Johnson, Epstein Files Declassification, President Trump, Clintons Subpoena Defiance, Larry Summers, Trump Mamdani Meeting, Sam Harris, democrat Party of Murder, Trump MBS Meeting, Saudi Israel Deal, Space-Based Particle Beam Weapon, Migrant Farm Workers, 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.
So what he does, if you haven't heard it, it's pretty amazing.
He takes podcasters or notable people, and he takes their voice, and he puts it to music and beats and video.
And next thing you know, you've got this amazing piece of art that people have been telling me is not like other art.
So it's not just like music.
It's not just like video music.
It apparently fills some kind of slot you didn't know needed to be filled.
So apparently that'll be available around Christmas.
And I'll remind you when that happens.
I will remind you.
Don't worry.
You will be reminded.
all right good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker, Charles's dine, a canteen, jogger 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.
Happens now.
Go.
Mmm. Mmm. Ah. Yep.
That's the noise I make when I drink coffee.
And I don't apologize for it.
Well, we got quite a show today.
I'll be making you smarter.
Come on.
I should be seeing those comments right now.
There they are.
I gotcha.
i got your comments right there all right let's move that over there Oh my God, this is good.
So good.
All right, people.
Whoa, stop it.
So I saw Joshua Lysak did a post on X asking people if they think that YouTube has suppressed my content.
How many of you think YouTube, specifically, has suppressed my content?
Is that possible?
Well, all we know for sure is what Joshua pointed out that for reasons that are hard to understand, I seem to get about 25,000 viewers every day, no matter what I'm doing.
What are the odds of that?
Every day?
25,000?
Roughly?
No, it doesn't look real, but stranger things have happened.
So I wouldn't accuse them of anything because I can't prove it.
But it would be pretty weird if I had the same number of viewers for 10 years at the same time that my number of subscribers went up by 100.
So the people who voluntarily said, hey, I'll click that because I want to see more of your stuff, that's like over 100,000.
You know, started at 1,000.
And yet the total number of traffic, total traffic numbers, about the same.
Speaking of numbers, there's some new employment numbers that people are liking.
So we'll see what that does to the stock market today.
I guess unemployment edged up a little bit, which means that there's a slightly greater chance that the Fed will lower interest rates, which is good for the stock market too.
So probably this is all good news.
We don't know how much of it is real.
How much are you going to believe about employment numbers?
There's a problem, right?
If your government tells you that they got some brand new numbers, and it sure makes the current administration look like they're doing a great job, well, you probably should ask some questions about that, I say.
A judge has dismissed an FTC antitrust case against Meta, claiming, according to Reclaim the Net, that the social media company had plenty of competition, or at least enough.
They had enough competition.
So Judge Bozberg, huh?
Huh.
You said the FTC failed to prove that Meta's ownership.
Oh, surprise.
Judge Boseberg, we've dealt with him before.
Surprise, he thinks Facebook can do what they want here in terms of competition.
I think he's probably right on this.
Does it seem to you that Meta has a competition on social media?
Doesn't really, does it?
Maybe it's cornered the market on your grandma, but I don't know.
So I wouldn't worry about that one.
So for the first time, an entire nation has adopted a specific AI, and it's Saudi Arabia.
You know, the Saudis visited the White House yesterday.
They got the great royal welcome from Trump.
They get along tremendously.
They do.
Did you say that, I think this is real, that Alexander Vinman, you remember him from all the Ukraine business?
He's trying somehow to get access to Trump's transcript of phone calls with, who was it with?
I forget.
But anyway, I'm looking at your comments at the same time.
I'm trying to think.
It's not working at all.
All right.
Let's just go to the next slide.
So Grok as the AI will be adopted by Saudi Arabia.
And I always thought, you know, it wouldn't make sense for a country like Saudi Arabia to build their own AI if they can just lease one and have the best one you can have, but they're just leasing it.
That seems like a good idea.
You don't like Venomin at all, do you?
According to the comments, you're very anti-vitamin.
You know how China and the United States try to influence all these third world countries by giving them loans that they have trouble paying back and Weaseling into their structures that they depend on this one way or another.
Well, it's the same with AI.
So, one way to influence some country that's smaller than you is to be their main investor so that they need you.
It's sort of the old way of doing it.
But the new way, the new way of influencing a country is to be their AI provider.
Because once you're the AI provider, you get to have a say on what's true and what's not true.
And what can be more powerful than that?
Controlling what's true.
And how in the world do the Saudis get AI or any AI?
How did they get XAI to not do things that would be inappropriate in their particular country and culture?
But those conversations are interesting.
Would you like to have an AI?
Yes, we would.
Would you like to buy our Grok or lease it?
Yes, we would.
Is there anything we should change?
Well, I got a little bit of a list of things you might want to look at.
Or, or, and this is possible, does Musk say to Saudi Arabia, you know what, this whole thing would be useless unless you let it be completely free, you know, free speech, free.
And could it be that even Saudi Arabia would say, you know what?
This is not historically how we operated, but it's the AI, it's the age of AI, it's the golden age.
Maybe they'll embrace free speech and accurate information.
One of the things I love about listening to Elon Musk explain stuff is that he can explain technical things that you always wondered about, but he can explain them in a way you actually understand them.
And he did that again with creating electricity, energy in particular, in space.
Now, you've heard of this before, right?
That you could put a solar panel in space and it would automatically have a few advantages.
One is that you would not need to pay to cool it because the temperature of space is nothing.
So it's self-cooling.
Secondly, you don't have to worry about a cloudy day because it's in space and it's above the clouds.
And thirdly, you don't have to worry about it being nighttime and there being no sun.
You can just put your satellite/slash solar panel where the sun always has access to it.
So the potential energy, as Elon explains, potential energy of space is phenomenally more than all you could do on Earth if you did everything right as fast as you could.
Now, those are my words, but I think that's pretty close.
Did you know that?
And if you look at the next five years, this is Elon again, the odds of our energy coming mostly from the land, the Earth, is actually really small.
And the odds that we'll get not only the vast majority of their electricity from space by then, but that for forevermore that will be where it comes from.
Like it'll never be from anywhere else, because the economics will be so compelling that nobody would do it any other way.
Now, a big part of this, as you know, is that it costs a lot to put a satellite into space.
But that's what Elon's been working on for the last, what, 10 years, 20 years.
So he's got the reusable rockets now.
So at this point, the cost of putting a solar panel in space goes from, you know, a thousand times more than it was to whatever it is now and dropping.
So it's going to be relatively easy and cheap to put stuff in space.
It'll have all these advantages over terrestrial stuff.
And what happens if there's only one AI company that can access that energy?
Now, obviously, Tesla and SpaceX, I guess SpaceX, would be at least open to leasing or selling some of their process to other companies, but they don't have to.
They can just say, all right, we'll sell you our rocket access so you can put your own panels in space and then you can have infinite energy like we do.
But we're going to charge you way more than we charge our own companies.
So it's still going to cost you way more to do AI than does us.
So it feels to me like while the FTC is chasing Meta and losing, Meta actually won, that the company that has the greatest chance of completely capturing the only industry that matters, AI and robots, is just one company, Tesla.
Because if you have a great technology, but you don't have access to infinite energy, you don't really have anything.
So Tesla might be the only ones who have the right technology, theoretically, and infinite access to energy.
There might only be one company that can do that.
So would you say that they would have a monopoly?
Well, obviously, Musk would be completely aware of that risk.
So if he's smart, la la la, of course he's smart.
He will organize his company in a way that competing AIs have a genuine chance of getting into the infinite energy business, even if they don't own their own rocket companies.
So that's coming.
There's a new poll by Fox News about how many of the people think that to disapprove of the job that Trump is doing.
So most voters believe the White House is doing more harm than good on the economy.
Is that what you think?
How many of you think the White House, current administration, is currently doing more harm than good to the economy?
Does that track with what you observe?
Where exactly is the harm?
I don't know.
I'm not even sure what the argument is that they're doing more harm than good.
But let's see.
And then shut down, drag down the approval of both parties.
None of that matters in the short run.
It'll matter by midterms.
But 58% of voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing, which is 4.4 than two months ago.
Do you think that matters?
I feel like the least important statistics in politics would be The public's opinion of Trump's economic policies between now and the end of his second term.
Because he's sort of going to just do what he needs to do, isn't he?
He has the freedom to do what he thinks will be the right thing.
And maybe three years is long enough to find out he was right or wrong, and probably will be right.
I mean, that would be his track record so far.
So I think I wouldn't worry too much about public opinion polls of Trump on economics.
I would expect them to be historically low, even if he did better than anybody's ever done.
All right, I'm seeing you tried to get my attention in the comments, but I'm going to stay on track.
Well, Mike Johnson explained one reason why it was incredibly dangerous to release those Epstein files.
And part of the argument is that the only ones who should declassify something is the same entity that classified it in the first place.
Do you understand why that's important?
Let's say the CIA said, oh, yeah, this has to be classified, but then some other entity was in charge of declassifying it.
Would the other entity necessarily have a full appreciation of why the other entity, let's say the CIA, wanted it to be secret?
Not necessarily.
So it is a good process to make sure that the one who classified in the first place is the only one that declassifies it, but that also guarantees the things stay classified.
Because if you're in control of your own little domain, you just say, keep it classified.
They don't have to worry about it.
I'll never have to worry about it.
It will never be my problem.
Just keep it classified.
So you wouldn't get full disclosure if you kept the rule that only the classifying group could be the unclassifier.
But Mike Johnson was saying it's dangerous.
It's dangerous.
And then there's also the question about if there's an ongoing investigation, that would be yet another reason why we can't see the good stuff, if there's any good stuff.
And of course, there will be ongoing investigations, as there might be, into at least three Democrats.
So we'll see how that goes.
All right.
And I wonder, makes me wonder how many of the people who voted to release the Epstein files, and you hear I'm talking about Congress, how many of the Congress creditors believe that even if they had all voted to release it, and even if the president signed it, how many of them believe that they really would have secrets coming out?
Because if I were in Congress, I'll tell you what I would think by now.
By now, I would think that all the good stuff's been removed.
So you're not going to see anything big and surprising.
So I'd say to myself, well, I might as well look as if, I might as well appear as if I want more full disclosure than anybody else, because there's nothing that's going to happen.
It'll either be state secrets or it'll be some damn thing.
Somebody will say they lost it.
Somebody will say that's the missing box.
We've got a missing box.
But what I would not expect is that I would vote to release it and then a bunch of stuff would get released and then it would have significance.
Well, I don't think so.
But what if, What if, this is just for fun, because the Epstein stuff, you know, it's as much about entertainment as it is, you know, seeking justice.
What if all the people who said yes to release it thought they were not releasing it?
Because in other words, they thought something would stop the good stuff no matter what.
Are they just waking up to the fact that they just voted to release it and it's actually going to get released?
Will it?
I don't know.
I still don't believe that it will all be released.
That seems ridiculous to me, but maybe.
Who knows?
Then Trump, of course, he immediately signed it.
Here's what I love: that Trump has found a way to shake the box, as he does, and then shake it some more and shake it some more until he's the last person standing.
Because one of the things about Trump is that he can handle chaos better than everybody.
So if you put a Trump and then all the other players into this big box, you said, I don't know what's going to happen, but watch this.
And you just start shaking that thing.
And when you're done, everybody's like wandering around like a bunch of drunks.
They're like, whoa, what was that?
But if you keep doing it day after day after day, the only person who will be left alive is Trump because he can just handle more chaos.
He uses it as basically a beacon to shine on anything he wants.
So when you see Trump say stuff like, no, let's not release it.
Okay, let's release it.
Maybe not release it.
Let's release some of it.
Let's have somebody release it.
As long as he's shaking that box, he's winning.
And I've told you this a million times.
It's not like the one time I've said he shakes the box.
As long as he's creating uncertainty and chaos in this little domain that doesn't affect most people, frankly, he's heading toward dominating the whole domain.
And I've told you before, it's kind of brilliant that he's created this situation where every time the topic comes up, his enemies will think that they're winning.
They're like, ah, we're going to bring up this topic again.
And then he's going to look at them.
He's going to make them sit there in silence while the cameras are running.
And he says, this is a Democrat problem, which is one of the all-time great framings.
It's not like it's the only person who said it or the first time it's been said.
But once you decide, okay, this is going to be our branding, it's a really strong one.
And then he says there are three names associated with it, as if Epstein wasn't actually more like 15 other names or some huge number.
If the three are the only ones you remember, then it's a Democrat, it's a Democrat problem because you only remember three people, and they happen to be famous Democrats.
So you got your Larry Summers, you got your Bill Clinton, and you got your Reed Hoffman.
Now, let me be very clear.
I'm aware of no crimes whatsoever that any of them are accused of that have anything to do with Epstein.
I'm not aware of any crimes.
I'm just talking about the fact that Trump has decided to brand this as, you know, those three faces are going to be the faces of this scandal forever.
Or at least as long as you decide to keep it in the news and ask Trump about it every single day.
Hey, Trump, is there anything you want to tell us about this Epstein scandal?
It's a hoax.
It's a Democrat problem.
It's a Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, Reed-Hoffman problem.
And then he moves on.
That's not going to change.
You've got three more years of him saying that every single time this comes up.
And the weird thing about Trump, which is weird and powerful, is that he can say something he's said before as if it's the first time he's ever thought of it.
And then he can do it a thousand times in a row.
Am I right?
When he talks about it being a Democrat problem and he goes through his reasoning like I did, he acts like it's the first time he ever thought of it or the first time you've ever heard it.
He makes it interesting, even though it couldn't possibly be interesting, you know, in the thousandth telling, but he makes it that way.
He's got that power.
Anyway, apparently the Clintons have not responded to the request for depositions.
If they don't respond, does that mean that both the Clintons will be subject to legal consequences?
How many of you think that the Clintons will have to obey the same laws that Steve Bannon and others have had to obey or else go to jail?
Is it possible that the Clintons could literally just defy the law and just say, nope.
Well, now you have to at least give us a deposition.
Nope.
Okay, if you don't give us a deposition, we might send the sheriffs or whoever they send.
Nope.
Okay, we're totally sending the sheriff.
Nope.
What would happen?
Would the law actually drag them away?
Can you imagine Bill Clinton being put in handcuffs?
I don't think that would fly.
I feel like the left of the country would just go nuts.
Yeah, and it wouldn't matter how much evidence there was or anything like that.
But the thing is that the one thing we could agree they did or did not do is they did or did not respond to a deposition or respond to showing up at a hearing.
And if they put Steve Bannon in jail for anything that was the same, then you have to put him in jail.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
If it turns out that Bill Clinton ends up doing the same thing that Bannon did, which is some version of refusing to testify, don't you think the penalty should be the same?
Of course.
Absolutely.
No one's above the law.
So we'll see how that goes.
But at the very least, Trump has ruined the rest of the year for the Clintons.
And I think we should start keeping score of how many people's lives will be ruined by Epstein.
Like Epstein, the Epstein victim list is still growing because we just added Clinton to it.
Now you could say Clinton's a perpetrator, but that would be your opinion.
But whether he's a perpetrator or not, he's having a bad year.
So if you just start throwing on the list all the people whose lives are going to not look so good, whether they deserve it or not, a separate question.
But then we also hear that Larry Summers confessed to his class that he was on the Epstein list.
And apparently he has resigned from the Open AI board.
It looks like He opened his class at Harvard by acknowledging he was on it, but is he still teaching?
Now, Harvard has launched an investigation into Larry Summers.
Apparently, Epstein coached Summers on a romance in 2018.
Summers was married at the time.
And the men exchanged a trove of messages.
Where did I get this from?
Colin Rugg had a good summary of this on X.
So apparently they had a lot of messages.
So these two are really good friends.
So is Trump smart by throwing Larry Summers under the bus?
Probably.
Because it looks like Summers had a lot of interaction.
So now let's add Larry Summers to the victim list.
Again, I understand completely if you say, no, Scott, he's that other list.
Well, I don't have any evidence he broke any laws, but I can see for sure, you know, there's plenty of evidence that he's having a bad year because of Trump, because of Epstein.
And by the way, none of this needed to happen.
Don't you think that Trump warned everybody?
It's not like he didn't warn everybody.
And it's not like he didn't give them an out.
He gave them an out.
They could have essentially just said, let's go on, everybody.
No harm, no foul.
Your team won't be attacked.
My team.
They could have worked it out somehow.
I mean, you might not have liked it, but they could have.
But now those two are victims.
Let's see who else.
All right, we'll get back to that in a minute.
So apparently, Trump is going to meet with Zoran, Mom Dummy, in the Oval Office on Friday.
And Trump is teasing him because apparently his middle name is Kwame, K-W-A-M-E.
That's so Trumpian to emphasize his middle name so that you remember he doesn't have an American-sounding name.
Now, he doesn't say that that's a crime or that you should like him less or that he's less qualified because his middle name is Kwame.
He just makes you think about it, which is really a dirty trick.
I can't say I endorse that, you know, that method of persuasion, but you can't argue it doesn't work.
It totally works if it makes it just takes your head to a place where you're like, oh no, he doesn't seem that American to me, even though he's obviously American.
Anyway, so he'll be meeting with Trump.
What do you think Trump's going to get out of this?
Why would Trump meet with Zoran?
Now, they have a lot that they need to work on, so there might be a few things he wants to coordinate with them.
But don't you think Trump wants Zoran to fail?
So if somebody comes into your office and you want them to fail and they want to succeed, what exactly is the middle ground?
There might not be any middle ground.
How in the world did they work anything out?
Well, we'll see.
But I wouldn't hold my breath for a good outcome there.
So Elon Musk was at that Saudi Arabia convention-y-looking thing.
I don't know what the event was, but he said something interesting about engineering and poverty.
So here's his quote: Elon Musk: I see poverty is more of an engineering problem than an unsolvable social issue.
Have I said something like that?
I've never said that.
But haven't you heard me say that certain things are engineering problems and they look like they're something else?
They look like social problems, but they're really just engineering problems.
We just haven't engineered well enough.
And the example would be, as Musk points out, that with Grok and Optimus, so that's the AI plus the robots, we could solve the labor shortage, drive costs to near zero, and create a future where poverty is statistically irrelevant.
Musk says the scale of what's coming over the next decade is really easy to underestimate.
Yeah, that's really easy to underestimate.
Now, I've said the engineering thing about homelessness and I think a few other things, that those are engineering problems, not resource shortages.
And to hear the smartest engineer say that, well, it makes me feel good.
Sam Harris has come back on the scene.
So whenever Sam Harris does a major podcast, then all the right-leaning podcast universe, including me, we've got stuff to talk about for two weeks because we'll be like, ah, Sam Harris, what happened to you?
You used to be so smart, but now we don't know.
What's wrong with you?
Well, he did it again.
And I'm not sure that I care too much about the opinion as I am amused by the drama, you know, just the human drama of it.
So Sam Harris goes on the Trigonometry podcast, which you should all sign up for and follow and watch.
It's one of the best ones.
Triggernometry.
So the first bar is like a gun trigger, triggernometry, if you're looking it up.
Always good stuff.
So follow them.
Anyway, I guess Sam Harris believes that around the time of Charlie Kirk's murder, like right around the time, that Elon Musk might have posted something that encouraged violence as a response to the murder.
Now, I said to myself, what?
What?
What are the odds that Elon Musk encouraged murder?
What?
I feel like I would have heard of that.
So I wondered what the examples were.
And sure enough, there were some examples.
Now, let's say if you think the examples are, as Sam characterizes them, sort of encouraging people to act out.
Or is it just a way of talking?
Here's the examples.
Elon posted right about the time that Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
He posted on X, the left is the party of murder.
First, is that the first time that Sam Harris has heard a notable person say that the left is the party of murder?
That's such a common thing that maybe it's just that he doesn't hear it.
But if you were, you know, if you lived anywhere in the sort of universe that I do, you hear that all the time.
Some of it's about abortion, right?
They just treat abortion as murder.
And you say one side's in favor of abortion.
We call it murder.
So that would mean that that side is in favor of murder.
Now, if you didn't know that the entire right, well, not the entire right, but most of the right considers abortion murder and that that's the first thing they think of in this domain, well, you'd be a little confused by that language, wouldn't you?
And it would seem extreme.
It would seem extreme.
But there are other examples.
We could go through the news and we could argue, well, that seems a little too friendly to murder.
For example, is it the left or the right who is more likely to let somebody out of jail before they've served a full sentence?
Which one would more likely do it?
The left, probably.
And would that create more murders than if they didn't release these people who may have done some bad things already?
Of course it would create more murders.
So you can make these arguments.
And I'm not making the argument, by the way, but you can make the argument pretty easily that one side is the party of murder.
But in any case, does that seem like a call to actual violence to you?
Or is it just if you're used to that style of talking, it's just talking?
I mean, there's a serious point he's making, which is he's being opposed to violence.
Now, do you see Elon Musk saying the left is the party of murder?
Is that encouraging violence?
Or is that speaking out against violence?
Because, you know, I live in this country.
I speak English.
I don't see it as encouraging violence.
I see it as more of a warning that if we keep going this direction, you'll get more violence than you want.
Everybody will.
Not one side.
He's not saying that the violence will be in one direction, although there might be some initiating thing going on there.
But no, this is just talk.
And I've made this point before.
If you live in a different, you know, a different bubble, the things that are just talk in the other bubble are a call to violence in your bubble.
But it looks weird from the other bubble.
But that's not the only thing.
So not long after he said the left is a party of murder, he said, if they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die.
Does that sound like a call to violence?
If they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is to fight or die.
Well, here again, it depends what bubble you're in.
If you're in the left bubble and you're not accustomed to people routinely trotting out the phrase, give me liberty or give me death, or I'd rather be dead than I have free speech, you might not know that the political right just sort of talks this way.
They talk that way.
And I'll even put myself in that category for this topic.
I talk that way.
And I don't apologize for it at all.
The country was founded on a certain amount of force.
And the entire idea was that we'd rather have liberty than life.
So to me, when I hear somebody say, if they won't leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die, that's really just a statement of the obvious, right?
If somebody is going to continuously torture you in whatever way, it doesn't matter the way, if there's somebody who's going to continually be your problem and you decide not to do anything about it, well, do you think you'll get more of it or less?
You'll get more of it.
Yeah, if you don't do anything about it.
So that's just a statement of the obvious.
If you let people take advantage of you and walk all over you and treat you as a second-class citizen and maybe even in this case, there was an assassination involved.
If you don't address it pretty aggressively, are you going to get more of it or less of it?
And is that a call to violence to point out the most obvious thing in the world?
The things that are not punished, you might get more of.
Well, Fisher King made an interesting comment about this.
He said that on X, he said that Sam Harris is the gift that keeps on giving.
Sort of what I was saying.
You're going to get two weeks of content out of this.
Here he is talking about the murder of Charlie Kirk, and he says, and he's talking about the same interaction between people on X.
And he says, there's no party on the left that supports us.
Oh, Sam Harris says there's no party on the left that supports us.
Well, of course, a lot of Republicans would disagree with that statement.
But rather than argue that, Fisher King points out that then he blames Trump and Elon for dousing the ground with gasoline to create circumstances where this could happen.
Well, probably everybody's a little bit guilty of a little hyperbole.
But what I'm introducing today is that the things that seem like hyperbole on the right don't seem like hyperbole to the people on the right.
To them, it's just talking.
And likewise, the people on the left, I suspect that if they just stay in their own little bubble, it doesn't look like they're doing a call to violence as much as it does if you're looking at what they're doing from your own bubble.
So just be aware of that.
Some of it is which bubble you're viewing it from.
And I know it's fun to claim that the other side is worse and maybe they are, but that doesn't buy you much.
But this whole thing was to get to this part where Elon Musk, you must have had enough of Sam Harris.
And then he responds on X, Sam Harris took the fast train to retard town years ago, never coming back.
Never coming back.
He took the fast train to retard town.
Now, Elon has like 230 million followers.
Can you imagine being insulted by somebody who has 230 million followers?
That's pretty.
That's fun.
All right.
Apparently, Trump and MBS, the crown prince, who was in town yesterday, have signaled, but I don't think this is confirmed, that there might be some kind of breakthrough, a conditional breakthrough for a Saudi-Israel deal, like a peace deal.
I don't think we're quite there.
But one of the things that the Saudis want is a two-state solution.
And one of the things that Israel wants is not that.
So is there any way that we could ever have a Saudi-Israel deal if the two-state solution is somewhat off the table?
Well, I don't know.
But would it make sense for Trump to be trying to work on some kind of a side deal with Saudi Arabia?
And then if we get one we like, he just shoves it down Israel's throat?
As in, you better take this.
No, I know you want.
I know you don't want a two-state solution, but take this.
So we'll see.
Yeah, it doesn't seem likely, does it?
It seems like Israel, of course, can control its own fate in this particular way.
So, I don't think we're that close to a two-state solution, but it would be fascinating to see if Trump uses his technique that worked on Gaza, Gaza, on Gaza.
Didn't he make the deal before he had the deal?
So, the Gazans had not agreed to it at all and he still made a peace deal?
How do you do that?
How did he force them into a peace deal when one group didn't want it at all?
And they somehow agreed that they would, oh, yeah, we'll have peace even though this isn't what we agreed to.
Could it be that Trump has invented a whole new way to do peace deals when the situation is impossible?
Well, the only way you can get a deal when the situation is impossible is you get people to agree to things that they don't agree to, which is what he did with Gaza.
But maybe he could do it with this.
Can he get Israel and Saudi Arabia and maybe half a dozen other countries?
Can he get them to agree to something that they definitely don't agree to?
But then they get a little bit pregnant because they're already celebrating that they made some kind of agreement, even though they haven't agreed to it.
And even if they said, no, no, we don't really agree to everything you're saying, we still need to negotiate this two-state thing.
And then suddenly the ship is just moving and it's too hard to move it back.
If that's what Trump is doing and he's doing it intentionally, he's just inventing a whole new way to solve problems, something we've never seen before.
Now, I'd have to see him do it more than once before I'd conclude it's any kind of an intentional thing.
But he seems to be tapping on the door of doing it a second time.
We'll see.
Anyway.
China is allegedly, according to Natural News.
Kevin Hughes is writing about this.
China has some kind of a technical breakthrough, a space-based particle beam weapon that they could just park up in the atmosphere, not outside the atmosphere, and blast away at everything.
Now, I already told you that the space might be the cheap way to get unlimited energy.
Well, suppose you needed unlimited energy because you developed a, let's say, a network of particle beam weapons that require enormous amounts of electricity.
Well, here again, you're in luck, because if you can only get that enormous amount of electricity from space and enormous solar panels, is China going to be able to park literally a bunch of particle beam weapons that are just sort of pointed at us?
And they could go from space to the ground and, I don't know, how long would it take?
Five seconds?
You know, even at the speed of light?
Or faster, right?
Faster than five seconds?
I'm not quite sure.
But how in the world would you defend against that?
I mean, you would have to attack it preemptively.
And if you missed even one node, it could just sit up there all day long, creating infinite energy and just destroying everything in your entire nation, you know, right?
If you tried to send a rocket up to knock it down, the particle beam would knock the rocket down first.
I don't know.
We're in all new territory here.
But I also don't believe stories about any country with an advanced particle beam weapon.
I feel like if we know about it, it can't be true, wouldn't you say?
It can't be their best secret weapon if we know about it.
So you have to basically take whatever it is you think you know and then make some assumptions about how good the real stuff is.
And it's going to be real good.
All right.
Did you know that most Americans believe that migrant farm workers should be allowed to remain in the USA?
That's according to Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
You disagree, I know.
But 65% of adults support establishing some kind of program where the people who pick our food can be happy and will be happy too.
I don't know what that looks like.
Who was it who was doing a great job the other day explaining why you can't?
Oh, I think it was Trump explaining why you can't just hire Americans for things because you want Americans to do it?
How many of you think that's a real thing?
Now, Trump says it's not.
It's just not a thing.
That if you wanted to, let's say, import some high-tech industry that we don't already have skill at, it's not a thing that we could just train our own people.
You just build the factory and by the time it's built, oh, we trained everybody.
So now we can do this high-tech thing.
We'll make our own chips.
That's not a thing.
It takes a lot of work to prepare a country or anybody to take out a whole new industry.
So I think Trump is the one who has the closest view to reality about the H-1B stuff, which is there is no world in which you can just hire Americans on day one.
Now, if your ambition is to make sure that in five years or however long it takes, that it's 100% American, that might be doable.
Three years?
Depends on the industry.
But yeah, totally doable in the long run.
But to imagine that you could just jump into it, that's just not a feature of the real world.
And Trump seems to understand the real world well enough to know that he has to and make some concessions.
So I got to say it seems he's completely right.
Okay.
There's a report that the U.S. and Russia are planning some kind of Ukrainian peace deal that does not involve the Europeans negotiating.
What does that sound like?
That sounds just like the last story, doesn't it?
Where the question is, wait a minute.
Did Trump find a way to negotiate peace deals by just leaving out the part that they don't like?
So the part they don't like is, you know, Europe might not agree with something.
So he just leaves them out.
Is he going to make a peace deal in which the Europeans say, oh, no, we don't agree to that?
And they just force them into it?
Would that be the third peace deal that Trump did where he just pretended that people were on the same page when they weren't?
Because this goes back to what I was saying.
Did he invent a whole new way to make deals?
It's kind of weird.
All right.
Um, I am in so much pain that I think I'm gonna have to end early.
Oh my god.
I have to, oh, it's a muscle pain, so don't worry too much.
Wow, yeah, I might have to.
What time is it?
Yeah, I can't do the rest.
Too much pain.
Wow.
I'll be fine, by the way.
You don't need to check on me, but I'm in massive pain right now.
